Tuesday, 20 June 2023

TUESDAY, 20 JUNE 2023

TUESDAY, 20 JUNE 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

Hon JENNY SALESA (Assistant Speaker): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.

[Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Privilege

Disclosure of Select Committee Proceedings—Voting on Natural and Built Environment Bill

SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from the Hon Eugenie Sage raising as a matter of privilege the disclosure of committee proceedings by Simon Court on the consideration of the Natural and Built Environment Bill. A disclosure was made by way of a press release.

The committee has attempted to resolve this matter but has been unable to do so. Mr Court admitted making the press release informing the media of the outcome of a vote taken during the committee’s consideration. However, he took the view that the proceedings could be disclosed under Standing Order 243(3)(a) because they did not relate to any business or decision still before the committee.

The onus is on the member who divulges proceedings to check whether they may do so. If there is any doubt, they should seek clarification in the committee or discuss with committee staff whether disclosure is permissible. The confidentiality attached to committee proceedings apart from public evidence was relaxed in 2003 to enable members to disclose procedural decisions such as the appointment of advisers or a decision not to initiate an inquiry. Because these procedural matters do not reflect the potential findings of a committee or indicate the direction of its consideration, there is no difficulty in divulging them before the committee reports to the House. However, discussion and voting on substantive matters before the committee remain strictly confidential until the committee reports to the House.

I do not consider that the matters disclosed by Mr Court are the sort of procedural decisions that the Standing Orders Committee contemplated being able to be divulged before a committee reports to the House. I have considered the degree of importance of the matter. It is essential that committees are able to consider matters freely and deliberate on them in strict confidence. They are obliged to inform the House of their findings first. Therefore, I find a question of privilege arises. The question stands referred to the Privileges Committee.

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network requesting the House investigate the creation of a Rainbow subcategory within the New Zealand Refugee Quota Programme

petition of Greg Rzesniowiecki requesting that the House urge the Government to hold a referendum before adopting any amended International Health Regulations of the World Health Organization concerning the use of mRNA vaccines in future pandemics

petition of Greg Rzesniowiecki requesting that the House urge the Government to hold a referendum before signing the proposed World Health Organization pandemic treaty.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

2021-22 annual report of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board

Government response to the referral of the petition of Leo Li

2023-27 statement of intent for the Serious Fraud Office

2023-24 statements of performance expectations for the:

Accreditation Council

Transport Accident Investigation Commission.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the:

petition of Postal Workers Union of Aotearoa

Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill

report of the Health Committee on the Therapeutic Products Bill

reports of the Justice Committee on the:

2021-22 annual reviews of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Privacy Commissioner

petition of Bridget King

reports of the Petitions Committee on the:

petition of Eva Chen

petition of Maggie Ross

petition of Robert Osborne

report of the Primary Production Committee on the petition of Frances Clement

report of the Regulations Review Committee on the inquiry into COVID-19 secondary legislation

reports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the:

briefing on reports prepared by the Auditor-General and the Infrastructure Commission for Transmission Gully

reports of the Ombudsman on OIA compliance and practice in Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency and the Ministry of Transport.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The report on the reports of the Ombudsman and the report of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Whakatōhea Claims Settlement Bill, introduction

Water Services Entities Amendment Bill, introduction

McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 3 to Minister, 21 June 2022—Amended Answer

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to oral question No. 3 on 21 June 2022.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In response to Ms Ngarewa-Packer’s first supplementary to oral question No. 3 on 21 June 2022, I stated that the Children’s Commissioner, between 2015 and 2019, had had 78 complaints that were put through them that they then put on to the Ombudsman because the Ombudsman has had the lead role with regards to addressing complaints. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner has confirmed to the Ministry of Social Development that the number of complaints in my answer is correct. However, following correspondence between my office and a stakeholder, I have been made aware that the time period I referred to was not correct. The time period I referred to should have been 1 January 2015 to 28 February 2022. My office advised me of this yesterday, and I’m taking this first possible opportunity to correct the record.

Question No. 1—Social Development and Employment

1. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent reports has she seen on the effects of changes to the welfare system since 2017?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Last week, Max Rashbrooke reported in The Spinoff what progress has been made by this Government’s successive investments to lift incomes, pull children out of poverty, and help those in need through changes to the welfare system. He concludes in his article that income poverty has decreased overall and that 115,000 people have been brought out of poverty since we came into office. This is hard—sometimes technical—work, but we are making progress. We’re not shying away from putting families first and focusing on what matters most to New Zealanders as we continue to deliver meaningful change in children’s and families’ lives through the welfare system. We remain focused on easing the pressure for our most vulnerable families.

Dr Emily Henderson: What progress has been made for reducing hardship through changes to the welfare system?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Mr Rashbrooke identified progress on three key measures, including how many children are in families that find it hard to afford the basics, whether living standards are rising over time, and how many families report being unable to afford life’s basic necessities. Mr Rashbrooke concludes progress has been made on these three measures and we are heading in the right direction. Today, 13 percent of children say food runs out sometimes or often, compared with 20 percent in 2019. On 2023 Government figures, 356,000 beneficiaries are estimated to be better off by, on average, $118 per week, which increases to $142 per week during the 2023 winter period. A further 109,000 beneficiaries with children are estimated to be better off by, on average, $190 per week, which increases to $222 per week during the 2023 winter period.

Dr Emily Henderson: How do those who receive this support feel about their current situation following these changes to the welfare system?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Max Rashbrooke spoke to a range of people. One man was Paul Clutterbuck, a 50-year-old Wellingtonian living with multiple rare health conditions. [Interruption] We take this person’s situation very seriously, unlike the other side of the House. Mr Clutterbuck expressed his support for the changes this Government has made, stating, “I’m grateful for the improvement since Labour came into office.” He noted that until the recent benefit increases made by this Government his disposable income had “stagnated terribly” for several decades.

Dr Emily Henderson: And what further changes is the Government making this year to improve outcomes for those most in need?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: From 1 April this year, we’re rolling out further support to 1.4 million New Zealanders, including families, seniors, caregivers, students, workers, and those on main benefits. Examples include 646,000 children who will be better off through increases to Working for Families tax credits. In Budget 2023, we continued with the support, including 20 hours free early childhood education for two-year-olds, scrapping $5 prescription fees, and free public transport for under-13s, with half-price for under-25s. While these measures won’t solve everything, they will help to ease some of the pressure. And right now, every bit counts when making ends meet.

Question No. 2—Corrections

2. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Minister of Corrections: What actions, if any, is he taking in response to a recent report from the independent Office of the Inspectorate which found that 29 percent of all prisoners experienced solitary confinement over a 12month period, seriously impacting on the wellbeing of people in prison and their families?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): It’s always my expectation that Corrections manages prisoners safely and humanely. Corrections’ front-line staff work with some of the most challenging people in society, so isolation is a necessary tool in prisons to ensure both staff and prisoners’ safety, especially as this investigation was conducted from October 2020 to September 2021, during the COVID pandemic. Staff have obligations to public safety, the safety of their colleagues, and the welfare of prisoners. That can, at times, lead to choices with very limited options. However, I absolutely agree with the report that being isolated for longer periods of time can have a negative impact on the prisoner and their whānau, and more needs to be done to minimise that. Corrections has accepted all seven of the report’s recommendations, and I’ll work to ensure that both the short- and long-term responses to the recommendations progress as quickly as possible.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he believe that it is acceptable that a significant number of prisoners—disproportionately Māori—experience solitary confinement for months on end, and, in some cases, in excess of a year?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’m always concerned about the over-representation of Māori in prison and related statistics, which is why I launched a new strategy for Corrections in 2019 with a significant focus on this issue, but this is something that requires long-term change across the justice system, and I’ve made my expectations clear that Corrections manages all prisoners safely and humanely.

Rawiri Waititi: So what is he doing about the fact that these findings confirmed that Aotearoa is in breach of international law—the Nelson Mandela Rules, which prohibit solitary confinement in excess of 15 days—and is Hōkai Rangi working?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: How can he expect that prisoners will receive the necessary rehabilitation and recovery support in order to reduce reoffending and risk to communities if they are stuck in solitary confinement, which has been proven to cause depression, anxiety, panic attacks, anger, irritability, perceptual distortion, and paranoia?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: There’s quite a lot in there, so I’ll address one part of it. We are making progress. In terms of the Māori resentencing rate, that has decreased by 6.4 percentage points from 2014 and 2015 to 2021 and 2022, and the Māori re-imprisonment rate has dropped nearly 5 percent in the same period, while all the while, the overall Māori imprisonment rate has declined.

Rawiri Waititi: When will he be able to guarantee to this House that staff shortages in Corrections are not contributing to human rights offences in prisons, such as extended solitary confinement and refusing whānau visitation, or does he think staff shortages are an acceptable excuse to breach basic human rights?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, but I will say that in terms of visitation, the visitation rates are similar to when the Māori Party was in Government, and they had an Associate Minister of Corrections, but also in terms of visitation, there have been over 3,000 audiovisual link visits, which, in many cases, prisoners and their whānau prefer.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. Sorry, I don’t think that the question has been answered. It was quite specific and asked when. We did get a good spiel about what the Minister has attempted to do, but we didn’t get an answer to the “when”.

SPEAKER: I ask the member to go back to the Hansard, and I think the first word answered the question.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the decision to initiate a market study into personal banking services to ensure the market is working well for New Zealanders. The Commerce Commission study will be completed by the end of August 2024, with a preliminary issues paper expected in August this year. It’ll examine barriers to new competitors, the introduction of innovative products and services, and consumers’ ability to switch between banks.

Christopher Luxon: Does he stand by his admission last year that “the Government needs to do more to tackle gang crime”, and has he failed when gangs are taking over State highways and shutting down schools?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, I absolutely do, and I am very proud of the work that the Government did to bring a bill to the House to give police more powers to crack down on gangs. That bill, that new law, was used for the first time in Ōpōtiki, and the gangs are facing the consequences of their actions because of the law change that we have put through Parliament.

Christopher Luxon: When he said “gang convoys suck for everybody [who’s] disrupted by them”, why won’t he give police dispersal powers so they can actually stop gangs from taking over a State highway in the middle of the day and blocking law-abiding Kiwis from going about their business?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated, we went through the process of identifying what the best tools were that were going to help the police whilst also protecting the safety of police as well, and the law change that we put through the Parliament is giving them extra tools in their fight against gang crime.

Christopher Luxon: Why does this Government continue to allow gangs to shut down a State highway for two hours when he said last year, “gang activities have been totally unacceptable and our communities deserve [so much] better”?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I absolutely stand by my statement that that type of activity is totally unacceptable, and we are backing the police to do the difficult job that they have ahead of them.

Christopher Luxon: Well then, why, despite all his talk on gangs, is violent crime up 33 percent, gang membership up 66 percent, and Kiwis don’t feel safe in their own homes, their own businesses, their own communities?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I note, when the member talks about violent crime and Kiwis not feeling safe in their own homes, one of the biggest drivers of the increase in violent crime has been increased reporting of domestic and family violence, something the National Party pretends doesn’t exist.

Christopher Luxon: What responsibility does he take for the record number of Kiwis turning to foodbanks because his Government increased spending by 80 percent, driving inflation and interest rates up through the roof, and now has driven the economy into recession?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The question asked simply is not credible. In fact, New Zealand’s rate of inflation has been below the OECD average for much of the period in question. There is an international inflationary pandemic at the moment. New Zealand is supporting people through that, including those on the lowest incomes. I note that the members opposite think we have done too much to support people on the lowest incomes through the current cost of living crisis.

Christopher Luxon: Doesn’t he understand that his spending, which has pushed up inflation and interest rates and now driven New Zealand into recession, means that Kiwis can’t meet their debt payments, they’re lining up at foodbanks in record numbers, and they’re cancelling their kids’ activities to pay their mortgages?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I do note the member’s trying to rewrite history here, in the sense that, as the inflationary spike started, the National Party continued to argue for more and more Government spending. In fact, we can go through the time line, where they were saying we weren’t doing enough to support New Zealand through the events of COVID-19 and we needed to spend more money. Despite the fact that the warning signs of inflation were already there, the National Party at the time didn’t seem to take much notice of those and was arguing the Government should spend more.

Christopher Luxon: What does he say to Kiwis actually skipping meals because they can’t afford food prices that his inflationary policies have driven up?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I would remind them that the National Party hasn’t supported any of the measures that this Government has put in place to support those on the lowest incomes through the current cost of living crisis.

David Seymour: Whakarongo mai, kōrero te reo Māori. He Māori ahau mō ngā kaupapa hauora. [Listen up as I speak in te reo Māori. I am a Māori for health contexts.]

SPEAKER: Is that a supplementary question?

David Seymour: Yes, Mr Speaker.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t hear a question in that.

SPEAKER: No, neither did I—that’s why I asked. I heard a statement.

David Seymour: I’m very happy to repeat it.

SPEAKER: If you have a supplementary, please ask it.

David Seymour: He Māori ahau mō ngā kaupapa hauora? [I am a Māori for health contexts?]

SPEAKER: He Māori hoki ahau engari ehara tērā i te pātai. [I am also a Māori but that is not a question.] Are there any more supplementary questions?

Nicole McKee: Is it acceptable to him that, as a Māori woman, I could be placed higher on a surgical wait-list than someone of a different ethnicity, even if our clinical need, time spent on the wait-list, location, and deprivation levels are the same?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member misses the whole thrust of the debate that’s been had in the last 24 hours. We are talking about people who have been on a wait-list for more than two years, where there is clear evidence that if someone is Māori, if someone is a Pacific Islander, if they are from a rural community, or if they are from a low-income background, they have been languishing for longer on the wait-lists than people who don’t fit those descriptors. The fact that the health system is ensuring that those with clinical need who fit those four descriptors are not being discriminated against is surely something the member should welcome.

Karen Chhour: Is it acceptable to him that my Cambodian husband could be placed lower on a surgical wait-list than me, even if our clinical needs are the same, our time spent on the wait-list, location, deprivation level are the same; and, if not, why is ethnicity a factor on the surgical wait-list equity adjustor?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: To speak to the member’s personal circumstances, I think it’s wrong that that member will have previously been placed lower on the list than her husband. I don’t think that’s acceptable.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Is it acceptable that a New Zealander with co-morbidities, living in a rural area, will be treated differently; and is that the case under the current system?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There is clear evidence that people who are Māori, who are Pasifika, who are living in a rural community or who are from a low-income background have been disadvantaged by the health system wait-list. They have been on the wait-list for the same clinical reasons for longer than other New Zealanders who don’t fit those descriptions. That is discrimination; it’s not acceptable. The fact that the health system is working to remove that discrimination is a good thing.

Dr James McDowall: Is it acceptable to him that my five-year-old, half-Chinese daughter could be placed lower on a surgical wait-list than someone else with the same clinical need, time spent on the wait-list, location, and deprivation level due to her ethnicity; and if not, why is ethnicity a factor on the surgical wait-list—

Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Dr James McDowall: —equity adjustor? Thanks for letting me finish.

Hon Marama Davidson: Mr Speaker, I asked for your guidance back on 12 May 2021, and, through you, Mr Speaker—it was from David Wilson—an update to all of us from the Speaker then, who talked about a ruling of people taking care, as they express themselves, to think of the wider consequences when they do. The nature of these questions are absolutely intended to raise racist opinions amongst the New Zealand public, and I ask you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Damien Smith: Supplementary—

SPEAKER: No, sit down. I’m going to rule on this. That is a very serious accusation that the member has made. The first part of it I disagree with in this instance. To carry on to make an accusation, as you did, I’m contemplating sending you out. It’s a discussion that perhaps this House should have one day, but you cannot make that accusation in this House. You will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Marama Davidson: I stand, withdraw, and apologise. Point of order—

SPEAKER: No, do it properly. No, no, no. I’ll give you one more chance. You do it properly, you can stay.

Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, you’re going to apologise correctly.

Hon Marama Davidson: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

SPEAKER: You can leave the Chamber.

Hon Marama Davidson: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: You will leave the Chamber.

Hon Marama Davidson withdrew from the Chamber.

SPEAKER: Dr McDowall, can you ask your question again?

Dr JAMES McDOWALL: To the Prime Minister, is it acceptable to him that my five-year-old half-Chinese daughter could be placed lower on a surgical wait-list than someone else with the same clinical need, time spent on the wait-list, location, and deprivation level due to her ethnicity; and, if not, why is ethnicity a factor on the surgical wait-list equity adjustment?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: My answer to that question is the same as to the last one, although, I will correct that and say that, generally speaking, I have not commented on members’ family situations in answers to questions, and I was wrong to do so in the last answer and I won’t do so again.

Damien Smith: Is it acceptable to him that the migrant workers—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I’ve had this ruling before, it’s really important that members ask—are able to scrutinise everything that the Government does. If the Government doesn’t want to be scrutinised, that’s the message you are giving right now by interrupting, interjecting while questions are being asked.

DAMIEN SMITH: Is it acceptable to him that the migrant workers, without whom the health system would collapse, could be deprioritised on surgical wait-lists because they don’t have a Māori or Pasifika ancestry, and, if not, why is ethnicity a factor on the surgical wait-list equity adjustor?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I notice the member has not yet raised anyone from rural communities or low-income backgrounds and the ACT Party don’t seem to be raising any examples in that regard. I think it is wrong that people from Māori backgrounds, from Pacific backgrounds, from rural backgrounds, from low-income backgrounds have been discriminated against in the wait-list system. I think it is correct that the health system ensures that segments of the population are not being discriminated against.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. Kia ora, thank you, e te Māngai. I refer to the House rules which prevents members conducting debates in certain ways that create disorder and lead to disorder because of racism or implied racism. It is not Māori’s fault that we die seven years earlier; it is not Māori’s fault that we live in systemic racism. This is a debate that is about systemic racism. It is not about the Government being held to account, and Te Paati Māori object to the way that it is going.

SPEAKER: This is not a debate; this is question time where members of this House get to ask questions of the Government and the Government has the opportunity to answer them, which it has been doing.

David Seymour: Ki a koe, he Māori ahau mō ngā kaupapa hauora? [To you, in regards to health issues, am I considered as Māori?]

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There was no translation.

SPEAKER: Well, ki taku nei mōhio, [Well, as far as I know,] this is my interpretation of what the member is saying. The members can listen to the—but I’m going to preside over as if the member has said to you, “Do you consider me to be a Māori?”

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member can make his own judgment about what ethnicity he is.

Question No. 4—Health

4. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcement has the Government made about increasing the number of first-year medical school places?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Last week, I was proud to announce that funding for medical school enrolments will be increased by 50 places, to 589 places annually beginning in 2024. Training more medical students will help us grow our medical workforce over time, ensuring we can provide sustainable public healthcare.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Why has the Government increased the number of first-year medical school places?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: To build a sustainable workforce, we must grow and invest in our domestic doctors, especially where there is global competition for internationally trained doctors. We are growing the number of doctors trained in New Zealand to help meet the needs of our population and to ensure health equity across the country. We want to train and retain as many local health workers as possible.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How will this change support the Government’s priorities in health?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The funding for medical school enrolments is one of a range of investments the Government is making in the health workforce to ensure all New Zealanders can access the medical care they need, when and where they need it. Workforce is a key priority for the Government. We are working on long-term plans to ensure a sustainable, representative, and responsive workforce to meet the future needs of New Zealanders no matter who they are and where they live.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What feedback has been received about this announcement?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: This announcement has been received very positively by the sector. Professor Tim Wilkinson, Otago Medical School’s Acting Dean, said it was “a significant investment”, and Professor Warwick Bagg, from the University of Auckland’s Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, said that “the funding for these extra places is a great start to strengthening our domestic workforce and responding to the health needs of all New Zealanders.”

Question No. 5—Finance

5. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: What was the change in GDP per capita in each of the past two quarters, and does he agree that, by that measure, the New Zealand economy is going backwards?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In the March 2023 quarter, real GDP per capita was down 0.7 percent from December, and in the December quarter it was down 1.1 percent from September. However, on an annual basis, Stats New Zealand reported that real GDP per capita in the March quarter was up 2.4 percent from a year ago following annual growth of 2.4 percent in the December quarter. In answer to the second part of the question, this is a tough time for many New Zealand households. New Zealand’s real GDP per capita is rising on an annual basis—indeed, on both quarterly and yearly measures—and real GDP per capita has risen faster under this Government compared to the previous Government, but we will continue to support New Zealanders through this challenging time.

Nicola Willis: Was Labour Party finance spokesperson Grant Robertson correct in 2017 when he said: “we got the last quarter’s growth, and once again GDP per capita fell—two quarters in a row of GDP per capita falling. And so per person … New Zealand is going backwards”, and why is it different this time?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That handsome, young, somewhat naïve member at the time—no, I recall that line of questioning very accurately and the response I got referred me to “yearly” rather than “quarterly” results, because quarterly results show considerable volatility. Nowadays, I bear that in mind.

Nicola Willis: Well, was Labour Party finance spokesperson Grant Robertson correct in 2016 when he said that flat GDP per capita was “the story of a complacent, out-of-touch Government”; and, if so, what does it say about his Government, which just oversaw per capita GDP declining for two quarters in a row?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Look, I can help the member out—if this is going to be the line of supplementary questions—in that the answer to: “Was Grant Robertson the Labour finance spokesperson correct?” is generally “Yes”, and if there are further questions in that line, that will be the answer. In terms of the second part of the member’s question, about that particular Government at that particular time being complacent, absolutely that Government was complacent at that time. They were failing to invest properly in the skills of New Zealanders, they were failing to invest properly in research and development, they’d become complacent about international trade agreements, and all the many things that make up productivity. So, absolutely, that man was correct.

Nicola Willis: Does he agree with the reflection Grant Robertson shared in Parliament in 2016 that “We only grow our share of the economic cake when GDP per capita grows, otherwise we are running hard to stay still.”; and isn’t it the case that with his complacent, anti-growth policies, Kiwis are running harder to stay still?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is completely incorrect. This was a Budget that increased investment in our science and innovation sector. This was a Budget that increased investment in skills. This is a Government that has signed on to important free-trade agreements with the European Union, with the United Kingdom. This is a Government that continues to support businesses and to support individuals in our community to succeed and thrive.

Nicola Willis: Is he aware that New Zealand’s decline in GDP per capita in the past six months was worse than in a range of European countries, including those struggling with major energy challenges following the Ukraine conflict, including Germany and the United Kingdom—why is it so much worse in New Zealand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This is an occasion to be able to refer to annualised figures, because different countries are at different points in their recovery from the COVID pandemic. It is right to say that New Zealand’s annual GDP is up 2.9 percent, higher than the long-run average; compared to the same quarter a year ago, it is 2.2 percent larger. If we compare to those other countries on that basis, Australia is at 2.3 percent, Canada joins us at 2.2 percent, and the countries in the European area that she refers to have 1.3 percent. It is true that countries are at different stages, but when we do compare it annually, the results are a little different to what the member says.

Nicola Willis: Is he aware that New Zealand’s 1.8 percent decline in GDP per capita in the past two quarters is comparable to the decline that occurred in New Zealand during the absolute peak of the global financial crisis, and does he take responsibility for delivering an economy with record inflation, rising interest rates, a record current account deficit, and declining per capita GDP?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I take responsibility for is an economy that is 6 percent larger than it was before COVID, has unemployment at 3.4 percent, and has debt at a level lower than most of the countries that we compare ourselves to. As the Prime Minister indicated in an earlier question, New Zealand’s inflation rate has sat around the bottom third of the OECD over the last few years. This is a global inflation process. Many New Zealand households are doing it tough during this period. That’s why I’m proud that the Government has supported those households, unlike the member’s party.

David Seymour: Does he believe it’s sustainable for GDP to be supported by a $33 billion a year current account deficit, or does he admit he’s putting the economy on after-pay: borrow now, pay next generation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand’s current account deficit is a longstanding challenge. I do note in the latest statistics, it is starting to come down and it is forecast to continue in that direction.

David Seymour: How can he say with a straight face that the current account deficit is a longstanding challenge when the last three quarters under his economic management have been the worst current account deficits since records began under Sir Roger Douglas in 1988?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I point the member to a couple of factors. Firstly, we have faced an extraordinary challenge on the supply side of the New Zealand economy which has contributed to that, including also higher interest rates globally in addition to the hangover from COVID. Secondly, if the member wants to make those kinds of comparisons, he should look at New Zealand’s international investment position, because that was the concern in the last times that we have seen the current account deficit rise in the way that it has in recent years. Actually, the advice that I’ve had is that since 2009, New Zealand’s international investment position has been sufficiently strong to in fact counter the impacts of the current account deficit widening.

David Seymour: How can he look Kiwis in the eye and blame the current economic performance on the floods, the cyclone, COVID, Vladimir Putin, or anyone else that comes to mind when Auckland University economics professor Robert McCulloch recently said that this was blatantly untrue and that he “doesn’t know what planet Grant Robertson is on.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s the same planet that Sharon Zollner, the chief economist for ANZ is inhabiting, because she said the same thing—that, actually, the quarter’s numbers would have been positive if it weren’t for the weather events.

Nicola Willis: Why does that finance Minister persist in taking credit for positive economic indicators yet refuse all responsibility for every negative indicator, and is it in fact the case that when measured by the cost of living, per capita GDP, and interest rates, the standard of living for individual New Zealanders is declining on his watch?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I stand proudly by the record of this Government, for taking New Zealand through the greatest economic shock since World War II in a way that has left us at the end with unemployment at 3.4 percent, with our economy 6 percent larger, with our level of debt at a level that other countries would be proud to have. There have been many decisions to have made over the last few years. None of them were costless. This was a challenge that every county had to face, and when we compare ourselves against those countries, I believe we can be proud of our record.

Question No. 6—Forestry

6. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Forestry: What recent forestry announcement has the Government made regarding the New Zealand emissions trading scheme?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): This Government acknowledges the importance that the forestry sector plays in our economy, worth approximately $6 billion annually and provides over 40,000 jobs to this country. Yesterday, alongside the Minister for Climate Change, James Shaw—we both announced that public consultation opens for the redesigning of the permanent forest category.

Hon Phil Twyford: What is the importance of this announcement?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Last year, the Government consulted on proposals to restrict permanent exotic forests in the New Zealand emissions trading scheme (ETS) in response to concerns about the impacts on the environment and rural communities from these forests. The proposals generated wide interest prompting the Government to look further into the permanent forest category. This announcement ensures that we work alongside our valued communities, iwi Māori, local government, and the forestry sector to redesign the permanent forestry category. This announcement complements the recently announced changes to the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry that will give locals and communities more control over deciding which land can be used for plantation and carbon forests. The proposals being consulted on consider the overall incentives driving afforestation and aim to help ensure the right types of forests are in the right locations and for the right reasons.

Hon Phil Twyford: How does this announcement fit into the wider ETS announcement?

Hon PEENI HENARE: We need to act now to tackle climate change and we need to use every single tool available to us. The NZ ETS is our main tool for meeting our domestic and international climate change obligations. There needs to be a strong role for forestry in our climate change strategy and we need to make sure that people also pollute less forests, store carbon, helping to address climate change by reducing Aotearoa New Zealand’s net greenhouse emissions.

Hon Phil Twyford: What is being proposed to guide the redesign of the permanent category?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The three key design choices that guide the redesign of the permanent forest category are (1) what forests should be allowed in the permanent forest category, (2) how a transition forest should be managed to best ensure a successful transition, and (3) what rules will best maximise the benefits of permanent forests in that category. The consultation is an opportunity for New Zealanders to boost the benefits of permanent forests for the climate, environment, and landowners, while also minimising the risk of these forests in the same areas. I encourage all involved in the forestry sector and communities around the country to have their say on this very important matter.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: How much weighting will be given to the ethnicity component of the equity adjuster for surgical wait-lists, and what other parts of the health system, if any, has she looked at applying the adjuster to?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): To the first part of the question, the most influential factor in how a patient is scheduled is how severe their condition is as determined by their doctor. For a clinically high-priority procedure, the other variables will have almost no weight in the algorithm and, therefore, would not influence a person’s wait time. The second most influential factor is the number of days the patient has already been waiting. After that, the equity adjuster seeks to stop some groups from languishing on the long tail of the wait-list. Ethnicity, deprivation, and being from a rural area are the other factors taken into account. As I have already said to that member, including in written questions, the weightings are dynamic, so a specific weighting for ethnicity cannot be given. The weighting of elements varies between clinical specialities to make sure that clinical priority remains the primary element. To the second part of the question, no, I have not looked at applying the equity adjuster to other parts of the health system, beyond planned care. I remind the member that this initiative was developed by northern region clinicians and managers.

Dr Shane Reti: Who is correct: the Prime Minister this morning suggesting that the equity adjuster is just for Auckland and Northland, or the Minister, who stated in written answers that there would be a national roll-out?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The Prime Minister has asked me to look at if the equity adjuster is working as intended, and I will do that before any national roll-out.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was not in any way addressing the question Dr Reti asked.

SPEAKER: I’ll ask Dr Reti to ask the question again. I think it’s a close call, but—

Dr Shane Reti: Who is correct: the Prime Minister this morning suggesting that the equity adjuster is just for Auckland and Northland, or the Minister, who stated in written answers that there would be a national roll-out?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The equity adjuster is in use in two hospitals in the northern region. The Prime Minister has asked me to look at if it is being used in the way intended, and there are no further plans for a national roll-out until I am assured of that.

Dr Shane Reti: Which two hospitals?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Auckland City Hospital, and I am advised the other one is Middlemore.

Dr Shane Reti: Is the Health New Zealand business support manager correct when he wrote to clinicians that priority on the surgical wait-list will be 200 days for Māori and 250 days for nonMāori; if not, why not?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That statement doesn’t really make sense, and I’d need additional context to be able to help interpret it.

Dr Shane Reti: Did she say that the weighting adjuster is dynamic and will change day by day?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: That’s right, because, obviously, if you have waited for longer, it is more important that you get your procedure.

Dr Shane Reti: When does she intend to roll out the equity adjuster for first specialist appointments, as indicated in her reply to written question No. 14489, or has this now been delayed as a result of the Prime Minister’s request that she assure him that the equity adjuster is not replacing one form of discrimination with another?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: As I have said, the Prime Minister has asked me to check that the equity adjuster is working in the way it’s intended, and that’s what I’ll do.

Question No. 8—Police

8. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by her statement that “It is my view that New Zealanders feel safer with a Government on track to deliver 1,800 extra police”; if so, why, when gangs have recruited close to twice as many members in the nearly six years it took to recruit those extra police?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): To the first part of the member’s question, yes, in the context it was given. The alternative would be to not have 1,800 additional police. To the second part of the question, I’ve always been clear about the challenges that both gangs and organised criminal groups present in our communities, but it is exactly the reason why this Government has enacted legislation to crack down on gangs, which, in the past week in Ōpōtiki, saw 26 vehicles seized, four firearms seized, 11 offensive weapons seized, and nine gang members arrested—all of this under new gang conflict warrants that did not exist before April.

Nicole McKee: Does she think that New Zealanders feel safer when there is an average of two gang-related firearm offences every day this year to mid-May, and does she think that they will feel safer with the implementation of the firearms registry, knowing that gang members won’t be using it?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I would never be so bold as to speak on behalf of all New Zealanders, but I will say that this Government is cracking down on organised crime in three main ways. The first main way is through legislation, through the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill, through introducing a firearms prohibition orders ability to put those most dangerous individuals away from weapons, and also introducing new legislation around those driving and fleeing. By introducing a firearms registry, which will go live at the end of this month, it will be able to map, for the first time, where all firearms are in New Zealand. I believe that this is a good way to find out where the guns are and make sure they are out of the hands of those organised criminal groups who are a danger to our community.

Nicole McKee: Does she think that New Zealanders feel safer when youth gang membership is up 700 percent over five years to April 2023, and youth gang members have, on average, 26 offences under their belt by the time they turn 18 years old?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I have been clear that the level of youth offending occurring in New Zealand right now is completely unacceptable, but it is for that very reason that this Government has introduced and rolled out further programmes like “circuit breaker” and Kotahi te Whakaaro. These programmes show that 72 percent of young people going through those programmes do not go on to offend. I call that success.

Nicole McKee: Does she think New Zealanders feel safer when the overwhelming gang presence in Ōpōtiki recently resulted in schools shutting down for the week?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I have zero tolerance for the harm and intimidation caused by gangs in our community. The operation in Ōpōtiki, where police used new powers under the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act meant that those communities were safe. I was pleased to see that there was not any harm done to individual people, and that is a result of those front-line police officers doing their job well and using the new powers that they had access to.

Nicole McKee: Did the Mongrel Mob pay for a traffic management plan when it shut down the streets in Ōpōtiki, and if not, why not?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: No.

Question No. 9—Workplace Relations and Safety

9. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What recent announcement has she made about more financial support for parents?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Our Government has a proud track record of supporting parents and families. Since we took office, we have extended paid parental leave from 18 to 26 weeks, made GP visits free for children aged 13 and under, extended 20 hours’ free early childhood education to two-year-olds as well, and scrapped prescription fees. I was proud to build on that track record yesterday when I announced that the Government will be putting an extra $51 per week into the pockets of new parents. That’s an additional $1,327 for those taking the full 26 weeks of parental leave, and just another example of our commitment to supporting parents and families.

Camilla Belich: How will this benefit parents and families?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: We know it’s tough for families right now, but the Chris Hipkins Government is committed to supporting Kiwi families to have a bit more in their pocket and ease some of the pressures that they’re facing. These changes will raise the parental leave payment by 7.7 percent to reflect the rise in average wage. Eligible parents will see an increase in the parental leave payment from $661.12 per week to $712.17 per week before tax. The minimum rate for self-employed parents will also increase to $227 per week, which is equal to 10 hours of the minimum wage for an adult worker.

Camilla Belich: How many people will benefit from these changes?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: These increases will support a large number of families. We know, for example, that 56,200 people received paid parental leave payments in 2022. This is a Government committed to making sure that families receive the support they need with this important investment, enabling parents to focus on their newborns in their early days.

Camilla Belich: What other recent changes have been announced to support new parents?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As part of Budget 2023, the Government announced from mid-2024 new parents will also receive a 3 percent Government contribution to their KiwiSaver while on paid parental leave provided they continue their own KiwiSaver contributions. This initiative in Budget 2023 recognises that child carers can see their nest egg worse off while on parental leave and is yet another example of this Government’s commitment to supporting parents and families.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes, in their context.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she stand by her tweet on Sunday in response to National’s gang policy “locking people up and throwing away the key is exactly what gangs want. They want NZers to pay for their university of crime.”, and, if so, is she arguing that the gangs want longer prison sentences?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In response to the second part of that question, no.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she believe gangs want longer prison sentences so that they can spend more time at what she calls their “university of crime”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The Minister was making the overall point that National’s approach to law and order is ill-thought-out and lacks evidence to support it.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she understand why Kiwis who hear her saying that prison is just a university of crime, and see the Government’s target of reducing the prison population regardless of the level of crime, are concluding that the Government no longer believes that serious crime should lead to serious consequences?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Of course the Government doesn’t believe that. And, indeed, the Minister of Justice has also pointed out that gang membership is already an aggravating factor in sentencing under section 9(1)(hb) of the Sentencing Act and has been applied in the likes of the King v Reihana and the King v Ormsby-Turner to increase the sentences meted out by the judiciary to gang members this year.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So how does she reconcile her statement that making gang membership an automatic aggravating factor at sentencing infringed criminal human rights with Chris Hipkins’ earlier statement, “I have no issue with curbing the human rights of people who are engaged in criminal activity, because I think if they want to engage in criminal activity there’s a consequence of that.”, and is it the case that human rights are only an issue when National proposes something?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The two statements the member referred to are not inconsistent. I further would also agree with the Minister of Police’s comments at the time, in response to the National Party announcement, that National’s got the policy microwave set on “reheat”.

Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

11. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcement has he made on market studies?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Today, at 12.30, I announced that the next market study by the Commerce Commission will be into retail banking. Banks play an important role in our economy and in every Kiwi household; New Zealanders deserve to know that they can trust their banks with their finances. Banks have consistently posted high profits over a number of years, and Kiwi consumers rightly have questions about that during tough times. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that New Zealand has a competitive banking sector, and so I have asked the Commerce Commission to undertake a market study into retail banking today.

Ingrid Leary: What will the study cover?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The Commerce Commission will have just over a year to look into any matters affecting competition for personal banking services. The study will be able to look at the full range of banking services people take up for personal or household use, but it can also narrow its spotlight and dig into certain products or areas if it needs to. It will get an understanding of competition by looking at the structure of the industry, any barriers to banks growing, or to new banks entering the sector, or any other factors affecting competition, and it will look at bank profitability.

Ingrid Leary: What is the purpose of market studies?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Market studies are a useful tool to take an in-depth look at markets where competition might not be working well. These studies take around a year to complete and look at the long-term structural issues and barriers to competition that might be driving up prices, suppressing innovation, or keeping out a bigger range of products, services, or suppliers. The Government has focused on things that matter to Kiwis in their living costs such as fuel, groceries, and building supplies—today, we add personal banking to that list. Market studies aren’t a short-term fix, but they do the heavy lifting to determine how to start to address markets that aren’t working well enough, and we are proud to do that work.

Ingrid Leary: When will the results of the study be known?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: This study will take 14 months and will report back in August 2024 with analysis and recommendations. We will have a clearer idea of the methods the Commerce Commission intends to use and preliminary issues in August this year. But we’re not waiting that long to make progress: this week, we’re also taking our next step in respect of open banking. A draft bill will be released for public consultation, and that will help make comparing and switching bank products easier for Kiwibank customers, because Kiwis should know that they’re well served by their banks and we’re doing everything we can to make sure that is the case.

Nicola Willis: Why should New Zealanders have any confidence that this market study will be any more effective than the previous market studies into fuel, groceries, and building and construction materials, or is it his position that those studies have delivered transformational change for New Zealand consumers?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, that member may be prepared to sit on her hands and do nothing; this Government will not. Later on today, that member might want to sit in the House whilst we progress the grocery reform bills that have already seen change. We see third parties entering into the market: we see The Warehouse, we see Costco and others. So that member might want to open the paper tomorrow morning and see all of the commentators congratulating this Government on the work it’s doing in improving competition across the economy.

Question No. 12 to Minister

SPEAKER: Members, I have inadvertently broken the rules. I have asked the Hon Marama Davidson to return on the basis that she has question No. 12. The Standing Orders do not actually allow me to do that. The member has already returned to the House, so I am going to be guided by the House.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order, Mr Speaker. There has to be some penalty for getting kicked out—I say this with some experience. Now, if she was kicked out and she can return conveniently so she can do her next question, it seems like your penalty has been almost castrated, and that wouldn’t be a very good outcome. So I don’t think she should be allowed to ask the question.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions.

Bills

Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I present a legislative statement on the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can I ask members leaving to do so quickly and quietly.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Tākiri mai ana te ata ki runga o ngākau mārohirohi, kōrihi ana te manu kaupapa, ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea. Tihei mauri ora.

E mihi ana ki a koutou kua tau mai nei i runga i te karanga o te kaupapa o te rā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. E mihi ana ki te hunga mate, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tātou. Tēnei au, tēnei mātou te Kāwanatanga e mihi ana ki te kaupapa o te wā. Ngāti Hei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Dawn breaks upon a resolute heart. The bird chorus of this issue now sings. A new dawn leads to the full light of day. Vitality and health to all.

Thanks and greetings to you all who have responded to the call of this issue to be here today. I acknowledge those who have passed; may you rest in peace. And to us who remain, welcome one and all. I, indeed we the Government, acknowledge the present issue. Ngāti Hei, greetings and thanks to you—indeed, to us all.]

It’s my honour and privilege to be here today to speak in the first reading of the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill. I extend a warm welcome to the negotiators of Ngāti Hei, who have travelled from the beautiful Coromandel for this occasion, and I say thank you to them. It has been my privilege and pleasure to host you here today. Can I acknowledge Peter Matai Johnston and Mātua Joe Davis, who I had the good fortune to host—or they had the kai; I had to race off to prepare for the House. But to have some kōrero as we welcome them and to hear Mātua Joe’s whakapapa, but also the connections to the other Hauraki whanaunga who are also very important to this bill and the associated bills that will go with this.

It was interesting to hear from Mātua Joe that the first kōrero over Ngāti Hei’s claims were with Tā Doug Graham, back those many years ago when that formidable then justice Minister led the way in opening what we might describe now as the modern Treaty of Waitangi negotiations processes. It’s great, however, that after all that time and after many Treaty bills coming to this House, that now Ngāti Hei has their bill squarely before the House, after some delay too—and I’ll come back to some of the reasons for that a little later.

Can I also acknowledge and pay tribute to the generations of Ngāti Hei who have sought justice for their people, and the many members of Ngāti Hei who have passed away before they have been able to bear witness to today’s milestone. In particular, in that regard, I acknowledge Ngāti Hei kaumātua Peter Tiki Johnston, who played a leading role in the settlement but, sadly, passed away in 2014. His son, Peter Matai Johnston, has assumed his father’s mantle and is in the gallery today.

On the Crown side, can I acknowledge chief Crown negotiators Michael Dreaver and the Hon Rick Barker for their hands-on leadership throughout these negotiations—I might say, everybody amply supported by the team from Te Arawhiti in the gallery there. Can I acknowledge my predecessor, the Hon Chris Finlayson, as well, for his significant contribution to this Treaty settlement, and of course I thank my ministerial colleagues, Crown agencies, and the councils who have been involved in this for their support to achieve this settlement.

Today’s reading marks a major milestone in the Ngāti Hei negotiations. It was back in August 2017 that Ngāti Hei and the Crown signed a deed of settlement here at Parliament. I think we can all agree that six years is a long time to wait to advance the settlement to its next significant step.

The delay between signing the deed and the first reading today is due to the structure of the Hauraki negotiations. Initially, the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill was drafted as part of an omnibus bill with 13 other Hauraki settlements. However, each negotiation moves at its own pace, and so, given the varying pace and a number of other issues that had arisen, I decided in 2021 that we would move away from the omnibus approach and progress the Hauraki bills that are ready and where litigation and overlapping interest claims have been dealt with or progressed sufficiently. That, of course, included Ngāti Hei and I thank Ngāti Hei for their incredible patience during this time.

Ngāti Hei hold a unique place in New Zealand history. In November 1769, Ngāti Hei hosted the first recorded pōwhiri between Māori and Pākehā when Ngāti Hei paramount chief Toawaka invited Captain Cook, no less, to the fortified pā Wharetāewa in Whitianga. Cook and his crew spent 12 days at Whanga-nui-a-Hei measuring the transit of Mercury across the sun, trading, and resupplying the ship in what was described then as a mostly amicable cultural exchange with Ngāti Hei.

Despite these positive beginnings, even before Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed, the negative effects of Pākehā settlement were felt by Ngāti Hei. By the 1830s, Ngāti Hei had lost much of their coastal whenua due to transactions with traders. The Crown’s Land Claims Commission later investigated those transactions and awarded almost 7,000 acres of land, in which Ngāti Hei had interests, to European claimants.

After the Treaty was signed, Crown land acquisition, and the operation and effect of the native land laws left Ngāti Hei virtually landless. The loss of land and resources reduced Ngāti Hei’s ability to participate in the new economic opportunities and challenges emerging within their rohe in the 20th century.

The Crown’s repression of te reo Māori, along with the fragmentation of Ngāti Hei tribal structures and the migration from ancestral lands, severely affected Ngāti Hei’s ability to pass mātauranga Māori on to their tamariki and mokopuna. The settlement is grounded in the Crown’s acknowledgment of this history and the Crown’s apology for its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The redress contained in this bill will support Ngāti Hei in realising their aspirations for their iwi and the many generations to come. The bill will give effect to the redress provided and settlement of historical Treaty of Waitangi claims, including financial and commercial redress of $8.5 million; the vesting of 15 sites of cultural significance; and overlay classification and statement of association, which acknowledges the traditional, cultural, spiritual, and historical association of Ngāti Hei with certain sites of significance, including Moehau and Te Aroha maunga. This settlement legislation will also enact a Māori Land Court order that will vest Ohinau Island in the Ngāti Hei governance entity.

Finally, relationship agreements between Ngāti Hei and Crown agencies will provide the foundation for a better future relationship between Ngāti Hei and the Crown. As I indicated earlier, this bill is one of a number of bills coming under the Pare Hauraki collective of iwi in Hauraki. There are others yet to make their progress—some have already been introduced—but eventually we will bring together a Hauraki collective piece of legislation as well. Bearing in mind now, with these bills and the Hauraki bills, what has been very important is to ensure that the relationships between each of those Hauraki iwi are sorted, but also the relationship between Hauraki iwi and other large national groups—and I’m thinking particularly of Tauranga Moana—that those are settled and healthy relationships as well.

I sincerely hope that this settlement is the beginning of a stronger relationship between Ngāti Hei and the Crown based on mutual trust, cooperation, and respect for Te Tiriti and its principles. I propose the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Ko wai anō, ko wai anō? Ko te ninihi nui o te moana, ko Te Parata nui o te moana, ko te Paikea nui o te moana. Ko wai anō ngā uri o te waka Te Arawa? Repanga, a Ngātoro ki tai, Hauraki ki uta, ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama. Haumi e, hui e, tāiki e.

Kei a koutou, te rangatira Joe, Hita Maitai mā, ngā rangatira o Ngāti Hei ki Wharekaho, koutou ngā māreikura me ngā whatukura kua rauemi mai, kua rarau mai ki tēnei Whare Miere, te ana o ngā raiona me ngā taika me ngā puma o tēnei whenua, tēnā koutou.

Tēnā koutou e kawe nei i ngā moemoeā a ō koutou mātua tūpuna, me ngā whakatinanatanga o ērā moemoeā ki roto i ā koutou taiohi, rangatahi, rangatakapū.

Kei taku minita, Anaru Paku, tēnā koe i ō mahi rangatira nei, e mihi ana ki a koe.

Katoa rātou kua nunumi atu, haere atu rā. Hoki mai nei ki a tātau.

[Who are they? Who are they? The vastness of the ocean, the great denizen of the sea, the great whale of the ocean. Who are the descendants of Te Arawa? Repanga, Ngātoro at sea, and Hauraki inland, in the emerging world, the world of light. It coalesces. It assembles. It is bound.

To you, the leader, Joe, Peter Matai, and others, the leaders of Ngāti Hei ki Wharekaho; you also, the matriarchs and patriarchs have assembled here, to have come here to this Beehive, to the lair of the lions and the tigers and the pumas of this land. Greetings.

Greetings to you who carry the aspirations of your forebears, and the realisation of those dreams in your youth, your young people, your adolescents.

To my Minister, Andrew Little, thank you for your noble work. I acknowledge you.

Those who have passed on, rest in peace. I return now to us.]

Ngāti Hei ki Wharekaho is what we often refer to as Ngāti Hei, a well-known tribe of Hauraki, being a member of the Pare Hauraki collective, and will receive redress through the Pare Hauraki collective redress arrangements as well as this specific Ngāti Hei arrangement. The iwi marae at Whitianga, Te Rā Matiti, stands as a lighthouse for tribal identity. E mihi ana ki a koutou, te ahi kā. [The marae of the iwi, Whitianga, Te Rā Mātiti, stands as a lighthouse for tribal identity. I acknowledge you, the home people that keep the home fires burning.]

Treaty settlements like this one that were launched and set about by the great elders of the National Party, Jim Bolger, Doug Graham, Kereama Rātima, and Bill Birch—Wīremu Birch—have been carried on by successive Governments and genuinely assisted in restoring wairua through acknowledgments and apologies, through cultural redress, and usually some modest commercial redress that sometimes includes land and buildings, and in some places just pūtea, just the cash. And like your relatives on the other side of Tīkapa Moana, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, the Ngāti Hei nation are resilient, emergent, and aspirational.

In fact, I wanted to take a moment just to comment on the comments of my former boss, Hemi Paraone, your whanaunga over there, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, who always would refer to Matua Joe as an absolute icon of Hauraki identity. And in that little Switzerland that Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki sometimes is—Tāmaki-makau-rau, Tainui, Hauraki, and everything else—he always would pay that homage and that respect to the mahi that Matua Joe and others of Ngāti Hei have done to retain their identity, to drive their identity, and ultimately to restore and regenerate their identity.

Ahakoa iti rearea, teitei kahikatea [Despite the diminutive size of the rearea bird, it can reach the top of the kahikatea tree.] Whilst the rearea is small, it can overcome the tallest kahikatea in the great forest of Tāne Mahuta. And your negotiators, along with other iwi leaders, not only those that are on the paepae but also those in the kāuta have brought this here to the Whare Mīere. So I acknowledge all those rangatira and ringawera [leaders and kitchen staff] of the iwi. Mā mua ka kitea a muri; mā muri ka ora a mua. [Through the formalities, the dining staff are seen; because of the dining staff, the formalities go well.]

Ngāti Hei—descendants of tangata whenua Te Hekenga-a-rangi and Hapū-oneone, as well as the great navigators and sentinels of various waka like Arawa, and Kupe’s Matahourua. The deed of settlement outlines and sets out some kōrero around the eponymous ancestor Hei, son of Atuamatua, brother of Houmaitawhiti and father of Waitaha, and bound to the land and seas of Toi te Huatahi ki te Waitematā huri atu a Tīkapa Moana ki roto, the Hauraki Gulf to Waitematā and the food basket of Tīkapa Moana.

The dominions that the Ngāti Hei people have are indeed mercurial—mercurial, Mr Simpson—and spread north and south, and are captured in various names: Te Ō ā Hei, or Hahei, Te Whanganui a Hei, Mercury Bay, and Ngā Tokotoru a Hei out there by Aotea. E mihi ana ki a koutou. The area of interest of your iwi, located on the eastern seaboard of the Coromandel Peninsula, is in the works and the writings of my wife’s great-grandfather Pei Te Hurinui Jones, who has links to you all. Moehau. He always refers to Coromandel Peninsula as Moehau, but Te Tara o te Ika a Māui through Onemana and Te Whangapoua and centred around Tairua and Mautohe known to most of us as Cathedral Cove—and those citadels of Ngāti Hei include Repanga or Cuvier Island, home of various tasty fish and shark, Moehau, Ahuahu, Motutere, Tahanga, and ngā Ruamāhua islands.

The Ngāti Hei massif also refers us back to our Tahitian ancestors, with places like Hitiā o te Rā, or Whitianga, as we refer to it here in New Zealand, and Taputapuatea—what a beautiful place in Tahiti and also in Coromandel. I’m sure many of the members here today—actually, some of our whanaunga members, across the benches—have also been to that place, both here in Aotearoa and also in Tahiti.

The bill is one that the National Party supports to progress to the first reading. Like many whānau, hapū, and iwi, Ngāti Hei were entrepreneurial peoples in the early 1800s, being involved, like other iwi, in the timber trade, with foresters, albeit with some unconscionable arrangements along the way—reminds me of a few iwi through the central North Island, e taku tuakana, Shanan. [my senior, Shanan.]

One of the more difficult experiences Ngāti Hei went through was the purchase of Ahuahu—Mercury Island; what an outstanding place—by the Crown from other iwi. There is no evidence that Ngāti Hei were either consulted or paid for their interest in this breathtaking island, and then, of course, the Crown entered into land transactions called purchases for over 80,000 acres of Moehau paradise. The bill gives effects to some elements of the Ngāti Hei deed of settlement, and I mihi to those former Ministers for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Doug Graham and Christopher Finlayson, who represented the Crown in those early high-level negotiations with Ngāti Hei. But it also reflects the acknowledgment and apology made in that deed and gives effect to some of the redress outlined in that deed. I want to thank and acknowledge our Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, Anaru Paku, and various officials for this important step in the redress process—Mike Dreaver, Rick Barker, officials from the Department of Conservation, Land Information New Zealand, and other agencies who have represented the Crown. I mihi to them and hope for further innovation in future settlements as well.

This package, set out in the bill, is something that the National Party absolutely applauds and supports for further consideration. The acknowledgments record that the Crown failed to take adequate steps to protect the interests of Ngāti Hei, but it sets out the industrial activities—those extractive processes over the Moehau Peninsula, te Tara o te Ika; things like gold-mining, gum digging, flax milling, timber harvesting—all those extractive processes that have delivered very little upside for Ngāti Hei over time and have been very distressing.

Those beautiful surrounds of Moehau, Whitianga, and elsewhere is something that—although there’s a few roads that we need to fix up along the way, collectively, there, Mr Simpson—

Hon Scott Simpson: Hear, hear!

TAMA POTAKA: Hear, hear! It’s something that we look forward to restoring. By the end of the 20th century, left virtually landless like many other iwi throughout the motu, Ngāti Hei had been marginalised, with the loss of resources, poor educational achievement, socio-economic deprivation and all those other pretty difficult statistics that you’re dealing with.

The apology for the Treaty breaches and prejudice to Ngāti Hei, particularly given the impacts of Crown actions and omissions on the wellbeing of Ngāti Hei, is something that we will continue to canvass as we go through the legislative readings. The deed of settlement, which was initialled on 31 May 2017 and then ratified later in August that year, illustrates the progress that your whānau, your hapū, and your iwi have made in order to seal the deal but also to get to go. It’s like going around in Monopoly, “Go back to ‘Go’ and collect $200”, but in this case a little bit more commercial redress.

Now, you have many uri and descendants, and I can’t believe that Census 2018 only records 600, because I know there are more out there somewhere. Ahakoa he iti, he iti māpihi pounamu. [Even though it appears small, it is of great value.] The census noted that only 44 percent of the iwi own their own home, and 27 percent of iwi members earn more than $50,000 per annum. Hopefully—hopefully—this redress set out in the bill and the pending legislation will give you a little bit of ballast and a little bit of kaha to carry out and improve those demographics and improve those statistics.

The kaupapa of Ngāti Hei is set out on your website: “From our tūpuna we have inherited our moana, whenua, and cultural taonga. We will protect and enhance them to build a bright future for Ngāti Hei.” E mihi ana—e mihi ana ki a koutou. Those various aspects of the bill include cultural redress—culturally significant sites being returned, places like Purangi, Tapu Point, and Rangihau; revitalisation funds for cultural purposes—financial redress of $8.5 million with commercial redress enabling the right to purchase part of Whenuakite—actually, I remember some kiwi coming over from Whenuakite Station to Motutapu. Had to give them a bit of aroha, a bit of love, all the way from Whenuakite right into the middle of Tīkapa Moana. And of course, there is the separation of negotiations in the future in relation to Tīkapa Moana and Te Tai Tamāhine / Te Tai Tamawahine.

It is through these types of historic, “herstoric”, and heroic Treaty settlement arrangements that we can help recognise the decades of loss and suffering, regenerate iwi, particularly rural economies like that in Ngāti Hei, and tautoko Ngāti Hei to realise your holistic aspirations with a carefully nurtured relationship reset with the Crown.

Ki a koutou o Ngāti Hei, whāia te iti kahurangi. E kore rawa koutou e tuohu ki tēnei maunga teitei, ākuanei ka tau atu ki te tihi o tēnei maunga. Haere tonu, kawea te mānuka takoto ki tōna ake takotoranga, ki tōna āketanga. E mihi ana ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, e mihi ana ki a koutou.

[To those of you of Ngāti Hei, pursue worthy endeavours. You will never bow to this lofty mountain; soon you will reach the summit of this peak. Go on, take up the challenge lying before you to its destination, to its enduring conclusion. I acknowledge you. Thanks and greetings to you; I acknowledge you.]

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Piki ake, kake ake taku manu ki runga o Taupiri. Tō piki, tō haere ki te tihi o Moehau. Māwhiti te titiro ki te pae o Hauraki, te whenua taurikura o ngā mātua tūpuna. Tatū atu te titiro ki Tīkapa Moana, te kāpata kai o te iwi e. Tēnei ka mihi atu rā ki a koutou, ka haere taku manu kei waenganui i a koutou, Ngāti Hei, tairoa te noho ki reira.

Nō reira kei ngā mātua tūpuna, i tēnei wā, e kawea nei e koutou, e Matua Joe, ki roto ki tēnei o ngā whare, e mihi ana ki a rātou ngā tini mate o te tau, o te marama, o nanahi, o te rangi nei, ā, haere, haere, haere atu rā.

Tatū atu rā ki a koutou, tātou e huihui mai nei i tēnei o ngā whare mō tēnei o ngā kaupapa e kawea nei e koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[My bird ascends; it climbs Mount Taupiri—your ascent, your travels to the summit of Moehau. My gaze crosses to the ranges of Hauraki, the luscious land of our forebears. My gaze meets the Hauraki Gulf, the pantry of the people. I greet you all. My bird of welcome goes among you, Ngāti Hei, spending time there.

So to our forebears, at this time, that are brought here by you, by Mr Joe, into this of our houses, I acknowledge our many dearly departed of the year, the month, yesterday, and this very day. Rest in peace.

I come now to you, indeed us, gathered here in this of our houses for this of our initiatives that you have brought here. Thank you all.]

It gives me great pleasure to be able to offer some brief remarks to the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill. We are at the first reading, and much of the substance of this bill will be heard by the select committee in fullness, but I wanted to make a few comments and echo the sentiments of our Treaty settlement Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, to pay homage to those who have gone before and carried the mantle, and have left it with those who are here with us now. In particular, Joe Davis and Peter Johnston, you represent, I think, many years of toil and aspiration and hope that we would get to this point.

In saying that, it’s not an easy thing to go down the pathway of Treaty settlements. There is always the hope and aspiration that justice can be achieved, but the Treaty settlement process is a difficult and fragile one. For those who have the fortitude to pursue a Treaty settlement, they know exactly—exactly—some of the trade-offs and sacrifices that have been made within the Treaty settlement context, and I want to acknowledge that in particular with Ngāti Hei.

For the time that I’ve been a member of Parliament, Matua Joe, there are some things that you’ve brought to the Hauraki sentiment, I guess, or character that really impress upon me what are the things that are held dear, and that is the environment—the taiao. We only need look back over the way in which Ngāti Hei have advocated in favour of the environment, in favour of rāhui—to restore fisheries—and in favour of the right protocols for when we get tohorā that wash up on your shores, or ihe, or whatever, and Ngāti Hei has always been at the forefront of protecting the aspirations of kaitiakitanga in a very real and practical way.

The other element of Ngāti Hei that I’ve observed during my time as a member of Parliament has been the way in which Ngāti Hei has worked constructively within their community. When I’ve been in Opposition, that has been the case, and when we’ve been in Government, that is the case, and I am assured that when that time comes and we may be on different sides of this House, Ngāti Hei’s approach to their community will be absolutely consistent. That is why it gives me great pleasure to speak to this particular settlement, because of the consistency of the way in which Ngāti Hei’s leadership can be relied upon: in favour of the environment, in favour of their community—in favour of every member of their community—and in favour of trying to make their small part of Hauraki a fantastic place to not only live but thrive.

There are elements in this settlement that I think will be looked upon and perhaps even considered: “Well, where are the opportunities?” I know that Māori Affairs Committee members will be looking forward to your presentation as negotiators to identify where those associated opportunities are, because Ngāti Hei’s settlement sits within the context of some collective redress but also some critical relationships that exist across Hauraki which other members in this House are very well aware of.

The component parts of this settlement, especially in relation to overlay classifications and statutory acknowledgments, I think give you a sense. You only need to look at the map of the area of association that Ngāti Hei relates to, but it does give you a sense of the whakapapa connections, the relational connections with other iwi across Hauraki that Ngāti Hei have that have been long standing—long standing—and some of those relationships even extend beyond its own area. For the most part, I’m hopeful that we can progress in a considered way, with respect, acknowledging much of the aspiration that is intended to arise from this settlement, and that the select committee process enables some of the perhaps challenging features or views held about this settlement to be explored and aired, and then we progress on.

He iti, he pounamu tēnei kōrero kia tāpiri atu ki te hiahia o Ngāti Hei kia whakanikoniko i te tāhuhu o tā rātou nei whare kia noho taua whare hei āhuru mōwai mō ngā uri whakatupu. Nō reira koutou, kei Ngāti Hei, tātou katoa e huihui mai nei, tēnā tātou. 

[This statement, though small, is valued, to add to the desire of Ngāti Hei to embellish the apex ridge of their house, in order for that house to be a safe haven for the coming generations. So to you, Ngāti Hei, to all of us assembled here, greetings to us all.]

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I wish to join with others from around the debating chamber this afternoon in offering a warm parliamentary welcome to our visitors and our guests from Ngāti Hei, who have travelled a distance that I travel regularly. But it’s a long way and we appreciate you coming again to this place, again to advance a settlement that has been so long in the making—so long in the making—and your patience and your diligence and your forthright, resolute stickability to this process is something that I think we can all be very proud of, but I acknowledge that it has taken too long, far too long.

A little bit of personal history: my whānau arrived at Kūaotunu in the rohe of Ngāti Hei in 1884, my great grandparents, and proceeded to embark upon a lifestyle and raise a family—large families in those days—and quickly started to interact with Ngāti Hei, I’d like to think over the years, over the generations, positively and constructively, but interact they did. And at Wharekaho, a beach sometimes referred to as “Simpson’s beach”, the relationship has been strong and there are still members of my extended family who farm in that area today.

It was only a few weeks ago that I had the opportunity and the privilege to visit the beautiful marae villa site at Wharekaho to discuss matters of issue with Ngāti Hei and others about fishing, about the marine environment and the space and the accessibility, or over-accessibility, of people who want to come and spend time in the beautiful Coromandel, in the rohe of Ngāti Hei, who want to come and spend time there, as they have done for millennia because of the beautiful environment, because of the lovely safe harbours, the beautiful marine environment, and the welcoming of the people.

And so back in—I think it was—August 2017, when the deed of settlement was finally signed here at the Parliament, I had an opportunity to participate in that ceremony with my then colleague, the negotiating Minister Chris Finlayson. That was a moment of great personal pride, but it was pride really for the progress that Ngāti Hei and the people of Ngāti Hei have brought to this longstanding issue over such a challenging period of time.

I want to endorse what others have said about how this negotiation process has been concluded or how it has progressed. And I want to also acknowledge those that have gone before, because many of them who started along this way are no longer with us. And we as descendants of those people have the privilege and honour of attempting to conclude a matter that has taken far too long to get where it is. So to Peter Matai Johnston, welcome to Parliament; to Joe Davis and the rest of the team, welcome. It’s great to have you here on this auspicious occasion, but this is just another step along the way. We’re not quite there yet. We are about to send this piece of special legislation to a select committee where the details of the settlement will be examined closely and where the grievances and issues that have led to the settlement will also be acknowledged and considered again. That will be part of the process.

I can well remember a time when I was a very new MP and the Hon Christopher Finlayson was the Treaty negotiations Minister and visiting again at Wharekaho. And I can’t remember exactly why, but the Minister had for some reason walked on grass or across pasture that was wet and his socks had got wet. It was a winter’s day and the fire was roaring in the wood burner in the whare. And the Minister decided, as was his wont, to dry his socks and he placed his socks on the wrong part of the fireplace and he left the whare with burnt socks but I think a good understanding and a good open relationship. I know that that relationship has endured and I know that he would be very pleased to be participating in this debate if he was here still in this Chamber.

I know that that relationship is firm and strong, but that relationship’s been carried on by his successors and we find ourselves where we are today. And again, because this is such an important part of the wider Treaty settlement negotiations process for the Hauraki area, I’m pleased that we have got past the idea of trying to settle the omnibus process involving the 13 iwi, because that was fraught and it was difficult and it was challenging. So let’s get on with the groups that are ready, the iwi that are ready, and Ngāti Hei are ready to go.

That, I think, is a good thing, because back in 2011, when I was first elected to Parliament, I can remember someone saying to me, “Get ready, Scott; get ready. The Treaty settlement is about to come. You’ve got to get ready.” And then they said, “Well, it’ll be six months.” And then the six months came and they said, “Oh, it’ll be another six months. Just be ready. It’ll be another six months and it’ll be all done—another six months.” And here we are, nearly 12 years on and maybe six months—maybe six months more—we’ll be at least a little bit closer with Ngāti Hei.

So I want to join with others. I’m very much looking forward to this bill progressing through to select committee, where I know it’s going to be scrutinised carefully, where I know the dignity and the mana and the perseverance of Ngāti Hei will be acknowledged and maintained, and then we’ll bring it back for a second reading and then finally a third reading and the legislation will be passed. And I hope that I have the honour and privilege of still being in this House when that occurs, as I know that there will be other members of the Chamber wanting to do exactly the same. Kia kaha! We look forward to progressing this legislation. Thank you.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, otirā tēnā tātou katoa kei roto i tēnei Whare o tātou i tēnei ahiahi.

He tino hōnore tēnei mōku, te tū ki te tautoko o te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei pire mō te whakataunga kerēme a Ngāti Hei. Tēnā koutou ngā uri o Ngāti Hei kei konei, kei roto i te Whare i tēnei ahiahi. Otirā tēnā pea ki a koutou o Ngāti Hei e whakarongo mai ana i tēnei ahiahi i runga i te reo irirangi, te pouaka whakaata.

Tuatahi māku, e te Māngai o te Whare, e tautoko ana ahau i ngā kōrero a te Minita mō ngā whakataunga kerēme, ki te Minita hoki, a Nanaia Mahuta, te mema Pāremata o tērā takiwā, o te Hauraki Waikato. E tautoko ana ahau i ā rātou mihi ki a koutou kei roto i te Whare i tēnei ahiahi, nā koutou i whakapau ō koutou kaha ki te kawe i ngā take Tiriti mō tō koutou iwi.

E tautoko ana hoki ahau i ngā mihi ki ngā kaimahi a te Karauna i mahi ngātahi ki a koutou o te iwi kia whakatau i ēnei kerēme, ēnei take. Nō reira e mihi ana.

[Thank you to the Speaker—indeed, greetings to all of us in this House of ours this afternoon.

This is a real honour for me, to stand and support the first reading of this bill for the settlement claim of Ngāti Hei. Greetings to the descendants of Ngāti Hei that are here in the House this afternoon. Indeed to those of Ngāti Hei who may be listening this afternoon on the radio or television.

Firstly for me, I support the statements of the Minister for settlement claims, and also to the Minister, Nanaia Mahuta, member of Parliament of that electorate, of Hauraki Waikato. I support their acknowledgments of those of you who are in the House this afternoon, those of you who expended your energy to bring these Treaty matters for your people.

I also support the acknowledgments made to the staff of the Crown who worked together with you of the iwi to settle these claims and these matters. So I thank you.]

It’s my absolute honour and privilege to speak in the House this afternoon on the first reading of the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill. In my mihi, I just wanted to acknowledge all of those descendants of Ngāti Hei who are here today but also those that may be tuning in, may be listening online as well, to this really important part of the process.

This is a milestone getting to the first reading of the settlement legislation. I wanted to acknowledge Minister Little and Minister Mahuta, who both spoke before me, and all of the acknowledgments that they made to those who were both on the iwi side and on the Crown side who have been involved in this mahi; just to repeat to the negotiators from Ngāti Hei, to Peter and to Joe, and also those Crown negotiators, Michael Dreaver and Rick Barker; and I want to acknowledge the former Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations as well, Minister Finlayson. As the member Scott Simpson was just reciting the story, I could just imagine Minister Finlayson trying to dry his socks on the fire, and Ginny and I were laughing over here on this side, having had some experience with Minister Finlayson myself before coming into Parliament.

I was reflecting on Minister Little’s speech about the length of time that this has taken and some of the reasons for that, but also the ability to make progress when departing from that omnibus approach and being able to get it to where it is today. I just want to acknowledge that it was first signed in 2017 and here we are in 2023, finally having its first reading in the House. “Manawaroa” is the word that we use in Te Tai Tokerau for perseverance and patience, and that has very much been the case here.

I want to acknowledge those that will be on the Māori Affairs Committee who are going to be receiving this bill and hearing submissions about it and the mahi that they will do. I have had the privilege of sitting on that committee in the past, and I know that they put a lot of effort into hearing the submissions, often visiting the rohe these settlements relate to. So I know that they will do a very good job on behalf of us all here in Parliament.

I believe that other members have already outlined the main parts of the redress that are in the settlement. There is the apology. There is the financial redress and commercial redress as well as cultural redress, which has been traversed by other members, so I won’t repeat that for you this afternoon. And, given that it’s been since 2017, I won’t prolong it any further either and add to that delay. So with that, Mr Speaker, e tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire pau te kaha. [I support this bill with all my strength.]

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand on behalf of ACT and support the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill for the first reading. It’s a real honour to be standing here and speaking to this. I don’t know much about Treaty settlements in detail and the processes that get us to this place, but what I do know is that it’s taken far too long. And what I do hear is that there is a lot of pain and anguish when some of these settlements, from beginning to end—we’ve lost people during that time frame, and I’d like to acknowledge those who have passed before these settlements have come into play because I think that’s really important. We’ve got descendants from Ngāti Hei that may be here or may be watching today, and I’d just like to acknowledge those who have passed and who will not see this come into fruition.

That saddens me, that this process takes so long to get where we are today, and so I’m grateful that we’ve got here today, and I’m grateful that some of the wrongs of the past are being addressed in this House. I think it’s important that we do address wrongs of the past, and that we do make sure that an apology does happen for those wrongs, but also some kind of compensation for those wrongs of the past as well. So as part of this, as people have mentioned before, there will be properties of cultural significance that will be dealt with. This is a collective agreement and there’s more to come.

So I take my hat off to the Māori Affairs Committee, because it can’t be easy listening to some of the Ngāti Hei and other iwis’ stories about what it’s taken to get to this place. So thank you to those who sit on the Māori Affairs Committee for taking this on and making sure that this is done appropriately and properly for all those involved. ACT supports this through to the select committee process, and we hope to see it back before the House and passed as quickly as we possibly can. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E tū ake tēnei hei mema mō ngā Kākāriki ki te whakaatu i ō mātou whakaaro ki tēnei o ngā pire.

Heoi ko taku mihi tuatahi ki a koutou, Ngāti Hei, koutou i tae ā-tinana mai, otirā ki a koutou e whakarongo ana ki runga i ngā reo irirangi, te pouaka whakaata rānei, tēnei ka mihi atu.

Ko au anō tētahi o ngā mema o te Komiti Whiringa Take Māori, nō reira kei te haere mai tēnei pire ki a mātou ki te wānanga, ki te wetewete i ngā kōrero.

E te Pīka, i ētahi wā he tino waimārie mātou ki te haere ki te marae ki te whakarongo ki te hau kāinga. Heoi i mua i te taenga atu ko te mea nui me rangahau he aha ngā tātai whakapapa, he aha ngā kaupapa i reira i te mea kāore anō ahau kia tae atu ki waenganui i a Ngāti Hei, ki roto i ō rātou nei marae nō reira i āta wānangahia ētahi o ngā whakaaro.

Nō reira e mihi ana tēnei ki ō rātou nei hononga ki tērā tipuna o tātou, ki a Pūkenga, nā āna mahi i tau te ingoa ki runga i te Whitianga a Kupe, nō reira me mihi atu au ki tērā o ngā tino tīpuna o tātou, otirā ki ō rātou nei hononga ki a Te Arawa waka.

E ai ki te kōrero i tau te waka ki ētahi wāhi kei Moehau, ka whakaingoatia ētahi wāhi tae atu ki te maunga o Moehau. Ko tōna ingoa whānui ko Te MoengahauoTamatekapua. E ai ki ngā kōrero ko Hei, ko ia te matua kēkē o Tamatekapua, tāku nei i pānuihia ki runga i Te Ara, the online encyclopaedia. Nō reira ka mihi atu ki tērā tipuna o koutou, i puta mai tērā ingoa ko Te Whanga-a-Hei.

E te Pīka, i a au e pānui ana i te taunakitanga o tēnei pire, i kite i te nui o ngā raru i tukuna e te Karauna ki a Ngāti Hei. I puta mai ētahi o ngā matapaki kōrero, ngā horopaki o ngā kamupene poro rākau i haere atu ki tō rātou nei wāhi, ā-rīhi nei. Ētahi wāhi i haere mai anō te Karauna, i rūkahu atu ki te tangata whenua, kātahi ka riro atu te whenua.

E te Pīka, kua roa tonu te noho a te ūmanga tangotango rawa i te rohe o Ngāti Hei, mai i te poro rākau, te kerikeri kāpia, te mira harakeke, te keri koura me te mahi hiika anō hoki. Pakupaku noa iho ngā painga wā roa i riro i a Ngāti Hei mai i ēnei ūmanga, ā, e pāngia tonutia ana rātou ki te mamae mō te tūkinotanga o te taiao o tō rātou nei rohe.

Koinei ngā wānanga kōrero ka haramai, ki ōku nei whakaaro, ki te Komiti Whiringa Take Māori kia areare mātou ngā taringa kia tino rangona he aha te aha, he aha ngā hītori, ngā kōrero tuku iho o Ngāti Hei, ki a mātou o te komiti.

Hei tauira i kite au ki roto i te pire, i te mea he maha ngā tauira engari ko tētahi i tino hāngai ōku nei karu, i te tau 1885 ka uru ngā tāngata o Ngāti Hei nō rātou a Kūaotunu, ki roto i tētahi whakaritenga ā-rīhi me tētahi kamupene poro rākau, he kaupapa i rangona e au ki roto i taku pānuitanga i te pire. Ki tā te hunga nō rātou te whenua, i tuku te rīhi i te mana poro rākau anahe, heoi anō hei tā rātou anō hoki, i āta mahi tinihanga te kamupene ki a rātou mō ngā whakaritenga o ngā rihi. Tae atu ki te kōti, ahakoa kāore tēnei rīhi i tino āmene mai te ture, i haramai te Karauna ki te hoko i te whenua engari he raru anō tērā.

I kite ki roto i tāku nei pānuitanga o tēnei pire ki a Ngāti Hei, otirā ngā whakatau kerēme i tae mai ki mua i te aroaro o te Komiti Whiringa Take Māori, i pērā anō ngā kōrero me ngā raru, ngā tūkinotanga o te Public Works Act. Nō reira me mihi au ki tō koutou nei tipuna, te tipuna i pānui au ki roto i ngā tuhinga o te pire, i a Ngāwhira Tainui. E ai ki te kōrero i te tau 1923 i tuhi reta ia ki te Karauna mō tētahi ruritanga ki te motu o Ahuahu, kia āhei a ia ki te whakatakoto kerēme ā-taitara ki te Kōti Whenua Māori. Heoi anō nā te takaroa o te Karauna, i tāhae i raro i te Ture Hangahanga Tūmatanui, arā te Public Works Act.

Anei anō tērā kōrero i rangona e ngā taringa o te Māori, ngā tūkino a te Public Works Act ki wiwī, ki wawā, puta noa i te motu, nā tērā taputapu i tāhae ngā whenua. Nō reira nōku anō te aroha ki a Ngāti Hei i tae tēnei tūkinotanga ki runga i a koutou.

I pērā ānō ngā hē i tae atu ki Ahuahu. I kite au kua hokona e te Karauna, e ai ki ōna whakatau, e ai ki ōna whakapae, i Ahuahu engari kāore i te kōrero ki a Ngāti Hei. Nō reira kua kore tō rātou nei mau ki tō rātou nei whenua ki Ahuahu.

Heoi kei roto i te pire ērā atu o ngā tauira e pā ana ki te raupatutanga ā-ture nei e pā ana ki a rātou o Ngāti Hei. Nō reira ko mātou ngā taringa areare ki tēnei o ngā kōrero.

Heoi ko ngā whakaaro o mātou, ngā Kākāriki, ko te taha o te oranga ka taea e te iwi te tuku iho ngā kōrero, kia tuhia ngā hītori hei whāngai atu ki ā rātou tamariki, ā rātou nei mokopuna. Ko tētahi o ngā kōrero i kite au ki roto i tēnei pire e pā ana ki te ngarohanga o te mātauranga Māori, te ngarohanga o te reo Māori, te ngarohanga o ngā ahurea o te Māori. Me te mōhio anō ko tēnei mea te mātauranga Māori ko tētahi wāhanga anō kia pēhea tātou e hāpai ana i a tātou ki roto i te horopaki o ngā pōraru o te āhuarangi. Ko mātou anō ngā Kākāriki i kite i te oranga o te painga o tērā.

Nō reira me mihi atu ki ngā kaiwhakarite o tēnei pire kia kuhu ērā kupu ki roto i te mea me hoki anō tātou ki ērā o ngā whakaaro o ō tātou nei mātua tīpuna; te piringa o te tangata ki te whenua, tērā te take i mea atu he “tangata whenua” tātou. Kia mōhio mai tātou mēnā ka hoki anō tātou ki ngā whakaaro o ngā mātua tīpuna, kāore tērā raru o te taiao e pā ki a tātou, arā ngā pōraru o te āhuarangi, te matemate haere o te koiora ki roto i te moana. Nō reira, Ngāti Hei, ka mihi.

Ko te mea anō, ki tō mātou nei whakaaro, o ngā Kākāriki, ko tēnei mea te Tiriti o Waitangi ehara i te kirimana noa, ehara i te kirimana noa mō te tauhokohoko rawa, tauhokohoko whenua; he kawenata. He kawenata me hāpai atu i a tātou hei tūāpapa mō tātou katoa e noho ana ki Aotearoa nei. Nō reira me mātua mōhio mai tātou ki tērā o ngā whakaaro. Mā runga i tērā ka taea e tātou te koke, te koke ki mua i runga i te Tiriti o Waitangi hei tūāpapa mō tō tātou nei Whare.

Me mihi atu ki ngā mātua, ki ngā pakeke i whakapau werawera ki runga i te ara, ki runga i te haerenga kia tae tēnei pire ki tēnei o ngā wāhi. I rongo au i ngā kōrero a ngā mema puta noa i te Whare, me te mea atu kua roa te wā e hāereere ana tēnei pire ki tēnei o ngā wāhi.

Nō reira e mihi ana ki a rātou mā kua wehe atu, mihi atu ki ngā ringa raupā e hāpai tonu ana i ngā mahi. Heoi kei te mihi atu anō hoki ki te hunga i kaha ki te whakamahi i te mahi tae noa ki tōna tino otinga.

Nō reira ko ēnei whakatau kerēme he wāhi anō kia kōrero i te kōrero, kia whai wāhi anō tātou ki a tātou, me te mōhio anō ko tēnei mea ngā tukanga o te whakatau kerēme ehara i te māmā, he uaua. I au e kite ki roto i ēnei momo pire e haramai ki te Komiti Whiringa Take Māori, ētahi wā i taupatupatu te tuakana me te teina, te māmā me te tuahine me te tūngāne. Heoi ko te mea nui me hoki anō tātou ki te aroha o te tangata ki tōna whenua, otirā ki tōna hapūtanga, ki tōna iwitanga, ki tōna takiwā anō hoki.

Nō reira e te Pīka, heoi anō tēnei o ngā pāti, te Paati Kākāriki, e mihi ana ki a koutou Ngāti Hei, e whakarongo ana ā-pouaka whakaata nei, ā-reo irirangi nei, ā-tinana nei ki tēnei o ngā Whare. Tēnā koe, otirā tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand as a member for the Greens to express our opinions on this bill.

However my first greeting is to you, Ngāti Hei, those of you who arrived here in person, indeed those of you who are listening on the radio or on television, I acknowledge you.

I am one of the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, so this bill is coming to us to consider, and to analyse the statements.

Mr Speaker, sometimes we are very lucky to go to the marae to listen to the home people. However, before we get there, the most important thing is to research what the genealogical links are, what are the initiatives happening there because I haven’t yet been among Ngāti Hei, within their marae, so I really studied some of the concepts.

So I acknowledge their connections to that one of our ancestors, to Pūkenga, it was because of his actions that the name Whitianga a Kupe was given, so I acknowledge that one of our illustrious ancestors, indeed to their connections to the Te Arawa confederation.

According to the history, the canoe landed at some of the places around Moehau, and names some of those places including the mountain, Moehau. Its full name is Te Moengahau-o-Tamatekapua. According to the histories, it was Hei, he is an uncle to Tamatekapua, according to what I read on Te Ara, the online encyclopaedia. So I acknowledge that ancestor of yours, whose name was given to Te Whanga-a-Hei.

Mr Speaker, as I was reading the evidence of this bill, I perceived a lot of issues that the Crown caused Ngāti Hei. Some of the discussion, the context of the forestry companies that went into their place on a lease. Some of those places the Crown also came, and lied to the people of the land, and then the land was lost.

Mr Speaker, the resource exploitation sector has long been present in the traditional lands of Ngāti Hei, from forestry to gum digging, flax milling, gold mining and also fisheries activities. The long-term benefits for Ngāti Hei that come from these companies have been minimal, and they are still being afflicted by the anguish of the mistreatment of the environment of their area.

This is one of the discussions that will come, I believe, to the Māori Affairs Committee where our ears will be wide open to really hear what is what, what are the histories, the traditional knowledge of Ngāti Hei, to those of us on the committee.

For example I saw in the bill, because there are many examples but one of them that really caught my eye, in 1885 the people of Ngāti Hei who owned Kūaotunu entered into a lease agreement with a forestry company, an initiative I heard about in my reading of the bill. According to the people who own the land, the lease gave the authority for forestry activities only, but according to them, the company truly deceived them with respect to the arrangements of the lease. It got to court, even though this lease wasn’t really supported the legislation, the Crown came and bought the land but that is another issue altogether.

I saw in my reading of this bill that Ngāti Hei, indeed the claims settlement came before the Māori Affairs Committee, and they were the same stories and the same problems, the abuses of the Public Works Act. So I acknowledge your ancestor, the ancestor I read about in the documentation of this bill, Ngāwhira Tainui. According to the history, in 1923, he wrote a letter to the Crown about the surveying of the island of Ahuahu, so that he would be able to submit a title claim to the Māori Land Court. However, because of the Crown’s delays, it was stolen under the Public Works Act.

This is again the statement that was heard by the ears of the Māori, the abuses of the Public Works Act here, there and everywhere, all around the country, it was that tool that misappropriated the lands. So I again have compassion for Ngāti Hei that these abuses were visited upon you.

The harm that happened on Great Mercury Island was similar. I saw that Ahuahu was purchased by the Crown, according to its decisions and its assertions, but they did not discuss it with Ngāti Hei. So they weren’t able to hold onto their lands at Great Mercury Island.

However, there are other examples in the bill with respect to statutory confiscation that affected them, Ngāti Hei. So we are the ones with open ears to these particular statements.

However, our opinion, the Greens, with respect to wellbeing, the iwi is able to pass on their narratives, to write the histories to teach to their children and to their grandchildren. Some of the narratives that I saw within this bill were about the loss of traditional Māori knowledge, the loss of the Māori language, the loss of the culture of the Māori people. And we are cognisant that this thing, mātauranga Māori, is one part of how we can uplift ourselves within the context of climate issues. It is us again, the Greens, that saw wellbeing in the benefits of that.

So the drafters of this bill should be acknowledged, for including those words because we should return to those concepts of our forebears; the relationship of humanity with the land, that’s the reason we are called “people of the land”. We must be aware that if we return to the concepts of the forebears, that particular environmental issue will not affect us, ie climate issues, the demise of biodiversity within the ocean. So, Ngāti Hei, I acknowledge you.

Another thing, in our opinion, the Greens, is that this thing, the Treaty of Waitangi, is not merely a contract, it is not merely a contract for the trade of resources, the purchase of land; it is a covenant. It is a covenant we should uphold as a basis for all of us that live here in Aotearoa. So we must first be aware of that particular idea. It is via that that we will be able to progress, to advance on the back of the Treaty of Waitangi as a foundation for our House.

The parents and elders should be acknowledged for the sweat they expended on the path, on the journey to get this bill to this place. I heard the statements of the members all across the House, and they said that this bill has been going through this place for a long time.

So I acknowledge those who have passed on, I acknowledge those who worked hard to support all the work. However, I also acknowledge those who worked hard to bring all the work to its final conclusion.

So these claims settlements are another place to make the statements, for us to be together, and also to understand that the processes of the claims settlements are not easy, they are difficult. As I saw these types of bill coming to the Māori Affairs Committee, sometimes older siblings are fighting with younger ones, mothers with sisters and brothers. However the most important thing is that we come back to compassion of humanity to its land, indeed to its sub-tribal and tribal associations, and to their regions too.

So Mr Speaker, this one of the parties, the Green Party, acknowledge you Ngāti Hei, who are listening on television, on the radio, and in person to this House of ours. Thank you, indeed thank all of you.]

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Whakataka te hau ki te uru, whakataka te hau ki te tonga. Kia mākinakina ki uta, kia mātaratara ki tai. E h ī ake ana te atakura. He tio, he huka, he hauhū. Tihei Mauri Ora!

E ngā whanaunga o te Arawa waka, anei tētahi o ngā uri o te waka e mihi atu nei ki a koutou, kotou ngā kaitiaki o tō tātou nei tūpuna a Tamatekapua i roto i te maunga Moehau. Waiaua ki te Rāwhiti e mihi atu nei ki a koutou.

[Cease oh winds of the west and of the south. Let the bracing breezes flow, over the land and the sea. Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened edge, a touch of frost, a promise of a glorious day!

Our kin from the Arawa canoe, here is a descendant of the canoe acknowledging you all, you all the guardians of our ancestor Tamatekapua at the sacred Moehau mountain. Waiaua to the east, greetings to you all.]

This is a big day, as we’ve heard from previous speakers. A big day for Ngāti Hei, who started this journey quite some time ago. This is their time to shine, and I want to, if anything, just relay the sentiment that it has been a long journey. To Ngāti Hei that are in the room, to Ngāti Hei that are listening from afar, we acknowledge you and we acknowledge the journey that it’s taken to get you here.

For me, as a geek of New Zealand history—a self-professed geek, as well—I want to take this opportunity to be able to tell the historical story of Ngāti Hei. This is something that sits within their deed, but it’s actually something that takes a lot of detail—to be able to get your historians into the same room, your kuia, your kaumātua, to be able to get those stories down on paper is a really big thing. So I want to take an opportunity to read some of that historical account so that people out there that are listening, trying to sympathise with the plight of Ngāti Hei, to actually truly understand the hard journey that it’s taken to even still be alive today. To be able to sit here in this House and talk about their Treaty settlement is a feat of nature unto itself. At the last census they identified that only 650 identified as Ngāti Hei. That means that the actions of the Crown which have sought to marginalise Ngāti Hei and wipe them off the face of this planet nearly happened—it actually nearly happened. So I want to start in the historical account and I want the House to know that as this goes through the House, I hope that we continue to tell their story, their account, their acknowledgments, and, eventually, that sweetness of being able to hear the Crown apology back home, back on their whenua.

In 1836 and 1837, a timber trader made agreements with Ngāti Hei rangatira over lands on either side of the Ounuora River. In 1839, another trader negotiated a land transaction for an area around Tairua. Both claims were investigated by the Land Claims Commission. There were anomalies in the evidence presented to the commissions. The boundaries of the transactions and the goods given in payment to Māori were sometimes unclear. After accepting the commissioners’ recommendations, the Crown awarded almost 7,000 acres of land in which Ngāti Hei had interests to European claimants. As a result, Ngāti Hei lost much of their coastal whenua.

Between 1858 and 1865, the Crown purchased Ahuahu, otherwise known as Great Mercury Island, from other Hauraki iwi. That’s right, not Ngāti Hei—other Hauraki iwi. There is no evidence that Ngāti Hei were consulted about this purchase or that they received payment for their customary interests in this land.

Between 1859 and 1865, the Crown bought over 20,000 acres of land in the Ngāti Hei rohe. The Crown did not provide reserves for Ngāti Hei, nor did it require any assessment as to whether Ngāti Hei retained adequate land for their needs. Between 1870 and 1890, 15 large blocks with 1,000 acres or more, totalling over 93,000 acres, were permanently alienated from Ngāti Hei. The Crown purchased 12 of those blocks, which amounted to over 81,000 acres in total.

In 1885, the Ngāti Hei owners of Kūaotunu 3 entered into a lease arrangement with a timber felling company. The owners considered that the lease gave the company only the right to harvest timber. The owners claimed that the company had deliberately misled them over the contents of this lease, which included rights to land. The timber company took its case to the Validation Court in 1895. Ngāti Hei incurred considerable costs attending the court hearing in Auckland. The court rejected the timber company’s case. At the same time, the Crown was in the process of purchasing interests in Kūaotunu 3. The Crown refused to give Ngāti Hei a reserve at Te Whauwhau, partly on the basis that there had been no reserve granted in the lease, despite the lease having no legal standing.

There has been a history of extractive industry in the Ngāti Hei rohe, including kauri logging, kauri gum digging, flax milling, gold mining, and fishing. Ngāti Hei have derived little long-term benefit from these industries and the damage done to the environment in their rohe is a source of grievance for them.

In 1923, Ngawhira Tanui of Ngāti Hei wrote to the Crown to ask for a survey of Ohinau Island for the purpose of taking her claims for ownership to the Native Land Court. The Crown reacted by delaying the Native Land Court hearings while it surveyed the island and then took it under the Public Works Act of 1908. Although the Crown needed only a small part of that land for a lighthouse, it acquired the whole 72-acre island.

By the end of the 20th century, Ngāti Hei were virtually landless. The resulting marginalisation of Ngāti Hei, including loss of te reo Māori, educational underachievement, sickness, and socio-economic deprivation, caused the iwi much suffering. The Crown’s discouragement of te reo Māori, along with the fragmentation of Ngāti Hei tribal structures and the migration from ancestral lands, severely impacted Ngāti Hei’s ability to pass mātauranga Māori on to their mokopuna.

That there is the summary of the historical account. I hope that people here in this House, fellow colleagues, parliamentarians, but also those people that are listening to this and will continue to listen to this into the future, I hope they understand the depth of this historical account. I hope that they understand that when you alienate a people from their land, as the Crown has done over a very long time now, it serves to displace the people that originally inhabited those lands.

I look forward to progressing this through to the Māori Affairs Committee in what little time we’ve got left of this Parliament. I look forward to Ngāti Hei being able to tell their story in their own authentic way. I look forward to hearing from other iwi who believe that they may be impacted by this settlement. I look forward to that whole process. This is the moment where we pull the bandage off and we have a look at the hakihaki underneath and we try and chart a pathway forward. It’s going to be maybe a bit triggering for some of the remaining members of Ngāti Hei to be able to hear these stories, but it needs to be done for them to be able to get to the point where they hear a Government apology out of the mouth of our Minister Andrew Little, the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations—I acknowledge him for bringing this to the House—but also for them to be able to move forward and seize the future opportunities. And while it might sound good to those people that look at what the redress looks like, we in this House know that it will never ever account for the injustice that happened through structures that this Parliament, this Crown, put in place to absolutely marginalise and wipe out these people. It will never ever compensate for that.

But I acknowledge, again, Ngāti Hei for their perseverance in going through this process that the Crown marginalised them out of in the first place and that the Crown’s trying to do and trying to fix it up so that we can move forward together with opportunities. And can I say that there are some opportunities in there, co-governance opportunities, as well, for the iwi to have to work with local councils back home in the Coromandel, and that may be very triggering and very scary for some members of the community out there. But I’m a firm believer that when you have historical grievance like this, the only way forward is together, and I acknowledge Ngāti Hei for even wanting to continue to go on this journey with the Crown, who were the ones that actually perpetrated the injustice in the first place.

I acknowledge you. I wish you well on your journey going forward. I wish you well on conversations around what co-governance looks like. You are truly heroes in this equation, in this kaupapa. And I acknowledge all of those that have passed on in recent years, because they haven’t been able to be here today to be part of this journey.

Nō reira huri huri noa i tēnei Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Mauri ora ki a tātou katoa.

[And so, to all four corners of this House, thank you once, thank you twice. And may the force be with us all.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Kia ora. Our next call is a split call. I call on Sam Uffindell for five minutes.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to acknowledge everyone from Ngāti Hei up in the audience today; welcome here to our Parliament. It’s fantastic to have you here in attendance for what I’m sure is an incredibly historic day for you as you progress here, so well done, and thank you very much for being here. I won’t speak with the eloquence of Tāmati, who is just leaving the Chamber, but I recognise what he has said, and I saw a lot of nodding when he was speaking, so I’m sure a lot of what he said meant a lot to you.

The purpose of this is the final settlement of the historic Treaty claims of Ngāti Hei, resulting from acts or omissions by the Crown prior to 21 September 1992. It includes an agreed historical account, Crown acknowledgments, apology, cultural redress, and financial and commercial redress as well. And I know the part of the country where you hail from—your rohe—I spent a lot of time up there as a child, and it is absolutely spectacular, so you’re very fortunate to be able to call that your home; it is a beautiful, beautiful part of New Zealand.

I note here that as we move forward, there is a fair bit of redress and it may not compensate for what was taken from you back in the 19th century, but I hope through the settlement process that there is a chance for everyone to move forward. And I also hope that through the lands that you receive or the minerals that are contained in them, there is the opportunity there for you to create significant economic benefits for yourself, for your children, for your families and whānau, because it is a beautiful and rich area of New Zealand and there is indeed enormous opportunities in there. So I’m sure you will take them up with both hands and do a fantastic job for future generations. The National Party supports this bill.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Te Paati Māori—Waiariki): Tēnā tātou, tēnā tātou e te Whare. Otirā tēnā koutou, e hika mā. Tēnā koutou kua haramai ā-tinana nei ki tēnei Whare i runga i te āhuatanga o tēnei kaupapa. Ka roa nei koutou e whawhai nei.

Ngā uri o Hei, tēnā koutou. Karanga mai ki tēnei uri o Houmaitawhiti, o Tamatekapua, heke iho, heke iho, heke iho. He uri anō hoki tēnei nō Paikea Ariki i ū rā ki Ahuahu, ka moea a Te Āhuru-moa-i-raka, arā koia anō hoki he honohonotanga i waenga i a tātou. Ngā mihi nui anō hoki, ka tangi tonu ki a rātou kāre i konei i tēnei wā: ngā pakeke, ō koutou tīpuna ka roa nei i roto i te āhuatanga o Ngāti Hei e whawhai nei mō ō koutou whenua, mō tō koutou mana motuhake, mō tō koutou rangatiratanga. Nei rā Te Paati Māori e mihi nei ki a koutou i tēnei rā.

[Greetings to us all, greetings to us all, to the House. Indeed greetings to you, my friends. Thanks to you who have come here in person to this House under the auspices of this initiative. You have been fighting for a long time.

The descendants of Hei, greetings. Call in, welcome, to this descendant of Houmaitawhiti, of Tamatekapua, and on down through the generations. I am also a descendant of Paikea Ariki who landed at Great Mercury Island and married Te Āhuru-moa-i-raka, and that again is another connection between us.]

Ngāti Hei has a profound history. On 12 November 1769, the first written account of a pō’hiri between Māori and Pākehā occurred when Captain Cook was invited to Wharetaewa Pā at Wharekaho in Whitianga. He spent 12 days at Te Whanganui a Hei, measuring the transit of Mercury across the sun, trading, and resupplying his ship. But within 50 years of his arrival, Ngāti Hei numbers would be decimated to less than 100. Ngāti Hei would lose their land, their language, their culture.

Te Paati Māori does not accept that settlements are full and final; we’ve said that in the past and we say that today. Our trauma does not lie in the past. Inequality, poverty, the desecration of Papatūānuku, and the separation of whānau and whakapapa is happening in the present and will continue to be our future if we continue down this track. We also know, too well, the divide and conquer tactics of the Crown, the ignoring and sidelining of whānau, and attempting to pit each other against each other. That is not our tikanga. Ehara nā tātou tērā tū āhuatanga. [That phenomenon is not ours.]

That comes from a Crown process that we have to try and navigate our way through. It’s difficult; it’s difficult for this claim and it’s difficult for other claims. Divisions that are engineered by the Crown negotiation policies like large natural groupings and the fiscal envelope that was based on the monetary stipulations in 1991—it’s now 2023, but they continue to use the same fiscal envelope that was in 1991-1992.

The settlement, as others have also done, includes a particular insulting practice of vesting properties—just give it all back.

Koina te kōrero: whakahokia atu. I riro whenua atu; hoki whenua mai. Me pērā pea taku kōrero.

[That’s the assertion: return it. Land was taken; land returned. Perhaps that should be my statement.]

Never mind all this other rubbish. I can’t wait to go to the select committee and have that discussion, because it is unjust, it is dishonourable, and that is what this Crown is—always has been, always will be. These types of practices—the honouring of the Tiriti o Waitangi say, “Te Tiriti o Waitangi is not for settling”. Āe, it is not for settling; it’s for honouring. Koina te mahi. [That’s the job.]

Honour Te Tiriti, not settle Te Tiriti. And that’s a message to everybody in this House: we didn’t sign that Treaty for you to settle it, we signed that Treaty for you to honour it. So it’s now time to honour it, and ensure that we don’t just get 1 percent of our due. Where’s the 99 percent? So full and final settlement must never ever be something that we settle for, because our mokopuna must be around to fight for the other 99 percent.

Koinei te kōrero ki a tātou, e hika mā; koinei te tū a Te Paati Māori.

[This is what I have to say to us all, my friends; this is the position of Te Paati Māori.]

Our mana motuhake policy ensures that the Treaty settlement process is not full and final; ensures that everybody gets relativity as Ngāi Tahu and Waikato did, because it’s about mana ōrite; ensures that we don’t just get 1 percent, and that our mokopuna are there to fight for the other 99 percent. These are the roadblocks that the Crown puts in front of us; these are the injustices. I can’t wait to have this argument within the select committee because I have the honour of sitting on that committee to ensure that our voice is heard on that particular space.

E Ngāti Hei, kua pau te waho ki a au, engari nei rā te mihi atu ki a koutou, ki a koutou ka roa nei e whawhai nei ki tēnei kaupapa. Anei rā, i runga i te ara whanaunga, e mihi nei, e tangi nei, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Ngāti Hei, my time has run out, but I’d like to acknowledge you, you who have been fighting this fight for a long time. Here, on the path of kinship, I acknowledge you, I grieve with you, thanks to you all.]

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): E mihi ana ki a koutou kua tau mai nei i runga i te karanga o te kaupapa o te ra, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you all who have arrived here today for the purpose of this matter, thank you once, thank you twice, and thank you thrice.]

It is moments like these that I do see hope in this House. I also see the challenge and hear the frustration from my colleague across the floor, Rawiri Waititi, who just spoke. Who am I to speak on this? And I do often question myself. Take my words lightly; take them on or let them go, because they are mere words today in this House.

I want to acknowledge Ngāti Hei, to acknowledge the ancestors of Ngāti Hei, who have gone before you, both long before, recently, and even today. For those of you who are here in this place or are here at this time, I acknowledge you and the work—the mahi—you have done to get us here today.

As has been mentioned, I want to acknowledge the previous Minister, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and the current Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, who comes from a place that I come from, from Taranaki. I am an MP who now lives in a region that has gone through this process, and all eight iwi have come to a place of settlement. But I hope that this is a place of hope in a future, and I do hold those words “full and final” lightly, because I see it as being about a place of launching to what the future can be—the past that shouldn’t have been, but a future that is to be—and it is one that is prosperous, it is one that is inclusive, and it is one that will see future generations grow and thrive.

So I want to acknowledge those who are to come from Ngāti Hei; to acknowledge your tamariki, your rangatahi, your pēpē; to acknowledge those who won’t be born for generations but who, I hope, when they are born on to this whenua, on to your whenua, in generations to come, will see this day not as the process into a full and final settlement but as a process around reclaiming the mana of your people—a time of re-empowering, of enabling, of enlivening your story, your whakapapa, your ancestors, and those to come.

I hope that your generations who are to come will look back at this time and will learn from what has been. We talk about the wrongs of the past, and we talk about the historic nature of hundreds of years that have gone on and what pain we in this building have caused, but that is still something that exists today and something that we as a Government, that we as a House of Representatives, need to lean into to ensure that, yes, we have done wrong, but there are still things going on today that we must address, that I must address as Pākehā, as someone who has had the privilege of living on your whenua.

This is about breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, but this is about the future and how we can move forward together. And, no, we can’t right what has been wronged, but we need to acknowledge it, and my people and I need to learn and to step on to that bridge, and cross that bridge that is around partnership, that is around friendship, that is around honouring something that we signed, that my people signed more than 180 years ago.

I support this and I acknowledge the people of Ngāti Hei and I commend this to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. First, my acknowledgment to Ngāti Hei and your negotiators that have come here today and the work that you’ve gone through on behalf of your people over many years. It takes a lot to get to that stage where people agree to have that negotiation and it takes a lot to get to the stage where you actually get to a negotiated settlement. So we pay tribute to you for your leadership, for your whānau going forward, and also to the negotiators from the Crown for the work that they did as well. So thank you and it’s an honour for us in this House to be here with you today.

As you can hear, there are some people that have a great understanding of the history and the communities involved, and there are some people that have less of an understanding but a willingness to see a solution that is enduring going forward. There are many points of view, whether it is an enduring solution or there’s more work to be done, and those things will not be sorted in this room here today. They are things that will develop over time, I’m sure, as this country develops in the future. But then, in total, you have the support of this House for this settlement and for the start that it gives and the redress and the apology that it starts the process of healing around.

We’ve heard a couple of speakers that have gone through the deed of settlement and talked about some of the history around that land. As a farmer, your family’s first, but farming the land’s second. You just can’t fathom the pain that would be involved in some of the actions that have been taken, the losses that have been incurred, not only for your iwi but around the country. It is actually something that is amazing to see that we actually get to this stage after what’s actually happened. But in saying that, we’ve got to move on and this is part of that process. To see the settlement there gives a starting point, I guess, for Ngāti Hei going forward.

When we look at the area, I can’t say I have too much relationship with the eastern Coromandel. It’s a long way away from Hamilton in some ways, even though many Hamiltonians spend more time there than I do. But it is a wonderful part of our country, and no redress can ever give back for what that land and those communities and the physical attributes of that area actually mean to Ngāti Hei. The compensation in here of $8.5 million is really broken down into a share of a station, effectively, and that is a starting point, I guess, to enable greater development there. A house in that area can sell for $8.5 million—that’s the reality of what has actually happened in that area over that period of time.

So it will never compensate, I’m sure. And there’s another settlement—the Hauraki settlement—that you will be part of that may be part of that agenda as well. But I guess when Tama Potaka told about the 600 people and many not having their own home, many on low incomes, there’s a lot of work to be done there to build that community up to a position where there is that independence. And that, I guess, is what everybody in this room wishes to see for all our people is to be able to run and live independent lives where they are able to make their own future. So in no way will this ever compensate for what has been lost, but we acknowledge the spirit of Ngāti Hei, the way you’ve come and made this starting process, and we look forward to the progress that you will make in the future as future generations continue to build and work on what your legacy is that you’ve set today. It is not finished—the job is not finished for you. It will continue, but I’m sure that over time you will get the benefits of that, and we thank you for the ability for us to be part of that journey for you. Thank you.

SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Whakawā. Whai korōria, hareruia ki a Ihowa o ngā mano, te Matua, Tama, Wairua Tapu me ngā anahera pono me te Māngai. Tatū ki ngā tūākana wairua, Ārepa, Ōmeka, Piriwiritua, Hamuera, ko te Māngai kei roto āke, āke tonu atu.

Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou ngā uri o Ngāti Hei. Mihi ki ngā tūpuna me ngā mate kei runga i a koutou kua tae mai ki tēnei rā, kia mihia, kia tangi’ia i roto i tēnei rā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā kaumātua, kuia, pakeke, rangatahi, tamariki me ngā mokopuna. Kei te harikoa au kua tae mai koutou ki te rongo ki te pānuitanga tuatahi o tō koutou whakaaetanga, whakataunga i roto i tēnei Whare e tū nei.

Otirā tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. Glory, halleluiah to Jehovah of the multitudes, Father, Son, Holy Spirit and the true angels and the Mouthpiece. To the spiritual seniors, Alpha, Omega, Willie who persevered, Samuel, with the Mouthpiece in forever and ever.

Many thanks to you the descendants of Ngāti Hei. Greetings to the ancestors and the dearly departed upon you who have arrived here today, so that they may be acknowledged and grieved for on this day. Thanks and greetings to all of you.

Greetings to all of you, the patriarchs, matriarchs, elders, young people, children and grandchildren. I am happy that you have arrived to listen to the first reading of your agreement, settlement in this House that stands here.

Indeed, greetings and thanks to all of you.]

It is with peaceful and happy spirits that I acknowledge uri o Ngāti Hei—those who have passed, those today, and those yet to come—and speak on this first reading of your claim.

The vision of Ngāti Hei is aspirational. That is to preserve and enhance what has been handed down to them and for those yet to come. They wish to preserve and share Ngāti Hei’s unique—and it is very unique—history, to retain the lands and their cultural taonga inherited from their tūpuna. This includes holding on to and building up their people’s knowledge of te reo Māori and tikanga. “Whakapapa binds us together.”—that is what I have found on the website of Ngāti Hei.

I acknowledge my own whakapapa. My father died when I was three years old. I was raised by my mother on Te Awa Tupua o Whanganui, of which I place here today a mauri kōhatu given to me by my whānau of the awa to guide, to nurture, to manaaki this journey as I share with you, uri Ngāti Hei. Sadly, I know little about my Papa, Joseph Peke, and Nana Sophie. But what I do know and acknowledge is my whakapapa to Ngāti Tamaterā and his whenua. I acknowledge that toto that flows in your veins, in our veins.

The summary of history, the background, dates back to 1836 and to 1923. It’s a very, very long, long time. The settlement is grounded in the Crown’s acknowledgment of this history, and, as mentioned by colleagues earlier on, it has taken far too long. The settlement entails Crown acknowledgments and apology, cultural redress, and significant relationships. It includes a collective redress and a financial commercial redress. Within that is the transfer of shares of Whenuakite Station, jointly, with Ngāti Tamaterā. I acknowledge the negotiators, in particular the late Peter Tiki Johnston and his son today, Peter Matai Johnston, and Joe Davis. It’s a challenging task for any iwi to negotiate, at the best of times, this construct, this system of colonialism that we have to endure.

Having experience on a post-settlement governance entity (PSGE) of one of my tribes, I want to acknowledge the trustees of the Ngāti Hei PSGE. I know how much sacrifice, how much determination, how much perseverance, and how much courage it takes to fill those roles—tēnā koutou katoa. Thank you to the Crown negotiators and all those involved. I look forward to the settlement making its way through the Māori Affairs Committee and through the Whare, and bringing hope and the fulfilment of Ngāti Hei’s aspirations.

Nō reira ngā manaakitanga me te aroha ki a koutou ngā uri me ngā whanaunga. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[So care and compassion to you, the descendants and family members. Greetings and thanks to all of us.]

I commend this to the House, kia ora.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 6 to Minister, 8 June

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Minister of Housing): Point of order. I seek leave to correct an answer given on Thursday, 8 June.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: In reply to question No. 6 on Thursday, 8 June, I inadvertently gave incorrect information. I stated that the healthy homes standards do not apply to boarding houses. In fact, the healthy homes standards do apply to boarding-house tenancies. The regulation for healthy homes standards made under the Residential Tenancies Act took effect in boarding-house tenancies from 1 July 2021. They will take effect for Kāinga Ora tenancies and community housing tenancies from 1 July 2024.

Question No. 8 to Minister

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Point of order—Madam Speaker, point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh! Point of order, the Hon Ginny Andersen—just in time!

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an oral answer from question No. 8 today.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: In response to Nicole McKee’s primary question today, I stated that 26 vehicles were seized under the Government’s new legislation. I should have said that 26 vehicles were, in fact, searched.

House in Committee

House in Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Grocery Industry Competition Bill, the Charities Amendment Bill, the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill, and the Business Payment Practices Bill.

Bills

Grocery Industry Competition Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 16 May.

Part 5 Miscellaneous (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the House is in committee on the Grocery Industry Competition Bill. When we were last considering this bill, we were debating the question that Part 5 stand part.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I just wanted to confirm that we can talk about Supplementary Order Paper 353?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Yes, we can, at this part.

ANDREW BAYLY: We can. OK. Obviously, a number of changes have been proposed in the Supplementary Order Paper 353. There’s two issues I just want to pick up on: most of this is pretty self-explanatory, but I just want to refer to clause 64—there’s a new term put in here under 64(1)(a), which refers to “and … ancillary services”. I’d be quite keen if the Minister could take the opportunity just to explain exactly what the intent of that is; and then there’s obviously quite significant changes to subclause (4)—hopefully the Minister can just give us a bit of the insight into those specific changes.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): So the advice that I have, Andrew Bayly, is that clause 64 is part of Part 3, not Part 5. So I’ll give you another call to talk about another part—within Part 5, please.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): OK, I’m just picking up on this new Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). Maybe the other aspect I was just keen to talk about is actually clause 163, which is in Part 5. So there’s been a change under this SOP as well, which introduced the concept that whilst it’s intended that there will be a Grocery Commissioner, in many respects that person will operate alone. Under the SOP change, there’s now the introduction of two or more members of the commission and it then sets out when that takes place. I’d just like to hear from the Minister: is that at the discretion of the commissioner, who in some cases can either request it and it’s got to be agreed to by the commissioner? And I’m talking about the overall commerce commissioner, not the Grocery Commissioner. But just what is the arrangement for when two or more commissioners may be asked to undertake specific roles as set out in clause 163(2) specifically?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. The powers of the commission have been pretty well traversed last time we were in committee, but clause 163(2) makes it relatively clear that this is at the request of the Grocery Commissioner, and I wouldn’t want to, in this House, fetter any discretion that the commissioner might have in making the decision of when that’s necessary.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Just to be clear, I think if I just take—reinterpreting what the Minister said: is it correct, my understanding, that if the Grocery Commissioner requests two or more, then the two additional commissioners need to, or have to, be appointed? Or is it also subject to the Commerce Commission commissioner’s approval as well? How is that mechanism triggered?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): It’s self-explanatory in clause 163(1)(b). They are two or more other members of the commission. They’re, of course, going to be existing members.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well, I’m struggling with that. I’m not quite sure that was my question—I know there’s two or more.

Look, we have traversed this, and I’d like to ask the question again, but I don’t think the Minister is going to answer the question. Maybe he doesn’t know the answer, but the final thing—obviously, we debated this bill substantially the last time it was before the House. My final question around this grocery bill—and it was the one I wanted to ask right at the end of the last session—is what assurance can the Minister give the committee that the Grocery Commissioner, who’s in the process of being recruited, will have the requisite skills of really understanding the grocery trade, and we don’t necessarily end up with getting people who, particularly, have a legal background or who may have an economics background, but we actually end up with someone who has a real, in-depth understanding of the grocery trade? Because we’ve made it clear, in our support of this bill, that one of the most critical aspects of this bill is to have the appointment of an appropriate person with the appropriate skills and experience of the grocery trade to make this role meaningful.

We are concerned that we may end up with someone who has a general understanding of the grocery trade and may have specific skills either legally or economically. But, actually, that’s not what our support was predicated on, because we believe that for this role to be effective over time, it requires someone with very detailed working knowledge of the grocery trade. What assurance can the Minister give to the committee that that type of person will be recruited by the Commerce Commission?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very happy to answer these questions. Obviously clause 163, in terms of the powers of the Grocery Commissioner, makes it clear that the Grocery Commissioner may appoint an additional two commissioners, but, of course, “must” if the powers in subclause (2) are being exercised—and they’re set out for Mr Bayly to read. In terms of his advice to me on the appointment of the commissioner, all I can say is that those are things that I’m holding very much in the forefront of my mind and that the appointments process is well progressed, and I can assure him he need have no concerns that the appointment won’t be of a person well-equipped for the role.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just looking at clause 167, “Commission must have regard to economic policies of Government”, and wanting to be quite careful that we don’t end up politicising a Public Service role by putting them through. It notes there that “the commission must have regard to any economic policies of the Government”, so I am just hoping to hear from the Minister around what this may entail and what advice he has sought and received around how that would look. If you could give a couple of practical examples, that would be appreciated. Thank you, Minister.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I’m happy to answer that. It’s not unusual for the Government to make expectations clear to independent entities, and this clause 167 makes it clear exactly how that should happen. For example, it’s a clear Government priority, in the current environment, to have a lowcarbon, highly productive economy, and those kinds of directions could quite easily be given to the Grocery Commissioner to outline the Government’s economic priorities and to make sure that any actions taken by the commissioner are consistent with that.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): I asked for a couple of examples there, Madam Chair, and the Minister came back and said, “Oh, you know, high-level, lowcarbon economy” sort of feedback on that. But I’m wondering how that applies to what this is actually about here, which is making sure that the grocery prices that these big supermarkets can charge—and what the New Zealand taxpayer or the New Zealand consumer pays—how that is addressed through that. Because from what I understand, that is what we are trying to address here, right? So to say that the commission will have regard for a low-carbon economy, I’m not really sure that that’s actually addressing what we are trying to address here, which is making sure that New Zealand families aren’t getting fleeced when they go to the supermarket. Thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well, I’m so glad the Minister actually tried to address my questions because it became illuminating. So from what I understand—I think I’m correct in my interpretation—the Minister just stated that the Grocery Commissioner, which is a warranted position, is able to appoint two additional commissioners. So my question then becomes, because I’ve perhaps had an assumption that he or she—the Grocery Commissioner—may rely on existing commissioners within the Commerce Commission, because there are a number of commissioners. Is it the Minister’s view—and it’s a genuine question—are we talking about the appointment of further commissioners who are not currently existing commissioners of the Commerce Commission, and, if so, is that a new warranted position?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I’ve already answered that question quite clearly; I’d invite Mr Bayly to read the Hansard.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): OK. Well, thank you very much for that short and unhelpful reply. I hope, in the spirit of trying to get a good bill—I think the Minister’s showing a great deal of insensitivity and poor order—my next question to the Minister: is he able to provide the committee with some indication of when the Grocery Commissioner might be appointed? Hopefully, the Minister will move and resist the temptation to be rude and insulting to the committee.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): I’m still waiting for an adequate response back from the Minister on clause 167 and what some tangible examples would be; I didn’t receive any last time. Thank you.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): To Mr Uffindell: I did give him a tangible example of the Government policy, but I won’t presuppose what it will be in the future.

To Mr Bayly: as I said, the appointment of the Grocery Commissioner is well progressed. It, of course, won’t happen before this legislation’s passed.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you. To the Minister: just the way the bill is written, would I be right in saying that the designation should apply to cooperatives only—not, for example, Gilmours, who is a wholesaler—that the supplier obligations would fall on all cooperatives only, not the bits that make it up?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I wonder if the member can state his question again. I couldn’t really hear what he was asking.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): It’s just for the Commerce Commission direction. The way the bill is written at the moment, the supplier designation should only apply to cooperatives, and not someone like Gilmours, who’s a wholesaler food service. But the supplier vocations, if correct, should fall on all the cooperatives only, not all the individual bits that make up the supply chain.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): My understanding here is that the bill is intended to capture grocery retailers. Gilmours is a wholesaler, and so the main object of this bill is to generate competition in the retail grocery market.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): How does the Government believe that a regulator can set and enforce regulated prices across thousands of individual grocery products, many of which will be perishable and of varying quality?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Mr Smith raised this point on a number of occasions in the last sitting of the committee, and there is no proposed price-setting, price-fixing here. There is a regulatory backstop that will be a last resort; it’s highly unlikely.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 353 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 359 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 105

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment to the amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 as amended be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 105

New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Part 6 Amendments to other legislation

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to Part 6. This is the debate on clauses 190A to 204 and Schedule 3, “Amendments to other legislation”. The question is that Part 6 stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Part 6 as amended stand part.

Part 6 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 1 as amended stand part.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 2 as amended stand part.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 3 stand part.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to the debate on clauses 1 and 2. Clauses 1 and 2 is the debate on the title and commencement.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Charities Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 31 May.

Part 1 Amendments to Charities Act 2005 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to further consideration of the Charities Amendment Bill. When we were last debating this bill, we were debating Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 30 and the Schedule: “Amendments to Charities Act 2005”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just wanting to ask the Minister in the chair about clause 13A and specifically what was envisaged in terms of the information that could be prevented or restricted from being released, just so that there is clarity around what was intended from the inclusion of this clause, please?

So I would like further clarity of that section, and perhaps—to allow the Minister time to consider that, if I can just bring to the committee some of the issues that have been raised in this process and why there is some significant frustration with the charity sector with this legislation. Of course, I do want to put on record that it is National Volunteer Week, and it is predominantly volunteers who are involved with the charitable sector that will be on the receiving end of this somewhat disappointing piece of legislation. And volunteers—21 percent of New Zealanders volunteer in some way, shape, or form, and they really add to the richness of the communities that we live in. So I do want to specifically just put on record from Sue Barker Charities Law, who is a specialist in this field, and the view that there is a very large disconnect between how the Department of Internal Affairs views the Charities Act and how the vast bulk of the sector actually views it.

The submissions—and we heard from many organisations—made it very clear that the fundamentals of the Act are not sound, and that the definition of “charitable purpose” is not working well, and that was why when the Labour Party announced a first-principles review, or promised it, in 2017—it was welcomed by the sector, and their view was that the first-principles review is very much needed if the intent was to support charities to continue their vital contribution to community wellbeing. The National Party definitely wants to put on record that we want to ensure that charitable organisations are able to focus on their charitable works as opposed to another regulatory burden; an oversight that it is unclear whether it will add any value.

So the question that Sue Barker Charities Law put in her submission, which is perhaps the question I can ask the Minister in the chair, is: how can we determine whether the Act is fit for purpose when we do not have agreement on what that purpose is? And that’s fair to say, so it would be good to have a view from the Minister in the chair about that, as well as my earlier question, very specifically about 13A and about the intention of that particular inclusion: what was envisaged, what problem was going to be solved, and is there any appeal if information should be disclosed that is not?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, I’ll just say very quickly—I totally agree with the member’s sentiment around the amount of valuable work the volunteers do and that it is National Volunteer Week. In fact, it’s over 50 percent of New Zealanders who volunteer, and I’ll just say a very huge thankyou to them all.

The point that the member raised—or the clarification that was sought—was around clause 13A, which amends section 25 of the Act. That gives the chief executive (CE) discretion to remove information from the register if the CE considers there would be, for example, safety implications therein. So if it is considered to be in the public interest that information is either prevented or restricted, the CE has the ability to do so, and that’s what clause 13A is about.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like a response to the very clear comments from Sue Barker Charities Law. Of any of the submissions, I think hers was the most substantial—and also the time and energy that went into making recommendations and drafting to assist officials and to assist the Government alternative options. So I would ask the Minister in the chair: how is it that we can determine whether the Act is fit for purpose when there’s no agreement on what that purpose is?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I have said this previously, as part of this committee of the whole House stage—that we are here to debate clauses of the bill and not to re-litigate the review that was done some years back. I will state that there is considerable support from many within the sector for what we’re trying to do here through this bill, which is to support small charities to do their work—to reduce, for example, the compliance burden—but to strike a balance between that and ensuring the public continues to have trust and confidence in the sector.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s not really answering the question, but there we go. I want to now turn to new section 42G inserted by clause 20, which is the “Duty to review governance procedures”. And again, rather than just use my voice, I want to bring some of the submitters—and some of them are well-known organisations and they do exist with lots of volunteers. In terms of the two different statistics that have been quoted in the House, for those who are wondering, the 21 percent is kind of registered, if you like, or quantifiable volunteering, whereas the 50 percent is much broader than that. And that’s why there’s a difference of figures.

OK, coming to Age Concern, for example, their view on the annual review of governance rules and procedures—and this is why I made the comment about none of us really wanting charitable organisations to be bound up with further rules and regulations that prevent their ability to do the job. And several of them really questioned whether or not the annual review of governance procedures was necessary, because it would be onerous and place an additional burden on charities. I know this was amended to at least three years, but there did seem to be in the submissions a view that perhaps these charitable organisations and the governance didn’t really understand what their role was. And I think, with the tone of some of these submissions, it was that they weren’t trusted to govern their organisations well or to know what they needed to do to meet the terms of its rules and purpose of their trust. And I refer in this instance to the Breast Cancer Foundation of New Zealand and whether or not the intention is, as proposed by the Breast Cancer Foundation, to support the development of a best-practice guide that could include a governance framework for charities, as opposed to adding yet another duty or responsibility on to the charitable sector.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s the struggle of a Green MP to have to juggle between different committees, being here and on Standing Orders. I just want to quickly have an intervention and ask about the appeals rights. Because what we’ve heard is that part of the selling point of this bill is that it enables charities to be able to have an appeal process for decisions of the commission. And yet my understanding, and what came through in submissions, was that actually there have been three previous attempts to prescribe appeal rights. And in every single instance, this Parliament has rejected attempts to prescribe appeal rights.

I’d like to quote from the select committee that considered this previously, which noted, “It should be possible to appeal all decisions of the commission that adversely impact on a particular entity. So, in fact, it is the view of many submitters that the prescription in this bill, while being presented as an extension, is actually a limitation on appeal rights.” And I’d really like to hear the Minister’s response to that.

I understand again that when the commission was disestablished in 2012, the Department of Internal Affairs tried to limit appeal rights and failed at that point in time to do that again, and again in 2016 there was another attempt that this Parliament rejected. And I understand that the feedback from the sector was almost unanimous that all decisions by charity services should continue to be subject to appeal and that comparable regulatory regimes allow an appeal against all decisions. So I would really like to understand how, in the name of building better relationships and trust, this Government would present a bill, and a provision in the bill that’s been rejected by this Parliament three times, that actually limits appeal rights rather than extends them.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): While we wait for the Minister to address the concerns, and I am sorry that my colleague also is waiting for an answer on her questions—the Green Party, the ACT Party, and the National Party have worked closely in the select committee to try and get some improvements on this bill, and we will continue trying.

So I now turn to the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust, another favourite community organisation or charitable organisation.

Hon Scott Simpson: Love those trees.

LOUISE UPSTON: Absolutely love those trees, and I love those protected areas and the landowners that then put their land into the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust for future generations are incredibly generous in their gift to the nation. So with that generosity, how does the Government repay them? By expecting that they undertake a review of their governance on a regular basis, which, in the words of the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust, “create[s] an unnecessarily heavy administrative burden.”

Unfortunately, what happens when legislation has changed, the two winners are the lawyers and the accountants—and that’s not to have any negative say about lawyers and accountants; there are sufficient in my extended family to embrace them with loving kindness. But I do think when we are talking about National Volunteer Week and all of the amazing work that our volunteer organisations and our charitable sector do, it is a bit rough to then, in their words, “to create an unnecessarily heavy administrative burden.”

And the other point that they made very carefully, and I’m interested in the Minister’s answer to this, is when there is another legislative framework that governs an organisation such as this one, which legislation takes the priority? Which one is the superior legislation? Because the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust say, “A further layer of regulatory requirement has the potential to duplicate or conflict with our existing legislative requirements.” So I’d like the Minister in the chair to answer the question: if there is another piece of legislation that governs the charitable organisation, does that take precedence over the Charities Amendment Bill or not?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): There have been a few questions or comments that have been made that I will clarify. Firstly, to the final point made by Louise Upston, the changes that are being made here only pertain as far as the decisions or the issues under the Charities Act. So that’s one.

Secondly, the member’s question around new section 42G inserted by clause 20 and the requirement: there was, of course, an amendment that was made from annual to at least within a three-year window. And I think the member did acknowledge that that was a select committee recommendation and a change that we made subsequently. It basically goes to the point that I made already in this Chamber, which is around the need to ensure that the public continue to have trust and confidence in the sector. Part of that is also supporting organisations, particularly small charities, in terms of continuing with their good governance journey and improving capability there. And so new section 42G creates a duty for the charitable entity to review its governance procedure at least every three years. I don’t consider that that will be particularly onerous.

When conducting that review, the entity must consider whether its governance procedures are fit for purpose. So it’s really about the fact that good governance in the charitable sector is important, as I’ve mentioned, in terms of the public interest in charities and public accountability as well. Governance capability, we know—and I know, coming from the sector myself, that sometimes it can be limited, particularly with small volunteer-run charities. And that’s why the change was made to at least within a three-year window.

Finally, on the point made by the member Jan Logie around appeals, we have expanded the decisions that can be appealed. Previously it was—under the current legislation, it’s decisions made by the Charities Registration Board. That has now been expanded to include some decisions made by the chief executive as well. It would not be efficient to allow all decisions to be appealed, because charity services, for example, will need some decisions to enable them to carry out their compliance and enforcement function, particularly when they need to commence an investigation.

MELISSA LEE (National): It’s my first opportunity to take part, and I would signal that I haven’t been part of the select committee process. But, having actually looked at the bill, I have a question, starting from new section 12A, inserted by clause 6 in Part 1, where the bill says, “Chief executive to consult on significant guidelines or recommendations”. In the amended version, I’m actually wanting to find out from the Minister whether “The chief executive must consult persons or representatives of persons that the chief executive considers reasonable to consult”—how different that will actually impact on the charities, compared to the previous version, where it says, “The chief executive must consult persons or organisation that the chief executive considers to be representative of the interests of charitable entities”.

The reason I ask that is, when a chief executive of a charitable trust will be working to make sure that the work that they deliver to the entity is of benefit to the charitable trust, they would consult people who would actually help the chief executive. But I’m trying to find out who this person may be that the Minister thinks is actually reasonable for the chief executive to consult. Could it be the cleaner? Could it be the priest at the local church? Could it be the cab driver or any other person that could potentially benefit the charitable trust? I would have hoped that the person that the chief executive consults is somebody that has expertise, who would actually benefit the charitable activity of that charity.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is somewhat frustrating not to have an answer to that question that was asked by my colleague Melissa Lee. So we will keep going. I want to ask the question of the Minister, still on this vein of what was an annual, now three-yearly, review of governance procedures, to understand, if she sees the intended purpose of the bill or objective of the bill being to remove unnecessary red tape for charities, why then, on the other hand, additional red tape for charities is introduced by this legislation; and whether or not—I think there are 114,000 registered charities—the one-size-fits-all, prescriptive approach that has been taken by this legislation actually enables or supports charitable activity or not.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me this call. I spent a bit of time with the Waikato-Tainui charitable cobweb, or charity web, for many years, so it was pleasing to see their submission. One of the points that they raised was why this bill has not addressed the issue of charities being able to advocate for their charitable purpose without fear of losing their charitable status—for example, Waikato-Tainui advocating for the resolution of outstanding claims and Treaty claims and Treaty redress. So that’s a specific question I’d like to ask the Minister. Kia ora.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): On new section 12A, inserted by clause 6, and the point around consultation that Melissa Lee raised, it’s pretty obvious that consultation should be driven by those who will be impacted by the guidelines, and that’s what the chief executive will do.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Louise Upston. If members want to take a call—I’m just on the brink of shutting down the debate and moving on. So if members want to call—

Hon Louise Upston: We’re just waiting patiently in the expectation—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No, no, no, we don’t argue. The Hon Louise Upston.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Point of order, Madam Chair. The committee of the whole House, with the new Standing Orders, was to allow for a conversation between the Minister and the member. I think when the Opposition members are making pithy questions to engage that discussion and the Minister doesn’t stand up, that creates a silence.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yes, thank you. I get the gist of what the member is trying to say, or wanting to say. It is indeed the case that the committees are now being run as more of an inquisitorial forwards and backwards Q and A. It is, however, entirely up to the Minister in the chair as to when and whether they stand to answer a question, and that is my problem: that it is the will of the House whether the debate keeps going, but into a silence I can only conclude that the House is finished, and that is why I am trying to suggest to members that the most helpful—if members still have questions, don’t wait; go ahead and bid.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. So I think instead, I’ll just make a speech, because that might be more useful, if the Minister is not going to answer the questions.

I do think, because of the timing—and I don’t know if it was by accident or deliberate that the committee of the whole House stage is being debated in National Volunteer Week. I went and met with a number of volunteer organisations yesterday, and let me see if I can name them. Project Tongariro, Greening Taupō, Red Cross, St John’s, the Tokoroa Fire Brigade, trustees from a couple of my local schools, Breast Cancer Awareness, Bellyful, Plunket, assistance dogs, hearing disability dogs—who also represent the only dogs assisting in emergency management scenarios—these are organisations that are wide and varied in the service they provide to our community. There are also the hospice and Care NZ, which is predominantly a cat rescue. Those two alone, the hospice and Care, in Taupō, have 370 volunteers—370 volunteers—whose time and energy that I would like to see the Government support.

I don’t want the hospice shop in Taupō to be worried about raising another $20,000 to pay an accountant to ensure that their governance—let me get the words—

Tama Potaka: Sausage sizzles for accountants.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Absolutely! That’s a great expression—“sausage sizzles for accountants”—because what is pretty clear from the submitters, which is why I have consistently gone back to put the voice of the submitters in this committee of the whole House stage, is that they’re quite bewildered in terms of whether or not the Government values their work in terms of defining the problem. Originally, the problem was that the charities bill wasn’t fit for purpose, and that’s why there was a first-principles review that the Labour Party had promised in their election in 2017.

So then the submitters are somewhat puzzled by what the problem is now, because if the bill is fit for purpose, why would you then just lay on more red tape for charities and treat them all as one size and type, knowing that some are incredibly complex and others are not? Others have governing legislation—like, as I mentioned before, the Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust—and others don’t. Waikato-Tainui is a very wideranging charitable organisation who do phenomenal work in the community, and it might actually be that they’ve got accountants that can support their work, but I’d be very surprised if some of the smaller charities do.

So the Government wants those organisations to raise money through sausage sizzles to pay for that, and that’s why I’m going to ask another question. Is that the intention, that funding that has been raised for charitable purposes will now be spent on accountants and lawyers to ensure that the governance review that is required on a three-yearly basis—and I’d like to know if there’s been an estimate of what that will cost the charitable organisations. Yes, I accept that in the select committee it was changed to push it to three years, but what is the estimated cost, Minister, of the duty to review governance procedures every three years for every charitable entity?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I find it incredibly interesting that that member waxes lyrical about the cost that is imposed on charities when it was that member’s party in Government that brought in a change in 2015 that meant that very small charities had to hire accountants because they then suddenly needed to report against the External Reporting Board standard. That is one of the changes that we are proposing through this bill because so many small charities were unable to afford that cost. So it’s a little bit rich, coming from that member.

So what are the changes, the member asks—are we just increasing red tape through this bill? No. So small charities will have their reporting requirements reduced if they fit into specific criteria—which is very small charities—such that they just provide a narrative report and don’t have to report against an onerous standard. That is one of the changes that will be made, which has gone down very well, might I add, with small charities. That’s one.

Secondly, the rules document in new section 42G, inserted by clause 20—again, I’ve already addressed this issue. It’s not a compliance burden. Charitable organisations already have a rules document. This is a point I’ll make because this is an issue that’s been brought up again and again, and I suspect there’s a lack of clarity around the fact that the current Act already requires charities to have a rules document. The only change here is the fact that many have rules documents that are out of date because there hasn’t been a requirement to keep them updated. This goes towards driving better governance.

All this bill does is to ensure that there is a requirement that regularly, charities will continue to comply with what they’re meant to be doing, and it gives them an opportunity to be able to do so. Initially, we thought that perhaps annually would be a good fit, along with reporting requirements, but given the submissions to the select committee, we decided that perhaps we’ll change that to a three-yearly requirement, so there’s a threeyear window for charities to be able to do that within. It’s already there, so there shouldn’t be an additional cost at all or an increase in compliance burden there.

In terms of advocacy, the point that was raised about charitable organisations being able to be involved in advocacy—now, that is out of scope of the bill. But what I will say is that there have been rulings through the Supreme Court on that. Family First comes to mind in terms of the ruling around advocacy, and I’ll leave that there.

I will also address, for the final time, the issue around first principles, because that has come up time and again by members from the Opposition. That is out of scope for this bill. We are here to discuss the clauses that are in this legislation, and not re-litigate a review that took place in 2019 where the consensus then was that the foundations of the legislation were sound, and what we would do was to make tangible changes that would actually benefit the charitable sector while also striking a balance to ensure that the public have trust and confidence in the sector.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’m going to acknowledge my colleague Jan Logie has been the one doing the brunt of the work on this bill; I’m going to do my best to channel her in my contribution and questions. So just touching on new section 42G, inserted by clause 20, regarding the “Duty to review governance procedures”, and following the Minister’s comments, we’re interested in getting a clearer understanding on how does the Minister expect that the charities will be able to demonstrate these reviews have been met when it comes to governance. And then also getting a better understanding of what does the Minister expect to happen if these duties are not fulfilled and are breached. Those two things, I guess, are things that have been fed to me in terms of concerns that exist, and are priorities. So if there’s any comments from the Minister around this that would be helpful, thank you.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): One of the more exciting dynamics of my last three months here in Parliament is listening to all the impressive expectations in legislation—new legislation around Treaty compliance and Māori compliance. And what I thought to ask the Minister was what specific assessment has the Government done to quantify the extra costs and/or voluntary hours for the many Māori organisations who are going to have to comply for this new regime?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to continue along that vein, because we all know in this House the benefits that voluntary organisations provide to our communities. So my question is following up on my colleague Tama Potaka and my earlier question: what is the anticipated cost to each charity of these changes? And if the cost per charity hasn’t been worked out, or is not provided today, what is the cost for the duty to review the governance procedures? And, again, bringing the words of the submitters—so when the Minister, quite disparagingly, commented about the Opposition’s contributions, I would just remind the Minister that I am reading from submitters’ concerns, and it is the submitters who were concerned about the lack of the first-principles review.

This one, though—coming back to what the costs are, because there is a real interest in what those costs are—from Community Housing Aotearoa is very similar to the earlier one which, in terms of the review of procedures, says: “Rather than regulate,” wouldn’t it be more beneficial to have “an educational approach”, or a best-practices approach? Because, as this organisation identifies, “It is already very challenging and timeconsuming to meet the present and ongoing requirements of many legislative reforms. Legislating to enforce this review is excessive.” So those are the words of Community Housing Aotearoa; they are not my words. I am speaking them on their behalf because it is really important that submitters know that their submissions are taken seriously, and although they may not have been in the select committee process, the committee of the whole House is another opportunity.

So I am asking the Minister for the costs, because, obviously, a cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken otherwise this wouldn’t have got through the gate to have even been put before the House. So what are the costs anticipated, on average, for a charity? And if that answer isn’t forthcoming then at least what is the estimated cost to review the governance procedures? And is there a post-implementation review of these costs to identify whether or not they line up with what was anticipated in the original cost-benefit analysis? And if those costs are seen to be excessive, then with any contract the Government has with a charitable organisation, will they cover those costs?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I will say firstly that I do take submitters’ views into consideration, and seriously. I will also say that there are over 100,000 charities in New Zealand, and 28,000 registered charities as well. To the question around cost as a result of clause 20 that inserts new section 42G, I have already addressed this today in the House. I will say again, for the member’s benefit, that there is no anticipated additional cost as a result of this, because the rules document already exists and charitable organisations already have to meet annually and this is not expected to be onerous.

To the point that was made, or the question that was raised earlier in terms of the penalty if organisations don’t comply, I would expect the charities services would work from an educational point of view with charities who require that, and that is something they already do.

MELISSA LEE (National): I’d like to thank the Minister for her answers, and I hope that she will bear with me, considering the fact that I’ve actually initially said, right at the beginning, that I wasn’t part of the select committee and so I’m going with it quite fresh.

The thing that really intrigues me, and the Minister actually said we’re not re-litigating the review, but I just wanted to ask the Minister’s opinion: considering the fact that the review was led by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA)—so, effectively, the review was reviewing itself—when this legislation is looking to create transparency in the charitable sector, is it right that this legislation, this work, is actually based on a review that was done by DIA on its own self, instead of an independent review? Does that actually speak to transparency that this Government is actually talking about?

So I’d like to seek the Minister’s opinion on that, considering the fact that there is actually a huge charitable sector, and my colleague Louise Upston actually listed some of them. But I know that even within the ethnic communities, there are many charitable organisations, too, who do amazing work, particularly during the COVID era, where they were the ones who were providing people faced with difficulties because they couldn’t actually get to do grocery shopping or whatever; they were actually feeding the communities and providing the lifeline that they actually required.

So I’d like to ask the Minister: could she possibly answer whether this actually provides the transparency, especially when the review was done by DIA on itself?

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Minister’s amendments to Part 1, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 357, and tabled amendment to clause 15, be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 62.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Simon O’Connor’s tabled amendment to Part 1 is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 62.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Consequential amendments to other Acts

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to the debate on Part 2. But before I get into this part, I just want to remind the committee and all of those in the committee that the question of relevance in the debate is determined by the Speaker. So relevance is determined in a committee stage by—I will always accept matters that relate to the substance of the bill. If it is a particularly broad-ranging bill and more general in nature, then so is the committee stage debate—just bringing in other aspects which are relevant. It doesn’t mean that the debate will go off on topic. It always has to relate to the bill. Members are used to me bringing them back, but I just want to make it clear that the sole judge of relevance belongs with the Speaker, whoever it is.

So members, again, we come now to the debate on Part 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you for that clarification; that is helpful. So Part 2, I want to ask some questions specifically around the appeals process. As I’ve mentioned in the earlier part, I think this is the bit that concerns the lawyers. I don’t know the last time you got a lawyer’s bill—there’s usually a few fat zeros on the end. So let’s climb into appeals. I want to specifically ask questions—so some of the submitters were happy with the proposal for charities to be able to go to the Taxation Review Authority, but the piece that I want to specifically ask about is the evidence about charities being litigious. I am specifically referring to the Community Networks Aotearoa submission here. There was a statement that the Charities Services—which, for those just tuning in, is part of the Department of Internal Affairs—was concerned about many charities being litigious. And I would like the Minister to address, where is the evidence for that and what is the number of cases that have been taken since the charities commission was first set up? Are there more; are there less? What is the evidence to support that statement?

And the comment also about a fair appeals process being likely to reduce costs due to better structural accountability and therefore trust. And there were quite lengthy discussions in the select committee around the whole right of appeal, so I’d like to start with that first piece around what is the evidence that many charities are litigious.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much. I’d like to ask the Minister in relation to new Part 2A, section 58E, in relation to the “Grounds of appeal and burden of proof”. It talks about “(1) In an appeal,—(a) the appellant is limited to the grounds stated in the notice of appeal; and (aa) the respondent is limited to the grounds stated in the decision appealed against;”. And that looks perfectly reasonable, that you can only talk about or discuss and debate a specific area where the application is actually made. But in relation to section 58E(2), it says “Despite subsection (1), the Authority may, either on the application of the appellant or of its own motion, amend the grounds stated in the notice of appeal.”

I’m not a lawyer; I don’t have a law degree. Maybe the Minister could potentially explain to me why I read into this that it is, in fact, the authority that could potentially shift the goalpost, making it difficult. It’s like changing the rules. It certainly reads that way. So perhaps the Minister could actually explain that to me. So what does that actually mean in practice, that an appellant actually makes notice of an appeal and they have a rule as to what they may discuss and actually apply to the authority to discuss—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! As the member is debating, she’s referring to matters in Part 1. Could the member now move on to Part 2.

MELISSA LEE: It’s 2A, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): So, I’m advised that Part 2A is inserted into the principal Act, which is in Part 1 of that Act.

MELISSA LEE: Point of order, Madam Chair. Obviously, I read that wrong. If that’s the case, does that mean that the Minister doesn’t have to actually answer the question that I just gave her?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): So Part 2, being the consequential amendments to the Taxation Review Authorities Act—so that’s Part 2 of the bill.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Speaking to questions around the Taxation Review Authority, I come back to my comment earlier about what costs are involved for charities, because I think it is really critical that we don’t, through unintended consequences, lay more costs on to charitable organisations. So I would appreciate if the Minister could answer a question, specifically in Part 2, around the Taxation Review Authority and the changes in this part as to what costs may fall on charitable organisations.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Part 2 makes amendments to the Taxation Review Authorities Act 1994. It is actually quite specific. It’s just an amendment to the legislation to allow cases under the Charities Act to be heard. Very quickly what I will say in terms of cost is that the cost currently under the status quo is onerous, can be onerous for many charities, particularly smaller charities because the only record they have is to take their appeals to the High Court. What this change does is add another level of appeal which then means the charities can go to the Taxation Review Authority. It is much cheaper for charities to do that because they can then represent themselves, as opposed to having to hire a lawyer to go before the High Court. So the costs will be reduced, and that’s actually the reason that we’re doing this. It also expands justice to a wider cross-section of charities, particularly smaller ones.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to come back to the Sue Barker Charities Law submissions and just tease further out this issue of whether or not the appeal should be to the Taxation Review Authority or the High Court, and whether or not proposed new section 58X, in new Part 2A, would allow the Taxation Review Authority to refer a case to the High Court on a question of law or on whether the appeal should be heard by the High Court in the first instance. And does that mean—and this is a question I would like answered, please—that, potentially, a charity is having to pursue action in two different courts concurrently, which of course would add to the costs. And I’m specifically referring to a specialist in charities law who was asking the question as to whether or not two proceedings would be required to be filed in two different courts, so the judicial review proceedings in the High Court, and appealing the proceedings in the Taxation Review Authority.

So I would appreciate clarification of that. If that is the case, then clearly that would work against the stated objective of the Charities Amendment Bill—which is to improve access to justice—by limiting choices and adding cost and complexity into the appeal process.

SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do think this particular issue is an important one. The last thing any of us would want to do—well, I’m making a fairly general assumption there—particularly in National Volunteer Week would be to make it even more onerous. So the specific question, again, is: is it intended that charities would have to file proceedings in two different courts concurrently? Because if appeals are restricted to the Taxation Review Authority (TRA), it actually restricts the charities’ ability to access the highest court in the land, and I wondered if that was the intention.

The subsequent comment here is, I think, an important one, and it’s asking the question about whether or not, in drafting this part, charities aren’t trusted to make the decision for themselves as to whether they commence proceedings in the High Court or in the TRA.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I will say, once again, as I said before in response to the member’s question, that Part 2 is very narrow. It actually just makes an amendment to the Taxation Review Authorities Act 1994 to allow the Taxation Review Authority to hear cases under the Charities Act. So that’s literally all this part does.

But to the member’s question around cost, I’ll say that High Court appeals generally cost around $1,200, and appeals to the Taxation Review Authority around $500, so it is much cheaper for charities, and the evidentiary threshold is lower.

In terms of the question that the member asked, there have only been 25 appeals since the Charities Act came into force, and out of that, only two have had a judicial review, so it’s very uncommon to have both.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do think it is important, though, to clarify whether or not the suggestion that I have outlined, in terms of parallel proceedings in two different courts, can actually happen, as with this change to the Taxation Review Authority. If the Minister’s shaking her head and saying no, I think it would be great for that to be clarified for the record, because, as we know, what happens is when there are issues down the track, organisations or lawyers actually look back at the Hansard to determine what Parliament’s intention was.

TAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, now as a reformed lawyer—reform lawyer—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Ha, ha! You’re never reformed.

TAMA POTAKA: —and just checking through the materials in Part 2, the Taxation Review Authority, there was a comment made by Te Whakakitenga o Waikato Incorporated Society—which is the incorporated society for the whole Waikato-Tainui charity web—around the registration board, but the Taxation Review Authority requiring a bit of investment of resource and Government funding to fulfil the new roles under this bill. So there were two questions that emerged out of that for me. One of them was: has there been an assessment of the additional funding that’s going to be required to skill these people up? And, particularly in the case of Waikato-Tainui, the observation that there’s been a dearth of legal training around tikanga Māori and other Māori dynamics that associate with thousands of Māori charities out there—whether or not there’s been consideration given for the Taxation Review Authority to be experienced or upskilled or acknowledged in that space.

SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 62.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 62.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2, set out on Supplementary Order Papers 357 and 362, be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 62.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 62

New Zealand Labour 62.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill

In Committee

Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill.

SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order, Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to start down the back end of the bill, with the infringement offences and the publication of names and information in respect of immigration offences. I’d like to ask the Minister, in relation to new section 383A(1), inserted by clause 10: “the chief executive may, in order to promote the [objectives] of this Act, publish the information specified in subsection (2)”. My first question is to the Minister, if she is able to let us know under what circumstances the chief executive may or may not do this? What is the framework that they’ll be working to as to when they would make a decision to publish and when they wouldn’t?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I just want to begin with some introductory remarks to this bill, and it’s great to be here at the committee stage of the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill. I know that the second reading of this bill provided for a fair bit of robust debate that canvassed the general principles of the bill and allowed members to describe, in general terms, their views about the bill. I just also want to thank the select committee for their consideration of the bill, and submitters who took their time to provide their views as well.

I also want to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled. It makes two small but important amendments to the bill. Both changes relate to the document production power—that’s clause 4 in the bill. The first change confirms the narrow scope of the document production power—I know there was a fair bit of debate about this at select committee as well—and the change there is that it can only be used to require documents relating to the remuneration and employment conditions of migrant workers whose visas an employer has supported.

The second change ensures that information obtained can’t be used to the detriment of migrant workers in an immigration context. These changes, I believe, strengthen the intent of the document production power to ensure, really, the compliance of employers who support a migrant’s visa.

I do also just want to take a moment to acknowledge the member Ricardo Menéndez March from the Green Party. It was his suggestion, in a conversation with me, to strengthen the document production power to the benefit of migrant workers that has really led to us teasing out and introducing this amendment as well. So can I just thank all members for their continued work and advocacy on behalf of migrant workers.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you. I will repeat my question. In relation to new section 383A, inserted by clause 10, “Publication of names and information in respect of immigration offences”, “(1) The chief executive may, in order to promote the objects”—I think it’s supposed to say “objectives”—“of this Act, publish the information specified in subsection (2)”. So my question to the Minister is: what is the framework that the chief executive will be working to, and in what circumstances may they, or may they not, publish this information? I guess the question to the Minister is: is there a seriousness angle to this? Is there some sort of scope as to when they would and wouldn’t? Are there any guidelines? And if she could give some examples of potentially in what cases the chief executive may or may not do that.

My second question is in relation to that same new section 383A: where would this be published? The first question is: they may publish it, but under what circumstances would they or wouldn’t they, and what guidelines are there? And, secondly, where would they publish it? And my third question, keeping with new section 383A: there is a list of things under new section 383A that the chief executive will do when they publish it. This is under subsection (2). The information that may be published is the following: the name of the employer, the employer’s trading name, and a few other things. One of the things that’s missing from there, and I’m wondering if it’s done on purpose—and if it is, why that is—is a description of the infringement.

There are three types of things you might be pulled up on under replacement section 359A(1) inserted by clause 7. The employer “must not (a) allow a person who is not entitled under this Act to work in [their employment]”. Secondly, they must work in a manner that’s consistent with their visa—that’s the second type of infringement. And then the third type is failure to produce the documents. So, in new section 383A(2), there is no requirement in there, as far as I can tell, to explain what type of offence the infringement is. So I’m just wanting to know from the Minister if that was an oversight or why that has been omitted, because, at the moment, you can have your name published to say, “You are an employer, here’s your name, you’ve been issued with an infringement notice”, but it may well be that you just took 11 days rather than 10, or it could be that you allowed someone to work for you who wasn’t supposed to be working for you. They’re quite different offences under the infringement offence, but that detail is not required to be published. So I’m just wondering why that is. So there are those three questions.

I’m going to stay on new section 383A because, if I feel like, if I keep going, the Minister won’t potentially hear what I have to say on the next part of the bill. So, in summary of new section 383A, we’ve got three questions: where would they publish the data? Under what circumstances would they publish the data? Because the word “may” has been included in the bill. And I’d like to know under what circumstances—if there is a severity. And I elaborate on this point because, as with my earlier point, there are different offences that you can do to get an infringement notice. I’m interested in whether or not the chief executive may choose to publish some and not others, depending on the seriousness of those offences. That was the second question. And then the third one: the description of the infringement isn’t required to be published, and they are quite different offences. So I’m keen to know whether that’s been left out on purpose. Thank you.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): New section 383A, inserted by clause 10, that the member Erica Stanford has mentioned, will, basically, enable the chief executive to publish the names, as mentioned, and certain other details of employers who are convicted of offences against the Act or issued with infringement notices in respect of the specific infringement notices in this Act. The whole point of this is really to ensure that we align the frameworks between the Immigration Act and the Employment Relations Act. The point is not to name the conviction or the infringement, but the point is actually the consequences of that and to be able to see that. That is what this particular section allows for.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Well, that leaves my first two questions. The very first question I asked was around “the chief executive may”, and I would like to know under what circumstances the chief executive may or may not. So when he’s deciding—or she, whoever it is—to publish the fact that there has been an infringement notice that has been produced to an offender, under what circumstance would the chief executive make that decision whether or not they would publish or not? Is it to do with the seriousness of the offending? What’s it to do with? The word “may” is, obviously, giving him—or her—some leeway, and I just wanted to know what that leeway was.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to talk very briefly about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 360 that the Government has put forward. I appreciate that this SOP seeks to address one of our concerns with this bill, and, obviously, a great deal of inspiration for that SOP came from my colleague in the Green Party.

So regarding this, it says a new subsection is inserted to ensure that information obtained from an employer under this section cannot be used by the immigration officer or the department to take “adverse action”. So my first question is just around that concept: to take adverse action as opposed to just “action”. I wonder if that’s potentially open to misinterpretation, where an immigration officer may say, “Well, no, I swear, when I was looking at this information, I decided to take action. I didn’t think it would have negative consequences.” Therefore, it’s some sort of loophole. So is that something that the Minister would like to comment on?

And just lastly, despite this added safeguard, covered by this SOP, given action will be, nevertheless, taken against the employer—it clearly spells out that that can happen—how can we be then certain that there won’t be unavoidable consequences against the employee regardless? Because, you know, immigration officers and compliance officers are humans, after all. It’s not like they can forget that they saw something, and it might motivate them to actually investigate somebody directly. So I guess what I’m saying is I’m worried that this SOP in this bill is missing some sort of safeguard to ensure that that doesn’t happen, to ensure that the intent of this SOP actually comes into fruition.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break, and the House will resume at 7:30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is resumed.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just respond to a couple of comments and questions that were raised before the dinner break. There was a question about why it’s “may” in new section 383A, inserted by clause 10—why the chief executive may publish the names in the names on a stand-down list—and it’s really to give the chief executive discretion on a case by case basis to publish or not publish. I mean, essentially, if there is a conviction or an infringement offence issued, then it gives the chief executive authority to publish names on a stand-down list. That is the point of that particular section, but it is also to acknowledge that there could be a requirement to do that on a case by case basis so that there aren’t any inadvertent issues that come out of that.

The other question was around the wording that was used in the Supplementary Order Paper around “adverse action” rather than just “any action”. The point of that is to prevent anything bad happening to migrants if information is disclosed inadvertently but not to prevent immigration officers from extending support to them if required. For example, if they do require a Migrant Exploitation Protection Work Visa, then if the wording was “any action”, it would preclude immigration officers from being able to offer that support.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, and I appreciate the Minister’s response to that. I guess I’ll add that one of the reasons for looking into this and questioning this is that intentions in the immigration space often don’t quite play out in reality.

Immigration officers are well known, from time to time, to get a bit carried away, and I think a good example of this, a good issue to raise, is that I’m sure we all remember back in August 2021, the Government—and we joined in on that—apologised for the Dawn Raids. Now, in that time since that apology, there have been 29 dawn raids, and it’s also important to note that there has not been a single application to the national manager of compliance declined for one of those out-of-hours compliance visits.

So the Government will say one thing; will claim one thing—and Parliament as a whole, in this case—that certain things in immigration are unacceptable. What I was referring to before is the Supplementary Order Paper—the law—may say one thing, but actually what immigration officers do may differ. The Government says one thing; Immigration New Zealand could, in theory, do the opposite. So just like with the Dawn Raids, what’s to stop the same thing happening here and migrants getting burnt by this?

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is going to sound like a weird patsy, but I was hoping to get the Minister to explain again her Supplementary Order Paper. I know that she did it at the beginning, but I was just hoping she could do it again. Not so much around the new subsection (6), but the other part, changing “may work” with “may only work”. Could the Minister just go over that again?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Sure. So I’m very happy to do that. As the member mentioned, this Supplementary Order Paper makes two minor changes, both to do with the scope. So the first change that I believe the member is asking about narrows the scope of the document production power. So, initially, the way that the wording was, was such that it could have accidentally inadvertently captured employees who were, for example, on an open work visa and not specifically linked to the employer who’s supporting their visa. The change narrows that so that the document production powers would only apply to the employer that is supporting or named to be supporting that particular migrant worker.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just for members, while questions and answers are short I’ll try and stick with one member and then move on to another rather than flit around the House.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thanks for that explanation, and that’s what I thought the Minister would say, so I’m on the right track. I’ve got an issue with that Supplementary Order Paper in relation to the employment infringement offences. So under replacement section 359A(1), inserted by clause 7, “An employer must not” and they’ve got (a), (b), and (c); (b) is if you work in an inconsistent manner with your visa, so you work an extra shift when you shouldn’t, for example; (c) is around not complying with the documentation request; and (a) is problematic now, because (a) says “allow a person who is not entitled under this Act to work in the employer’s service to do that work”. Now, that potential breach will never be able to be found out because the desk-based officer is only allowed to ask for documentation between an employer and an employee who must only work for them. So I was expecting that if a desk-based officer found out that—I’ll give you an example: the employer is McDonald’s. The employee, their documentation—

Hon Scott Simpson: Good company.

ERICA STANFORD: They were in tonight, that’s why I mentioned them. Their employee, his or her employment conditions say “May only work for KFC”, but is working for McDonald’s. Now, that would be a breach of section 359A(1). However, with this change, the desk-based officer would only be able to ask for documentation between McDonald’s and a person whose visa said “You must only work for McDonald’s”. So the KFC worker who’s working for McDonald’s—in breach of his visa—and McDonald’s may know that; “Hey, we’ve got a KFC worker working for us, great.” Will never be picked up. So my question is around section 359A(1)(a): when would that be triggered? Because it kind of looks like it would never be triggered. So I will just give the Minister some time there. And it looks like this was actually always the intention, because I note in the original bill it actually said in new section 275A(5)(b), inserted by clause 4, “they must work for that employer”. We changed it. It looks like it’s been changed in committee to “may”, now being changed to “may only”. So it looks like we’re going back to what the original intent was. But my question is around when will new section 359A(1) be triggered if a desk-based officer can’t ask for those employment documents?

While we just give the Minister some time, because I’d like to go back to an answer she just gave to my first question, before the break, around the publication—the chief executive “may” publish names and information. Now, the Minister has just explained that the chief executive may—he may do it if he wants to, he or she. But my question was around, what is the framework, what is the guidelines for that chief executive to do it or not to do it? We are leaving it completely up to their decision whether or not they publish, but my question is, why is there no framework or guidelines? Surely it would be around, I guess, seriousness, and if it is around seriousness, why is that not included in the bill?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): As I’ve said before in the House, I feel I have explained the question around “may” in new section 383A, inserted by clause 10, but I will say it again. Two things to that, two points that I’d like to make; firstly, the one that I’ve already made, which is that it gives the chief executive a level of discretion. So it is quite clear in the Act that the person who is named must either have been convicted or have been issued an infringement offence. So it’s not leaving it completely up to the discretion of the chief executive at all. It is defined in what cases people can be named on the stand-down list, but it does allow the chief executive to go through it on a case by case basis, in case there’s some reason why a person shouldn’t be named.

The second point that I’ll make is that it is a term that aligns with the term that is used in the Employment Relations Act as well. The second question that the member asked, which was around the power—the “may only” bit that the member mentioned. That is correct. But this bill doesn’t aim to solve all problems. There are other pieces of legislation and other parts of the legislation that will deal with the problem that the member mentioned. So section 277, for example, would already be able to achieve that aim.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Can the Minister, in that case, confirm that replacement section 359A(1)(a), inserted by clause 7—which is the infringement notice that can be given if a person is not entitled to work for that employer—can definitely be triggered by other clauses and in the bill, and under what circumstances? So can she give us an example of how that would be triggered in that case?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’d like to raise a different matter. I didn’t sit on the Education and Workforce Committee, so I’m presuming that this matter that I’m to raise was traversed in select committee, and some kind of satisfactory situation evolved from that. I’m particularly referring to replacement section 365B, inserted by clause 9, and this is in relation to how infringement notices may be served. Now, I know from previous pieces of litigation, when an infringement regime has been imposed, normally officials advise that “oh, they’re very difficult to administer”, that “the servicing of infringement notices is hard, it’s difficult—you can’t find the people; you can’t identify them. You don’t know where they live; they haven’t got an accurate email address, all those sorts of things”. But here, in this legislation, apparently, miraculously, it’s going to be OK.

So I’m keen to know from the Minister in the chair in relation to section 365B(2)(b), that “leaving it for [a] person at the person’s last known place of residence with another person who appears to be of or over the age of 14 years”—now, that just strikes me as being ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous, and completely beyond the realms of plausibility. But it gets worse, because section 365B(2)(c) says “leaving it for the person at the person’s place of business or work”—with another person again. So someone just comes into a workplace—say, the parliamentary precinct—leaves it with the security guy and says, “Please pass this to, oh, I don’t know, Michael Wood, the previous Minister of Transport—he used to be in that job, we don’t know that he’s here anymore. He’s gone away and done something else completely different”. Who’s going to do it?—actually, you probably have to deliver it to him 12 times before it might get through. So I’m interested to know about that clause.

And then, here, it goes on again: section 365(2)(d) says “sending it to the person by prepaid post addressed to the person’s last known place of residence or place of business or work”. This is just a lottery. Postal services are notoriously slow and ineffective. We’re not dealing these days with a snail mail regime that is in any way purposeful. But it just strikes me that to be leaving the provision of infringement notices being served to this kind of random pot-luck status is just asking for trouble. So I’m keen to know what the Minister has to say on those matters, please.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Madam Chair? Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Dr James McDowall.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL: Apologies, Mr Chair, for misgendering you just then. So just to follow up on the previous discussion between my colleague Erica Stanford and the Minister—just to seek some further clarity there. So the Supplementary Order Paper 360 states that—in the wording as we’ve canvassed it, “unless the worker’s visa allows them to work only for that particular employer”. So is the Minister saying then, effectively, that if an employer hires migrant employees unlawfully and say those employees have an Accredited Employer Work Visa for a different employer, and they haven’t done variation of conditions, etc.,—does this wording mean that, in theory, Immigration New Zealand can’t access the documentation for those employees? Because that would seem rather strange and counter-intuitive.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I will clarify, for both members’ benefit, what this particular section is aiming to do. In the example that was provided around McDonald’s—basically what this bill is aiming to do is to ensure that we have the tools to be able to nip lowerlevel offending in the bud, because currently all that immigration officers have is prosecution, which is a very high threshold; it’s severe offending. We have evidence that shows that nipping lower-level offending in the bud prevents it then, potentially, from becoming severe offending, and so largely, this is what this bill aims to do, to ensure that we have the tools to be able to do this.

So in this case, if, for example—the example that Erica Stanford provided—McDonald’s is hiring a migrant worker, they’re meant to have, under the law currently, documents showing the contractual obligations there, then what this means is that deskbased immigration officers would have the powers to then ask the employer to show them the specific documentation for the specific migrants that they are hiring to make sure that they are compliant with the law. That’s pretty much what it does. If, for example, they then have reason to suspect that there’s potential other exploitation going on that isn’t captured in the changes made to this bill, then there are other powers within legislation for them to be able to search, for example. So the section 277 power is a search power which would allow immigration officers to actually go into the premises and figure out what’s going on in terms of compliance or non-compliance. So to both members’ questions, that’s the aim of this section.

In terms of the serving of infringement notices, I mean, officers won’t be able to magic up specific ways to ensure that infringement notices are served, and so the list here that the member read out has different ways in which, you know, officers who are serving or issuing that notice can try and get the infringement notice to the person it’s being issued to.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, it was interesting listening to the Minister’s explanation there, because, well, she basically said that once a desk-based officer had asked for documentation and looked at that documentation and suspected something else was going on—well, I guess the point is they wouldn’t suspect something else was going on because they wouldn’t know because they weren’t able to have access to any documentation. So, yes, while I understand they can then go and visit the business, as we all know, that doesn’t happen very often at all—we know that from the statistics. So, if the Minister was trying to create a bill that gave her powers to be able to identify where people were not abiding by the conditions of their visa, well, this bill doesn’t do that. I guess the question for the Minister is: how would the desk-based officers have any hunch that something else was going on if they weren’t able to ask for that documentation?

But I’ll move on, and the Minister can answer that later on. I’ll move on to a different point. I guess the question for the Minister is: is she aware of an existing power that Immigration New Zealand already have, to ask for wage, time, and contracts from employers? Does she know that that’s something that Immigration are already able to do, and, under what circumstances could they do that, is the question.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, I’d like to go back to this question of how an infringement notice is going to be served on an employer, because I don’t think the Minister’s answer was remotely satisfactory. Just providing, in the statute, a list of potential options might be well and good but the question surely should be: are those options going to be effective? Is the infringement notice actually going to get to the person that it’s intended to give effect to? I’m not remotely convinced that any of these options so far that I’ve mentioned will provide the kind of certainty or surety that a court would look to, when potentially prosecuting under this legislation, because I think a court’s going to say, “Well, look, you know, just turning up to the parliamentary precinct and handing over a document to the security guy and asking him—he or she—to deliver that to somebody else, that’s pretty random.” But it gets better.

So I went through four or three of the options that the statute’s going to provide, but replacement section 365B(2)(e), in clause 9, says, simply, “sending it to an electronic address of the person in any case where the person does not have a known place of residence or business in New Zealand”. Now, that’s even surely more random—some kind of just fictitious, imaginary made up email address. Or will it be a Facebook page? Will it be a TikTok address? Will it be an Instagram thing? What on earth does that mean to be “an electronic address of the person in any case where the person does not have a known place of residence or business in New Zealand”? And I think the question I have for the Minister is: what does that mean in practical terms? What’s going to be the practical impact of the wording of a piece of black-letter law that says something as vague and as uncertain as that, and what are our judicial friends going to interpret that to mean?

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll carry on from my last line of questioning. My question was: is the Minister aware of any powers of Immigration that they already have to ask for these documents that are being signalled in this bill?

The reason I ask that is that Immigration New Zealand currently have a power to ask for this documentation when they are accrediting businesses under the employer accreditation process, so they can ask for it at that stage. They can also ask for it—and they have been just recently asking for it again or asking for it for the first time, potentially—when they are doing a check on those accredited businesses like they are doing now at Immigration New Zealand. So, a year ago, we accredited a whole lot of businesses and now, a year down the track, Immigration New Zealand are doing checks on these accredited businesses and asking for employment documentation, like wage records, like contracts. So that is already happening.

So I guess the question for the Minister is why is it that we are creating a bill allowing this to happen when Immigration New Zealand are currently already doing it? They’re doing it when a business becomes accredited, they’re doing it in an accreditation check and, in the case of certain businesses like franchisees who have to become accredited every single year because they are in a high-risk industry, then they can potentially be asked for that documentation every single year. That is one of the listed types of businesses that may be targeted under this law.

So I guess the question for the Minister is, if I was an employer and I was asked for this documentation when I became accredited, when the accreditation check happened, and then every single year when I became accredited, what is the need for this bill if that’s already happening? Are we just creating something (a) that is not needed and (b) is overkill, because this information can and is already being asked for?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): So, a couple of things. Firstly, immigration officers don’t act based on hunches, and to the point that was made earlier in terms of how they might then find out that they have reasonable cause to suspect that there’s other forms of exploitation potentially taking place, there are other ways in which they can get that information, not necessarily through these changes that we are proposing, because the whole point of these changes is to check compliance and to nip low-level offending in the bud as I’ve said a few times already.

Section 277, as I mentioned earlier, does allow immigration officers search powers. Again, I said this twice already in the House. They do allow immigration officers powers to search various employment documents and things like that, but the threshold is much higher and it is a much more obtrusive power because they are physically going into employers’ spaces and checking compliance. This is to allow desk-based—certain deskbased—immigration officers the power to request specific documentation that employers who employ migrant workers should already, or are required already under the law to, hold. So it’s really just checking compliance, there, and that’s what these new powers will enable them to do, because they don’t currently have those powers.

Going back to the member’s question and great interest in infringement offences and how they’re served, this is standard drafting for how infringements are already served. So, there you go.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, I beg to differ—it’s not. And we’ve had cases of legislation come to this House where infringement regimes have been literally tossed out because they are not able to fulfil this kind of nonsense that is being proposed in this legislation. So let’s assume for a moment that someone has left a notice at a person’s last known place of address with a person who appears to be over the age of 14, or maybe they’ve left it at the person’s place of business or work with another person unknown, unspecified, or perhaps it’s been sent by a pre-paid post address to the person’s last known place of residence or place of business or work, and none of those have been able to achieve the successful outcome required. Replacement section 365B(3), inserted by clause 9, creates a presumption of service, just a presumption that the infringement notice has been served; and it says, in section 365B(3)(b): “a notice sent to a valid electronic address is to be treated as having been served at the time the electronic communication first entered an information system that is outside the control of the Department.” Well that’s just drafting gobbledegook—drafting gobbledegook.

What is and who determines a “valid electronic address”? How can that be determined? Who decides, and how would you know? How on earth would you know whether it was a valid electronic address or not? So I simply reject the notion that this is standard drafting procedure—it’s not. It hasn’t been applied in previous legislation—I can remember bringing to this House a piece of legislation that would have modestly increased the fines for littering, and the Government threw it out, said “Oh, no, no, you can’t have infringement notices, they don’t work. You can’t serve them, nobody knows how to contact the people and you can’t identify them.” Why should this piece of legislation magically cure all those questions?

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I’ll go back to my question around the powers of Immigration New Zealand to already ask for the documentation that’s been referred to in this bill. So at the moment, post-accreditation checks are being undertaken and exactly these documentations are being requested: wage records and contracts. So employment records are already being asked for. And if a business is to be re-accredited every year, they could be asked for their information. So my question remains to the Minister: does Immigration New Zealand already have the power to ask for wage records and contracts like they’re asking for right now in the post-accreditation check process?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): There will be some employers, many perhaps, who will go through the accreditation process to be able to employ a migrant worker, and for them what the member is saying is true, but there will be others who don’t, for whom these particular powers will be new powers that allow immigration officers to require or to check compliance with the law.

To Scott Simpson’s repeated points around the methods of serving infringement notices, I’ll say a couple of things. One is that there are different options, and the person who’s serving the notice will obviously pick the option that they think is most reliant in their bid to get the notice served. The second thing that I will say is that things need to be looked at in context. With this particular bill, the people that Immigration are contacting will be from companies that already have interaction with the immigration system, so it is quite likely that they will already hold the information that’s required to be able to serve the infringement notice in a way that is reliable. And then, clearly, they will pick the most reliable method. Those are the points that I will make to the members.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to ask the Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, in relation to the power to access employment documents—and earlier she had actually answered in relation to my colleague Erica Stanford in relation to the way that the immigration officers work, that they don’t work on hunches, and these are new powers, that the immigration officers could ask for documentation related to employment of migrant workers. If they are to require this documentation at random, I’d like to know how they are selected at random. Some of them, they might have infringed a rule and there might have been a report or some sort of a complaint—I can understand that happening. But if they’re doing it in a random manner, as in, I think it was the first reading when we were talking about potentially—“fishing expedition” was one of the terms that was used. If that is the case, is there a profile being established on the bad actors in this field, and are they ethnically linked? Are they doing ethnic profiling for this? Who are the supposed bad actors in this case? I’d like to know how the Minister is going to determine why some people will require these documents to be produced and not everyone or others.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I want to just probe further into the Minister’s last answer, when she agreed that employers who had been accredited under the Accredited Employer Work Visa scheme already can be asked for these documents, and are currently actually being asked for them in the post-accreditation process. Then she said, “Well, there will be other businesses who don’t have to get accredited who this will apply to.”

So my question is: which businesses are those and how many of them are there? Because I’m trying to understand what type of business would have a migrant worker tied to their employment who would not be required to be—what’s the word?—accredited. So the Minister clearly stated that she agreed with me that if you are an accredited business, you can already be asked for this information, but she said that there are other businesses who don’t need to be accredited who might have migrant workers tied to their business, which this bill would apply to. So my question is: which businesses, under what visa scheme, would not need to be accredited, and how many of them are there? Because my understanding is that pretty much all businesses need to be accredited these days if they are going to have someone tied to their employ. So that’s a question for the Minister.

This is something that I brought up at first and second reading, because I was concerned about the over-regulation of these businesses. They can already be asked for this information at accreditation, post-accreditation, and, in some cases, every single year, because they are required to be accredited every year, like if you are a franchise or in a triangular employment relationship, you can be asked every single year. So the Minister has agreed that, yes, they can already be asked for that information. So why the need in this bill to lay out the fact that this can happen, if it’s already able to happen, as the Minister has just agreed to?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, we now come to the other end of the infringement notice exercise, which is the revocation of an infringement notice. It’s interesting that the serving of an infringement notice goes into some detail about how it should be communicated; I’ve raised questions about the inadequacy of that.

But when it comes to the revocation of an infringement notice, it merely says, in replacement section 235D(2), inserted by clause 21, that “The Labour Inspector must take reasonable steps to ensure that the person to whom the notice was issued is made aware of the … revocation notice.” Now, there’s no explanation as to whether that needs to be delivered to a former place of work by a person who might or might not be 14 or older or it may be someone who used to live at the same address as the person who might have been there before or it was to some electronic address, whether it’s a TikTok or an email or a Facebook or something of that nature. So I’m keen to know, from the Minister, why there is quite extensive drafting relating to the issuing and serving of an infringement notice, but when it comes to the revocation of an infringement notice, it merely says that the inspector “must take reasonable steps to ensure”. Surely there is a disparaging difference in status and requirements in that area.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): I move, That the question be now put.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve many, many things to traverse still, including the questions I’ve already asked that we’re waiting on the Minister to answer around the fact that Immigration New Zealand already have the power to do much of what she is asking from this bill.

I’ll move on to a different topic, though, and that’s around flexibility. We made the point at the first and second readings around flexibility in a tight labour market, whereby if you are an employer and you are trying desperately to ensure that you are covering shifts, especially if you work in healthcare—and I’ll give you the example of, let’s say, a retirement village or a rest home which employs nurses and must do so 24/7. If a nurse stays behind for one or two hours to cover the shift of the next nurse who’s running late or has called in sick and is waiting on a replacement nurse, that migrant worker may well be in breach of their visa by working that extra couple of hours to keep the people in that rest home safe and for the employer to be acting in accordance with the law.

So my question to the Minister is around: is it her expectation that there will be some flexibility with this regime in that replacement section 359A(1)(b) inserted by clause 7 if the migrant worker is working in an inconsistent manner with their work-related conditions of their visa by working an extra couple of hours because they were covering a shift? The bill is silent around the flexibility of the discretion of a desk-based officer to act in this case.

Another example might be a bartender who’s covering front of house for a shift. He’s not overdoing his hours, but just working in a different role slightly, because, as we know at the moment in hospitality, for example, they are very short-staffed, especially in certain regions of New Zealand like Wānaka or Queenstown, for example, and employers—good employers—are doing their best and employees, especially migrant workers, are more than happy on many occasions to do something a bit different. Now, if this came up from a desk-based officer and it seemed to be a relatively minor breach—but none the less a breach—what is the flexibility that the desk-based officer has in this instance when it comes to the infringement?

It would seem that these are very low-level breaches, but this is exactly what the Minister keeps talking about—getting on top of these low-level breaches. But these are examples that most people would think are perfectly reasonable for a couple of hours covering a nurse’s shift, for example, or a bartender quite happily covering front of house for the night when those staff are particularly stretched in that industry. So I’m keen to get the Minister’s views on that flexibility.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): As I’ve mentioned time and again in this House, the point of this bill is for us to be able to nip low-level offending in the bud before it becomes severe offending. So a low-level breach wouldn’t be explained away through flexibility; it’s still a breach.

To the member’s question around the types of employers who may not be accredited but would still be subjected to the document production powers in this bill, there are examples where employers don’t go through the accreditation process that the member has outlined. A couple of examples there would be employees who are on specific purposes visas or events-based or Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers—employers of RSE workers—for example. That’s just a couple of examples given the member asked for some.

To Melissa Lee’s points around the documents that can be required, they are explicitly stated in the provision. So, specifically, employment documents that an employer is already legally required to hold, or can be expected to hold, under the law. Of course, only employers who have supported a visa application can be required to supply documents.

The other question that she had was around how businesses and employers would be targeted by Immigration New Zealand (INZ) and what the tools were that would be used to be able to do that targeting. INZ is developing a risk-based prioritisation process for verification and compliance checks. That’ll be part of the risk management for the Accredited Employer Work Visa scheme as well.

So verification checks will be done in response to specific reports. There is also intelligence that INZ receives based on specific sectors and specific industries where there is a lack of compliance, and so that is the information that will be used to undertake these proactive checks.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, based on that response—well, in fact, part of that response—I do sincerely hope the target of this bill is not specific purpose work visa holders, because it would just be getting weirder and weirder at that point. There are certainly valid concerns that our colleagues in the National Party have raised here regarding accreditation and what difference does this bill actually make, so definitely some issues there.

One thing the Minister said previously is that employers will have existing relationships with Immigration New Zealand, and therein lies one of the major problems here is that if you’ve got an employer who doesn’t have that relationship who is hiring migrants unlawfully, they’re going to be completely missed by this. And in terms of the other aspects for the high-level offences in the immigration system, they’re probably going to be missed by that as well. So I don’t think the issue of exploitation is sufficiently being addressed in this bill or in the immigration system because, ultimately—and this is one area I’d like the Minister to actually talk about—the problem here with exploitation is tying migrant visas to employers. That was required under essential skills back in the day, it’s required under the accreditation system—an Accredited Employer Work Visa. From our party’s perspective, we should be doing away with these sorts of visas.

But I would like the Minister to just reflect on that and give her opinion on that, because to solve a lot of these exploitation issues, these abusive relationships between bad employers and good employees—or good-intentioned employees—would be solved if they could move around freely and weren’t beholden to that employer. I do have another few questions, but I’ll leave that section there.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to put on the record the Minister’s comments before to my questions around flexibility, when I mentioned, for example, a nurse is running a couple of hours late and a migrant nurse covers that shift for two hours and that puts her over her number of hours for the week. The Minister has very clearly stated tonight that it is her absolute intention that every low-level breach, if it is found by a desk-based officer when they are going through these records, an infringement notice will—well, I asked the question, “Is there any flexibility?”, and the Minister said, “It is to nip these types of things in the bud; it shouldn’t be happening, and if it’s found then they will be nipped in the bud.” So my understanding from that comment is that if a desk-based officer finds that a migrant nurse has worked over her hours by one or two because she was covering a shift for another nurse who was running late, then that will result in an infringement offence, and an infringement notice on that employer who was just trying to do the right thing. So if I’m wrong in that and there is some leeway, and it doesn’t necessarily always end up in an infringement offence because there is some flexibility by the desk-based officer to not issue that infringement notice, then I’m happy to hear that, but from the Minister’s comments about “nipping all of these low-level breaches in the bud no matter what the circumstance”—then I’d be happy to hear that.

I want to talk about the—just carrying on from what my colleague Melissa Lee has been talking about, we’ve had a problem the whole way along in this bill around the fact that there are no reasonable grounds for requesting these documents. Now, many submitters—we’ve traversed this already in the second reading—also made that same argument and they did say that this would end up in fishing expeditions. It is stated in the departmental report though that it says “Immigration New Zealand will develop a process that prioritises high-risk employers for desk-based requests.” So things like triangular business models, franchises, industries with high-risk or historical issues, so there will be a process to prioritise these high-risk employers. And our point all along, and my point tonight, is why is it that we can’t have that in the bill specified that the reasonable grounds will be based on these high-risk employers that we already know about—the triangular business models, the franchises, the higher-risk businesses with historical issues around migrant exploitation—rather than “You can do anyone, anytime, anytime you like”? Because what is to stop a desk-based officer going after the same employer every single month for 12 months? There’s nothing in the bill that stops them from doing that. It could be a weekly or monthly request for this low-level offending.

So my question to the Minister is: why is it that there was no leeway at all, even though Immigration New Zealand have said that they will develop a process to prioritise these high-risk employers that they already know about? If that’s the case, then why not just write it into the bill so we have some reasonable grounds clause so that we don’t get exactly what my colleague Melissa Lee was talking about, which is, for all intents and purposes, a fishing expedition?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): So a couple of things here. To the points that were raised around migrants being employed unlawfully who won’t be captured by this bill, that is correct. As I’ve said already in the House time and time again, this bill does not claim to be a silver bullet that will end migrant exploitation. The point of this bill is to nip lower-level offending in the bud before it becomes severe offending. There are other ways in which other unlawful activity can be captured and dealt with. For example, as I’ve mentioned again at least five times in the House tonight, section 277 allows search powers for higherlevel offending to be captured and dealt with. Again, it’s about striking that balance between ensuring that employers can fill genuine skills shortages but ensuring also that migrant workers are not exploited. This is one measure that we’re taking to be able to do that. Our Government has brought in a series of measures to tackle migrant exploitation from various angles, and that is what is needed because there is no silver bullet to end this.

In terms of flexibility for nurses, this is exactly the problem with using hypothetical examples, because migrant nurses, for example, don’t have working hours as part of their visa conditions. So the example that the member provided cannot actually happen. So I will go back to the point that I made: that low-level offending often becomes severe offending. The tools that we are wanting to give immigration officers and the Labour Inspectorate to align those powers and tools is to ensure that we can nip lower-level offending in the bud, and that’s what this bill aims to do.

In terms of high-risk industries or companies, that is correct: there is, as I mentioned already previously, immigration intelligence that gives Immigration some sense of where the high-risk behaviour happens. So they are developing a risk-based prioritisation process, as I mentioned. The reason there’s no necessity for reasonable grounds in this legislation, again, as I have said on multiple occasions in this House previously, is because the document production powers of this bill enables reasonably unobtrusive powers, because all they are doing is requiring employers to show documentation that they already have to hold legally under the law. So it is not an obtrusive power of search entry, but it’s just one of showing the records that you already need to hold if you hire a migrant. So there’s no need for reasonable grounds; that would preclude us from being proactive in terms of compliance.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): In that case then, just taking the example out of it, is there, in the Minister’s view, any case where a desk-based officer finds a low-level breach that is relatively minor that is—let’s say a couple of hours, or, like I mentioned, covering a slightly different job when that particular business was very short-staffed. Or does she expect that every single breach, when it is found, will result in an infringement offence? There’s nothing in the bill to suggest that there is any ability for the desk-based officer to not issue an infringement notice when they may decide it is extremely low-level and no one was harmed and everyone was happy, and it was just a one-off. Is it her expectation, and I’m sorry to labour the point and get her to keep repeating herself—I know she’s getting a bit tetchy about that—but I am just trying to understand, is there any case that she would expect a desk-based officer not to issue an infringement notice, or is she expecting that in every single case that is found that an infringement notice will be given when a low-level breach is found?

So that’s the question, I just want to know if there is any situation where she would expect that desk-based officer might not issue an infringement notice, or is it a hard “You find the breach no matter what it is and you issue an infringement notice”? That’s all I’m asking; we just haven’t had that answer yet.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ms Stanford, I’ll just say you’ve given yourself up a little bit about asking the same question several times, which is of course a cause for a closure motion. However, I’ll pass over to the Minister. Just to advise you.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Just a very quick, slightly different question. So the Supplementary Order Paper as drafted prevents an immigration officer from using documentation to the detriment of a migrant. We’ve established that. So my question then is: say that migrant has come from a country that requires assessment in Porirua, requires a national security check, and that has been done in the past—I won’t name the countries that that applies to because it’s actually not public information, get myself in trouble. But say that’s happened—say they pass the national security check and then say they’ve been involved in one of these businesses that’s been investigated and had documents searched. Now, that won’t be used against the migrant necessarily under the Immigration Act, but can the SIS request that information? Can that cause issues for their compliance in that regard? I’m just curious about that.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m sure you won’t regret it. I’m hoping the Minister will, though—no. It’s a good face question—excuse me, a good-faith question, even. It could be a good face question too, but viewers of Parliament TV might disagree.

Anyway—so my question relates to clause 10, inserting new section 383A, “Publication of names and information in respect of immigration offences”. So my question is reasonably straightforward, I think, but an important one nevertheless. So this is talking about how the chief executive, in order to promote the objects of the Act or to do the things that we want this legislation to do, or that the Government wants it to do, can publish the information specified elsewhere, which I’ll get to, in relation to an employer who has been convicted of an offence against the Act or issued with an infringement notice. So I suppose there’s an element—and the policy intent—of saying: well, if someone’s done something wrong that infringes the Act, then it’s fair that the whole world should know about them: their name; their trading name, if different; and so forth.

My question to the Minister is whether this is still something that can take place if there’s been a conviction under the Act, but if that’s being appealed. So if there’s an appeal in front of the courts, where a person might say, “Well, actually, you know, I’ve got a good reason to appeal. I’m saying that I shouldn’t have been convicted.”, can that person’s name be publicised as though they had—or, indeed, recognising that they had at that point—been convicted? Of course, once you publish something, the whole world knows and it’s very hard to get that toothpaste back in the tube, those worms back in the can, and other reverse clichés like that. So that’s just my straightforward question and indeed my only one, pending the Minister’s answer, of course.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I want to give the Minister some time to just make some notes and answer the questions. I notice that there’s nothing—this is a different point—in the supporting commentary of this bill around getting Immigration New Zealand to commit to processing a variation of conditions, changes, more quickly to help reduce migrant exploitation. And I’m wondering if the Minister would consider a change in the supporting commentary that would state that Immigration New Zealand would commit to fast processing of variation of conditions to help reduce migrant exploitation. Because that’s one of the key drivers of getting migrants out of exploitation; it’s actually to get the conditions of their visa changed really quickly so that they can move out of the situation where they’re being exploited and on to another employer. Nothing in the supporting commentary of this bill commits to that, and I’m wondering, if we were to do a quick Supplementary Order Paper, whether or not the Minister would support putting something in the supporting commentary to state that Immigration New Zealand should commit to quick processing of those variation of conditions.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just going back to the question that I did just before the dinner break, which was answered just after, around the adverse actions. My question was just around “versus just actions”, whether that was open to interpretation. Now, the Minister has addressed that and has spoken about MEV—so migrant exploitation visa—saying that the MEV may be offered or the information won’t be used to prejudice the migrant. But to establish a dialogue and say to them, “OK, here’s an option for you. Have you considered this?”—but therein is another problem, because how do we ensure that that will happen? You know, is there scope, does the Minister think, to include something in the bill here? Whether it’s another Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), to ensure that that happens, to ensure that the migrant is protected and not prejudiced, perhaps an amnesty period of some sort or just a commitment to go down that MEV pathway because some immigration officers do get a bit gung ho—and all we have to do is look at the IPT, the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, and the sheer number of decisions that get overturned; I believe it’s close to half. And the reason is that Immigration instructions have not been correctly interpreted or followed by immigration officers. So there are certainly still issues here.

I would also want to inquire into the longer term. When a migrant goes to renew their work visa or get a different work visa, can that information be used then? How can we be sure that it won’t be used then and that they won’t get pinged under this regime based on history? You know, the SOP says that they can’t be negatively affected. But is she absolutely confident that they won’t be in subsequent applications?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): So to that last point around how we ensure that the migrant worker is protected and that information that is released inadvertently that might otherwise prejudice subsequent visa applications of the migrant worker, that is exactly why there’s a Supplementary Order Paper to strengthen the primary legislation. So the other way that we could have done that is through Immigration instructions. But my sense was that that wouldn’t provide strong enough or robust enough provisions, and that’s why we’re changing the legislation to reflect that. That is pretty much as strong as you can go in terms of protecting the migrant, from my point of view.

In terms of low-level breaches, again, this is a question that’s come up repeatedly, and I feel I have addressed it on multiple occasions: a low-level breach is still a breach. Who determines what is minor? Who determines—the whole point, as I’ve said again, ad nauseum, in the House, is that the point of this bill is to address low-level offending. So then being flexible around that very low-level offending has the potential to lead to the problem that we’re trying to fix, which is that low-level offending often turns into severe offending and we only have tools to address that currently. So we’re trying to take it back.

In terms of variations of conditions, I agree that there are many ways in which we need to address migrant worker exploitation—again, a point that I’ve made a number of times tonight. But what I will say is that we have undertaken a suite of measures that sits technically outside of the scope of this bill. But I will say that the Migrant Exploitation Protection Work Visa is one way in which we can help migrant workers who’ve been exploited to get out of that situation.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I will indicate to the committee that this will need to be new business. We’ve covered a lot of ground tonight.

MELISSA LEE (National): It will be the first time, actually, that I’m asking a question on this part.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, just because you’re asking it for the first time, this doesn’t mean others haven’t asked it—that’s all I’ll say.

MELISSA LEE: No, no. Mr Chair, the Minister has not actually addressed this part, so I would like to ask, if I may, sir. I’d like to look into the area of replacement section 365B, “How infringement notice may be served: employers”, in clause 9. I know that my colleague Scott Simpson has actually asked and made some comments about how it may happen, and perhaps the officials may assist the Minister. It’s replacement section 365B(2)(e). Often infringement notices are issued to the person by way of a letter, by serving it to the person, or, potentially, leaving it in a place of residence, but the thing is that this particular section talks about “sending it to an electronic address of the person in any case where the person does not have a known place of residence or business in New Zealand.”

I’m not going to talk about what Scott Simpson talked about. I know he sort of said what does it actually involve, but what I’m actually curious to find out—in this day and age, there are a lot of people who use technology. There are many forms of electronic addresses. Does it only mean an email address, or does it actually include the other forms of identity that we talk about?

In this House, we even passed a digital identity facilitation bill to facilitate people being able to properly identify who they are online so that it is reducing the fraud situation. So I’m trying to find out if there’s a way that the Minister has figured out how this electronic address—or is she just looking at one form of address? Could it be Facebook, could it be Instagram, or could it be something completely different, or utilising the digital identity providers, for example?

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper No. 360 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 to 3, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Business Payment Practices Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to the Business Payment Practices Bill. We start this debate on Part 1.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Is there any objection? There is objection. Part 1: this is the debate on clauses 3 to 7, and the Schedule, “Preliminary provisions”.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for the unexpected pleasure of this call.

Hon Mark Mitchell: It’s a good decision though.

CHRIS PENK: Yes it is a good—well, I don’t know if it’s a good decision, we’ll soon find out.

I wonder if we can perhaps commence by seeking that the Minister explain the rationale behind Part 1 of the bill, and in particular how the policy aims that are set out in the explanatory note will be achieved by those provisions.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Penk.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. If I can just build on that theme that I’ve been developing so clearly when I finished my first contribution, I would perhaps also ask that the Minister please address just what the rationale was for the cut-off date in determining the size of the businesses in terms of that revenue—whether it’s, obviously, the $33 million mark in terms of revenue and the $10 million mark in terms of third-party expenditure. No doubt those have been worked out for some very particular reason that the Minister is aware of and I’m not, and it might well be that this was discussed and debated at the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. That was a conversation to which I was, alas, not privy. Well, that’s not to say that I wasn’t able to be or not allowed to—that word “privy” being of course connected with “privilege” and other such relevant concepts. It’s a concept we’ve heard a bit about lately, actually.

But anyway, I don’t wish to dwell on that because suffice to say that if that discussion is taking place at select committee and the value of this committee of the whole House stage is to sort of allow the Minister to explain how those have been arrived at, then that’s useful for the record, particularly if there’s interpretation of the legislation in the courts or if there is a push to change the law in the future. And it might be that that takes place by way of changing the thresholds, because of course when you have in primary legislation certain dollar figures, then they need to be changed in primary legislation unless there’s some sort of regulation-making power mechanism whereby that could be changed.

So to sort of understand as a starting point what we’re putting in this primary legislation along those lines would be a helpful contribution, and I request that the Minister would make that for the committee.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Chair, and to the Minister. Looking at Part 1 and the purpose of the bill—I spoke on this at the earlier stages—I’m interested to see about improving transparency and business-to-business practices, and what other options the Minister or the ministry considered. I appreciate it may have been before she became the responsible Minister in this area, but is this the only mechanism that was considered? Also, around why the Minister thought this would be the best way of enabling members of the public and entities to have access to information about these business-to-business practices—and what advice she sought and received from her officials around why this would help them make more informed choices and improve choices. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I feel very much on a roll, and so—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just reminding both members that we are on Part 1 of the bill.

CHRIS PENK: Thank you, Mr Chair. That’s helpful guidance. If you could also let us know which bill we’re debating, that would also probably be to my benefit.

Chlöe Swarbrick: You’re giving it away.

CHRIS PENK: Oh, I think the game is already given away, Ms Swarbrick. But, anyway, we’ll see how long we can carry on the deception.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Is that a challenge?

CHRIS PENK: I wouldn’t wish you to take that too seriously, Mr Chair. Why start now?

So just looking at the interpretation clause, clause 5—within Part 1, you’ll be pleased to know, of the Business Payment Practices Bill—I see that the definition of “director” is pretty extensive. That’s helpful because it might be that we’re talking about a company or an overseas company, in which case we want what’s generally referred to as a director—being a certain position in relation to those entities—and in relation to a partnership, a partner, or a general partner of a limited partnership, and so forth.

But I am quite intrigued by paragraph (f)—the sixth sub-definition, as it must be—whereby a director means “in relation to any other person, that person.” So I suspect there’s some deep and meaningful reason for that definition, which looks some combination of circular and otherwise opaque. I don’t know, an opaque circle, I guess, but it just doesn’t make much sense to me. I suspect for others reading the bill, they would experience the same level of opacity. So I wonder if the Minister can shed some light and other mixed metaphors on what is meant by that definition or that included definition of a director in relation to any other person, namely, “that person.”

While she’s at it—and I sense she’s very nearly ready to answer this question or perhaps one of these other very searching inquiries that Sam Uffindell and I have made so far—in terms of “entity”, there are quite a few different kinds of entities that are included. So in the same way as the director definition is as quite full, so too is that of “entity”.

So matching those different definitions for possible definitions for director, we’ve got a company, a corporation sole, a trust, the partnership, etc. But I wonder if the Minister and her advisers contemplated, at any point, a generic kind of description of entity such as a legal person, because I think that would probably cover all of these. She could have had, for example—or her predecessor, in introducing the bill could have said—a legal person which includes but not is not limited to, you know, and then go ahead and list all the ones that are indeed listed from (a) to (g). So that’s enough for now. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for Small Business): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you to members for those enlightening questions regarding the Business Payment Practices Bill. First of all, I’d just quickly like to thank the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for their work on the bill. There were a number of changes made at select committee from members on both sides of the House, and I think some good changes were made.

Look, in general, I’ll try and clump the questions. Timely payment is crucial for the financial health of any business, and especially New Zealand small businesses. It can be the difference between making a pay round or not when payments are not made. I’ve heard from many small businesses that delays in receiving payments are really hurting their cash flow, and that increases stress and it also inhibits their business growth. Xero does some really good research in this space, and I would probably mention too that they view that larger companies in New Zealand use smaller businesses as a credit facility, and this is unacceptable. That is the main underlying policy, sort of, framework, if you want, that underpins this bill; that we want that transparency available so that smaller businesses who do survive from week to week at times have that ability to choose who they wish to do business with.

So the bill requires entities with more than $33 million in revenue, and, as the addition at select committee, $10 million in third party expenditure to disclose information about their payment practices twice a year. And just to point out too that the Government needs to lead by example, and so the bill will apply to Government entities just as much as the private sector.

The key point I got from those questions was in relation to why the $33 million, and what constitutes sort of a large firm, why set the threshold at that point? Large firms are defined as all entities with greater than $33 million annual revenue. The revenue threshold is based on criteria for businesses considered to be large. According to the Financial Reporting Act 2013, the expenditure threshold ensures that the regime doesn’t apply to firms that don’t really have much purchasing power in the marketplace. This allows businesses to easily self-identify and applies to all corporate firms, and so it’s likely to capture market participants that dominate the industry. I’ll just point out that the Australian threshold is higher, I do acknowledge that. I think that reflects the fact that the businesses in Australia are bigger than those in New Zealand. If our threshold was set the same as Australia, we would capture in the vicinity around about 600 businesses, which would sort of undermine the whole purpose of the bill.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thanks, Mr Chair. I just want to pick up on that commentary from the Minister on the bill, and she made the assertion around larger business being at fault. But, secondly—and probably the more important substantive issue which comes to the whole purpose of this bill—she made an anecdotal comment about a lot of smaller businesses suffering from late payment. What evidence has she actually seen to support the introduction of this bill? Because every business will say if they didn’t get paid on time, that will affect their cash flow, and that is as obvious as night follows day, or day follows night.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Part 2, Part 2!

ANDREW BAYLY: This is in reference to what she, the Minister, said, Chlöe Swarbrick. So what actual evidence—because the Minister raised this issue—has she got that says by putting in place an arrangement such as laid down in this bill, actually achieves the outcomes that she’s desiring to achieve with this bill? She also mentioned in her speech about Australia, and she will be a very much aware, no doubt, that Australia put in place this arrangement two years ago and they’re now reviewing it—because, in cases, they’ve found out that even after putting in arrangements similar to what is proposed in this bill, the outcome has actually led to slower payments from large businesses to smaller businesses in Australia. And that is why they’re doing a formal review of it, because they are now starting to wonder whether in fact this is actually the right way to go about achieving a better outcome. But we’ve slavishly picked up their—what appears to be an overseas example, being two years out of date, and shoved it in at the very moment when they’re reviewing how it started to work, and by reference also she’s quoted—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Mr Bayly, you may have missed the fact we actually only on Part 1 here, so the ability to make wide-ranging speeches is rather limited. So please confine your comments to Part 1. I accept that you’re actually reflecting on the Minister’s comments. However, you have gone too wide—back to Part 1 please.

ANDREW BAYLY: OK. Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, I just hope the Minister will respond to that.

OK, on a very specific point, my good colleague Mr Penk has been talking about entities. One of the big things that concerned us about this arrangement is that under “entity means”, clause 5(d), the incorporation, or the capture is probably a better word, of “a society or branch of a society registered through deemed to be registered under the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982”. Can the Minister just tell me why it was deemed so necessary that we want to capture friendly societies under this bill? Because if we’re talking about normal trading arrangements, and that’s what the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee actually focused on, because that was meant to be the intent of it, why on earth should a society or branch of a friendly society be captured? It would be very useful if I could have the Minister’s response on that.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Very specifically, in Part 1, I just want to acknowledge the excellent contribution of my colleague Andrew Bayly, who has come roaring in—always appreciated—and also Chris Penk, who is about to leave the Chamber and asked many probing questions. I will continue with that, and put a question to the Minister around the definition of “overseas company” in Part 1. I note that they’ve been doing some tracked changes on this document and have crossed through, after “overseas company”, the words “has the same meaning as in section 5(1) of the Financial Reporting Act 2013”. I’m curious as to why that was crossed out and replaced with “means a body corporate carrying on business in New Zealand that is incorporated outside New Zealand”, and also curious in the definitions as to why we have decided to define the word “large”—generally, quite a straightforward word to understand. I do see it over here in clause 9 and I’m assuming it’s related to companies that have in excess, was it $33 million, from memory. Interestingly, though, in clause 9, the $33 million has not been included in the definition, I’m curious as to whether it would be appropriate if that was included in there. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just giving the Minister a little bit of time to, hopefully, respond to both my question and my good colleague’s question just then. This definition of “carrying on a business” that Mr Uffindell talks about—it’d be useful if the Minister could just perhaps elucidate what that means, because at a committee level we were concerned that we didn’t inadvertently capture businesses that wouldn’t normally be regarded as being trading entities in New Zealand. So perhaps the Minister can just help the committee in terms of defining what that means, and what her understanding of that term “carrying on business in New Zealand”, and whether that applies to a trading enterprise or non-trading enterprise, offshore subsidiary, a branch, etc. It’d be very helpful if she could help us with that.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn’t expecting to get that call, but there we go. We just wanted to test a little bit further. We note that there are infringement fees associated with that, and we know that there’s been a lot of talk about infringement bills—it’s easy to infringe, and poor businesses are taking more hits, more infringements—but I’m curious there as to better understand what an infringement fee means. It hasn’t been that deeply specified; hasn’t been defined very clearly. If I read from Part 1, “infringement fee, in relation to an infringement offence, means the infringement fee for the offence specified in the regulations.” So I’m assuming there, Minister, that to get the infringement fee, you would then have to go from that to the regulation and look up what the specific fee is—

Chlöe Swarbrick: That’s what it says.

SAM UFFINDELL: Thank you for that excellent point there, Ms Swarbrick. I appreciate that—I was coming to a come-to-Jesus moment myself, there, but I just wanted the Minister to clarify it. It could have also been useful—I’m wondering if the Minister’s staff behind there ever considered a schedule which would have made it quite easy to have in there. I’m not sure how many infringement notices there are, but for future reference, that could be quite handy and then you could have it all in the one space. And I’m wondering too whether that is something that the Minister or the ministry had thought about or might even consider. It’s something you could note down there, Minister, something to be included in the final piece of legislation. Thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I’m just wanting to give the Minister every opportunity to stand up so I will yield at the earliest opportunity. Still looking at it—OK, well, let’s carry on. I note a reference to the definitions in the interpretation clause; the reference to the payment threshold test—and this is quite a genuine point. In the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 363, I see that she has proposed, in clause 10 (1B)—I know this is the next part, but I think it’s relevant to this, what I’m about to say—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! SOP 363?

ANDREW BAYLY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I’m not sure that’s in Part 1.

ANDREW BAYLY: I must have an old version.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Hang on.

ANDREW BAYLY: But we have got a—have I got the correct number?

Hon Member: Have you got the older version there?

ANDREW BAYLY: Maybe not.

Hon Member: That’s been updated.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Do you want to sit down and I help you?

ANDREW BAYLY: Do you want to stand up and give a contribution?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Or I’ll stand up.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I’m just trying to clarify things for the committee. So the member was referring to clause 10?

ANDREW BAYLY: Yes, but it’s 363, isn’t it.

Member: It’s in under the SOP.

ANDREW BAYLY: Yes, as I said—and the reason, as I was quite careful to say, in clause 10 in SOP 363, we’ve got this proposed change to talk about both “invoice” and “payment”, and I am now wondering whether, in fact, coming back into Part 1 on which we were focused, where we talk about a “payment threshold test” in 8A—and I’m looking at officials here—whether we might in fact actually also be thinking about both invoice and payment thresholds because there is a difference that is deliberately introduced in the SOP, and I’m wondering whether in fact we should now replicate that in the definitional part of Part 1 of this bill. It would be interesting to see whether the officials have a view on that. In the meantime you might have the opportunity to respond to some of our other questions.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for Small Business): Thank you, Madam Chair. So there’s a number of points being made. The question around the meaning of carrying on business; that is set out in the Companies Act 1993. So, for the purpose of that Part, reference to an overseas company carrying on business in New Zealand includes a reference to the overseas company it lists under provisions (a) and (b) 10 different specific areas that can be found in the Companies Act. So that’s laid out, that question, in relation to the meaning of “carrying on business”. It specifies there—I’m not going to read it out; it would take ages—so it’s specified already in legislation.

In terms of the next question. The one you just mentioned now was the Government Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) clarifies the wording of clause 10(2)—I’m not sure that is in Part 1, but I will answer it. I think we should probably be doing the bill as a whole, but never mind. To make it clear that if reporting entities need to report on how many invoices they pay late, they should also be able to set disputed invoices aside from this count, and so that’s what clause 10(2) of the SOP does—it enables them to be reported on separately—and the proposed wording change will remove the uncertainty as to the legal interpretation of this clause, but it doesn’t change its purpose.

The other point that I think the member made was it also enables a definition of “invoice” to be included in the regulations. Businesses did tell us that they want a clear definition of “invoice” to be included so that they would be sure what is in and what is effectively out. That definition may well need to adapt and change over time, and therefore the best way forward would be to put that in the regulations. The provision will sit in clause 10, which requires payment practice information to be defined within those regulations.

I did have another point that I had out. It may have been—no, I’ve lost it, sorry, there was a lot in there.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Just before I take the next call, just to clarify for the member that clause 10 is in Part 2 so the member can—and any member in fact can prosecute that but when we get to Part 2. So, Chlöe Swarbrick.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Obviously, this is an incredibly narrow part of the legislation, and I can hear the enthusiasm from members, particularly of the Opposition, to contextualise this part within other parts of the legislation. So with your guidance, Madam Chair, and for the sake of the efficacy and coherence of the debate in the Chamber tonight, I’m wondering if perhaps we could test again for consensus. I seek leave to see the debate taken as one part.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Does the member wish to take a point of order and seek leave?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Point of order, Madam Chair. I seek leave for this debate on this bill to be taken as one part.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave has been sought for that purpose. Is there any objection. There is.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): OK. Thank you, Madam Chair. Unfortunately, the Minister got the wrong end of the stick. Let me put it another way: where we talk about payment threshold test, given her Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 363, I wonder if, in fact, that should also read “invoice or payment threshold test”; that was my point, whether the definition needed to change in Part 1.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Which clause is the member speaking to?

ANDREW BAYLY: Part 1.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Which clause in SOP 363 is the member speaking to?

ANDREW BAYLY: I’m talking to clause 10(1), but because of that, it gives rise to a definitional issue—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member is speaking to Part 1 of this bill.

ANDREW BAYLY: OK. As long as I can come back to it—yup.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Obligations, register, and Registrar

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 8 to 24: obligations, register, and registrar. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Maybe I’ll have another opportunity. So, with the indulgence of Madam Chair—thank you very much—Supplementary Order Paper 363 introduces the concept of “or payments” after “invoices”. So if you stand back and think about it—and this is a serious issue. I just wondered whether we’ve missed something in the drafting. You have an invoice, and then you have payments related to those invoices. So the Minister chose to include “or payments” in clause 10(1B), and I’m just wondering whether, in fact, that means we’ve now got this overlapping sort of definition or separate definition, because invoices total payments. There’s no difference in terms of the monetary amount. One precedes the other one, and you issue the invoice and it subsequently gets paid.

I’m just wondering whether, in fact, as a result of that, maybe there is a requirement to change the definition in Part 1 to reflect that they are used interchangeably, those two terms, and whether we need to build that into the bill. That was my point, and so I’m looking at the officials in terms of the drafting, at the back here.

OK, Madam Chair. Whilst—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Can I just remind the committee that I’ve done this earlier today, though I think it will be helpful. In a committee stage, if a member wants to seek a call, they’ve got to stand up and seek it, because if there’s a silence and a vacuum, I can only assume that the committee has finished with that part of the bill and begin to deliberate.

ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh, you’re so welcome.

ANDREW BAYLY: I’m just hoping that two other people are going to contribute, like “Ms Swarbrook”—“Smallbrook”.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Swarbrick—Swarbrick.

ANDREW BAYLY: Swarbrick—very good. I want to return now to clause 9C. This concerns the issue of subsidiaries. “If an entity to which section 8 applies has 1 or more subsidiaries, a disclosure must—(a) contain the payment practices information for the disclosure period—(i) for—(A) the entity and each subsidiary; or (B) the group as a whole;”. So this gives rise to where, as long as a subsidiary meets the threshold of $33 million, or $10 million in trade payments—if I can use that term—it must disclose its payment terms. Then a group must disclose its payment terms, and, obviously, it will if it’s got at least one subsidiary that meets the threshold of $33 million.

Can I just ask the Minister why did she think it was necessary for each and every subsidiary and then the group to disclose it, because the sum parts of the subsidiaries—if we are trying to identify entities that are slow-paying, then the entity figure will be a mathematical calculation of all the sum of its subsidiaries. So why was it also necessary to have the group if that was so chosen that we should do both the group and the subsidiaries?

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Looking at clause 9D, around certain subsidiaries making disclosures, I’m just wondering what advice the Minister has sought around whether that is going to add any additional complexity or paperwork. I’m assuming it would. And perhaps it would have made sense for the parent company, in so far as the parent company is domiciled in New Zealand, to be making all of the reports on behalf of all of the companies that fall under them. I mean, you take a company out there—they’re part of a wider organisation that meets the large company threshold that’s cared for by this bill—they’ve got a lot of subsidiaries throughout the country, and then they are all reporting independently; whether it would have made more sense just to have that all from the parent, and what consideration the Minister’s officials put to that. And also, what consideration was given to the impositions that this would have, not only on businesses out there in the business-to-business space but also on the relevant Government agencies who are having to collate and consider that information? Thank you.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for Small Business): Thank you, Madam Chair. So in relation to clause 9A, payment threshold, payment is in fact wider than invoice, and some payments will not actually involve an invoice, so there’s no need to expressly refer to invoice in that payment threshold test—they’re already included.

In clause 10 of Part 2, it sets out the meaning of “payment practices information”. In fact, that will be set out in far more detail in those regulations. The point of that is that this is necessary because the regime would almost certainly need to be updated over time. Clause 10 does set out some important parameters, and I think this gets to the heart of it: that part invoices—for example, instalments—are each to be treated as separate invoices. Some payments do not need to be reported on. So things like salaries, wages, taxes, fees, rent, utilities charges, and even local body fees—they would not be needing to be reported on. So that’s the difference there.

It also sets out that any count of late invoices need not include invoices in dispute, and these are to be treated separately because, in fact, if there is potentially a dispute that the goods or the service wasn’t supplied in time, it’s hard to find fault in that specific case and therefore the payment may not actually be late.

I do understand that the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee wanted this provision because they didn’t think that the “reporting entity” should need to include invoices that are in dispute, and count of late invoices, because that wouldn’t be fair.

In relation to subsidiaries that are wrapped up in the wider entities report, subsidiaries are in the wider entities report unless they meet the threshold of their own account—so unless they reached that $33 million, or, secondly, if they choose to.

And I think there was one other point that I wanted to raise. The bill as introduced would have captured entities that have a large revenue but make very few payments to third parties. So this this is the point around why to include a payment threshold. So this would include firms like consultancies and even software developers. These firms, they don’t have a lot of purchasing power in the New Zealand economy, but they also don’t buy much in from third-party suppliers. They’re not the type of large purchasers that the bill seeks to target, and it’s for that reason that the select committee recommended including a payment threshold in the bill. That would mean that the regime only applies to entities with third-party expenditure of $10 million or more. So that additional requirement was a recommendation from the select committee and has now been adopted as part of the legislation.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for that response; it was helpful. In her Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 363—again, I’m just referring to clause 10(1B), right at the end, under clause 10(1B)(f), she said, any “goods or services” and inserted the new words “or types of transactions” specified by the regulations. It might be useful just to understand what she means by her SOP in terms of types of transactions.

The second point: the Minister referred earlier to a definition of “invoice”. This is now included under her SOP as clause 10(1C), “Regulations may define an invoice for the purposes of this section”. So I suppose my question is: why are we defining “invoice” by way of regulation? Presumably in tax it’s a fairly clear definition of what an invoice is, under tax law, under companies law. So I realise it was a Supplementary Order Paper that this change is being inserted in, but I don’t know why we couldn’t just put it in the bill itself and remove any lack of clarity what the definition of an invoice is.

So, again, I’m looking at officials. Why have you gone down this route of using regulations? Because, for many people, relying on a Minister to pass regulations is not a very good thing if you’re wanting clarity and you’re going to have to put this in place quickly.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to be able to ask a few questions in regards to the Business Payment Practices Bill. And I want to go to clause 19, actually, of Part 2 of this bill, which is in regards to the business payment practices register. And clause 19 is in regards to the purpose of that register. In particular, 19(b) which outlines the purpose, is to help them make informed choices about whether to engage with those entities. And I guess what that—well, my questions in regards to that point are as follows: in section 2.4 of the departmental disclosure statement, it acknowledges that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has liaised with the Australian officials. I’m interested, in particular, around whether this aspect around the register, and having that register in the list of the entities on that register, actually was substantiated in regards to consumers or those wanting more information actually being able to look out for those businesses and make more informed decisions or not. So was that MBIE that substantiate the benefit of 19(b)?

The other aspect in regards to that is related to clause 20, which sits—surprising for those watching at home—after 19 in regards to the hierarchy of the clause numbers. It talks about 20(c), which is “its registered address”. And my question in regards to this is if, say, hypothetically one was looking on the register and looking out for a business and, say, for example, you lived in Cambridge in the Waikato—choose a place in the world—

Andrew Bayly: Pukekohe.

SIMON WATTS: Pukekohe. You could say Pukekohe. Let’s use an example of a business, and let’s say you’re in Cambridge, Mr Bayly, and you’re looking up a business, and its registered address is in Pukekohe but it’s actually operating in Cambridge. Is that is going to actually enable 19(b), which is to help make them inform choices? Because if you can’t necessarily locate the business that you’re after—you know, there’s a lot of businesses called similar names; so that’s not really the aspect—how are we going to get around that, and why was there not consideration in regards to the contents of the register actually including its physical address versus its registered address? The registered address obviously can be, in some circumstances, quite different. And, I guess more broadly in regards to that, I’m thinking about organisations that have multiple entities within the same group, and they’re all called the same thing, and they’re all in different towns, but they all do operate individualised payment processes, because they’re owneroperator businesses operating under the same name and maybe under the same registered address, but they have a different location. So you sort of get a sense, potentially, of the confusion that may arise through someone trying to get information on whether their business is actually one that they want to—as the legislation says—engage with those entities or not.

So those are the two questions I’ve got in regards to those aspects of the clause. And if it wasn’t the Australians, I think it was noted in the regulatory impact statement in regards to this bill. It did say that they did do a bit of a horizon scan—I’m looking at page 27 of that—in both the UK and the EU. Again, just from officials, was there any other substantiation, actually, that this register in any other jurisdictions in the world does actually lead to outcomes where people are able to make more informed decisions? Thank you, Minister.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good to follow on from the excellent contribution there from my colleague Simon Watts. He talked about clauses 19 and 20. I’d just like to ask a quick question for the Minister around clause 19, because I remember speaking about this at the last stage. It’s noted here in clause 19 “The purpose of the register is to enable members of the public and entities—(a) to access information about certain business-to-business payment practices … and (b) to help them make informed choices”. And I note that the information has to be submitted twice a year—so every six months—and the intention there is for that to be about allowing informed decisions and choices. But I’d just like to test that a little bit, because that’s not necessarily real-time data because it may be 5½ months down the track and then how useful is the register in that instance?

What consideration was given to what other options are out there? Did they actually go out to businesses and say, “Hey, look, we’ve got this idea for”—I’ll get the actual name—“a business payment practices register, and twice a year it’ll be updated. It’ll be an excellent source. You can go in there and it’ll allow you to make informed choices.”? And if they did do that, what was the feedback from businesses? I mean, just from my limited knowledge and experience, I would hazard a guess that businesses would have come back and said, “You’re lumping us with this big admin burden and I’m not actually sure it is going to give us informed choices because it is potentially going to be 5½ months down the track.”, which is what—

Andrew Bayly: That’s what the Australians found.

SAM UFFINDELL: —thank you, Mr Bayly—they have found in Australia. And also there are other very cheap means in which you can do company profile searches and credit check searches, and I’m just wanting to weigh up what consideration was given around that, if any. Thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Yeah, I’m just hoping the Minister’s going to respond to those two excellent contributions. Just continuing the contribution from Mr Watts, he identified the various identifying information. What’s unclear in the bill is if you were to seek information, albeit maybe 5½ months old, as Mr Uffindell has identified, will it be possible to get the information if you perhaps might only have a couple of these items? What are the criteria? Because it doesn’t say you have to have all or just one or whatever. For businesses who don’t want to, who are slow payers, they may be deliberate in the way that they’re describing themselves. So what would be useful is to understand what is expected, whether a person would have to come up with a number of those criteria or identifiers or just one or two. So that’s one point.

I’m still very keen to get an understanding about why we can’t hard code a definition of “an invoice” in this bill rather than relying on regulations. And talking about regulations, in clause 15, “Entities must notify Registrar of error or omission”, the new wording says “This section applies if an entity becomes aware of an error or omission in a disclosure that involves a substantial departure from the requirements of this Act or the regulations relating to that disclosure.” And it then goes on in subclause 3, “In this section, substantial departure from the requirements includes (a) if regulations specify permitted departures, any departure that is greater than an amount or a percentage specified in the regulations”.

So if I’m a business owner and I’m out there thinking, “Holy Toledo, this thing’s coming barrelling down because the Labour Government wants to put more impositions on me just to make my life as a small-business owner a little bit more difficult—a little bit more difficult. When I can get a $35 credit check from someone tomorrow that’s perfectly up to date anyway, I’ve got to come up with this information.” What in the dickens is going to be in the regulations? And the only person that’ll know that is the Minister, because it’s only the Minister that signs off on the regulations.

That’s where we all tremble. We tremble at the thought of what might be in the regulations to define what an invoice is, because it’s an exceptional piece of work to do. And, secondly, what is a percentage variation or whatever it may be? I don’t know. Maybe the Minister can provide us with some insights on what her intention might be if she can rush this bill through the House and put it through the House before the election. I might just stop on that note so we can hear from the Minister, hopefully.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for Small Business): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. How could I resist not rising to respond to those questions? Thank you for that member’s questions.

Now, the point that was raised—more than once, I think, in that cluster of questions—was the question around why not put the definition of “invoice” into the bill itself. Why should that be in the regulations? It’s because that definition may well need to adapt or change over time. We would not be wanting to have to go back, and it would be best, therefore, in the regulations so that you have the ability to do that. It would sit alongside the actual reporting requirements, which might also evolve over time. That is the reason why.

Amongst all of those other questions, I also had one regarding registered address: why, if a business had a different address. Registered address is, in fact, not searchable under the register. If members refer to new clause 20A of Supplementary Order Paper 363, it specifies there what the searchable items are under the register, and registered address is not searchable in that space.

In terms of types of transactions, under clause 10, this enables regulations to exclude things like foreign currency transactions from falling under payment practices information. That was the question in relation to types of transactions in clause 10.

The point has also been made a number of times that this is going to increase the compliance or the red tape for small businesses. It’s definitely not the feedback that I’ve received when travelling around the country, doing a number of business breakfasts across the country. I guess I’d like to point out too in that space that a credit check is quite different to a business that pays on time. You may well have a business that stacks up on all accounts after having a credit check, but they may also be really lousy at paying their bills on time. So I guess there’s quite a distinct difference. To get back to the point that Xero makes in their research, those bigger businesses that can make interest on those funds remaining with them for the longest amount of time are, effectively, using smaller businesses in New Zealand as a credit facility and paying on the very last day, when the bill is due, or sometimes even late.

Having a transparency register enables those small businesses to check and see who pays their bills faster. And, in fact, some of those companies who pay their bills faster may have lousy credit checks. The point is that they’re not interrelated directly, and that information is valuable to those small businesses—those small traders who want to know who pays their bills quickly.

I thank the member also for his question about what’s in the regulations. Now, there’s been really good consultation. There’s a full consultation document that circulated in October of last year, and there’s been consultation with a wide range of stakeholders to get feedback on where they think things would work and where they think they might not work. Those will be formulated and will be ready for the member to take a look at in the fullness of time.

CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. Just going back to my definition of an invoice, maybe I can just help the Minister.

Glen Bennett: How kind of you.

ANDREW BAYLY: Took me just a couple of minutes, Mr Bennett. “An invoice is an itemised commercial document that records the products or services delivered to a customer, the total amount due, and the preferred payment method. The seller need to send in a paper or electronic invoice to the customer … The invoice can be paid in one go or instalments, depending upon the payment terms that were agreed upon.”

To me, that’s a pretty standard definition of an invoice. I still can’t understand why we have to go to regulations to define it. Unless there’s something coming down the route, and I can’t think of it, whether it’s electronic, but this does cover electronic methods. I don’t know what difference it might be in invoices.

Right. I just want to move on now to clause 23 because we’ve got lots to cover in this part. The registrar’s function is to “establish and maintain the register;” to “receive information that entities are required to disclose the Act;” (c) “perform or exercise functions and powers conferred on the Registrar relating to measures of compliance enforcement”.

So a big issue—and I think many people would be worried about it and it does go back to Mr Uffindell’s rather serious comment—is the bill provides for payment information be provided every six months. Can’t be longer; it’s actually set in stone that it must be every six months. That means that there will be a time when the information is considerably out of date—up to just under six months, obviously.

The issue that the committee is concerned itself with is that for a very cheap sum, literally $35, anyone can ring up a credit agency—and we have four large established credit agencies—and get an immediate and up-to-date, timely, real-time credit assessment of businesses. One of the things I’m concerned about—because this will be the Minister’s jurisdiction—is: is it the intent of the Government, in passing this bill, that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) will set up its own system?

Because when we spoke to some of those existing commercial providers, they said to establish a register such as this—as set out in 23—would cost anything between $3 million and $5 million. Then there’s an ongoing cost, and I think when we asked MBIE officials, I think there was an assessment of maybe 10 to 20 people—I’m not quite sure; I may be misquoting that, but I’m going from memory—or of that order. So not an insignificant sum of money to hire those people, keep them employed, and also keep upto-date technical and software changes, which we all know from very successful Government roll-outs of procurement and IT systems, how good we are doing that on budget and within time.

So is it the intention of the Government that MBIE will establish its own IT system rather than relying on a third-party provider to meet the requirements of clause 23 of the bill?

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Silence is a blessing sometimes, isn’t it? In that context, I just wanted to clarify the answer that the Minister for Small Business gave, just in regards to my question regarding clause 20(c) around registered address. I believe I heard the Minister say that that was not a searchable field in the database. If that is the case, and without any guidance—whether that is what I heard correctly or not—how practical is it going to be to actually go into the register and look for that little shop in Cambridge that we referred to before, Andrew Bayly, that’s got its registered address in Pukekohe, even though that’s irrelevant. If you can’t find its address, then things start to become quite challenging in order to identify the business from whom you want to obtain information which is 5½ months out of date, which is run by a team of 20 people for $5 million and the rest. So if the Minister could just clarify, is that what she said? Even a wave of the hand or sort of a head nod, anything like that—no? OK.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I’m just giving the Minister a little bit of time to, hopefully, answer my rather serious question—because it did take up quite a considerable amount of time of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—about what sort of system will be running this platform and whether it’s managed or operated by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), or whether in fact it’s by someone else.

What I now want to talk about is clause 24, because this states the “Registrar’s power to delegate; (1) The Registrar may, either generally or particularly, delegate functions and powers under this Act to any employee of the public service (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 2020)”. That’s a bit of a worrying thing. Does that preclude, then—maybe this is another question for the Minister—that a third-party provider couldn’t provide these functions under contract to MBIE because it’s precluded under clause 24 of the bill? So, hopefully, I might get a response to that.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for Small Business): The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) had, as far as I’m aware, given no advice to the committee in terms of costs or the cost of sitting up the register, but I can tell the member that MBIE is looking at the most cost effective option. I would also note that MBIE has a considerable amount of experience in administering public registers. They currently register 23 already, and given the experience they do in doing this work already, they are well placed to ensure maximum value for the system that is put in place. The other question that keeps coming up about how do you find a business in—where was it? Cambridge—

Andrew Bayly: Cambridge, but with Pukekohe—

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: —or Pukekohe. How do you search and find a business in Cambridge or Pukekohe? So the purpose of the register would be for those bigger firms—in New Zealand, I can find the exact number but it’s those fewer ones that have over $33 million in revenue. So those bigger firms are the ones that will be listed, and the purpose of listing those big firms that have a far more substantial overturn, far more substantial revenue each year, is so that there’s transparency in terms of how quickly they pay their bills. And the value comes to the business in Pukekohe or to the business in Cambridge, that is then able to look on that register and find the bigger business that they are trading with and to determine—if they have a choice in providers, they can have greater choice amongst those listed on the register to then determine if they would prefer to do business with one who, in fact, might be slightly further away but does indeed always pay their bills on time. That, in fact, is the value of the register.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 363 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.

Noes 44

New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Compliance, enforcement, and offences

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 27 to 45, “Compliance, enforcement, and offences.” The question is that Part 3 stand part.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. I note the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) of the Minister extended the date for “Review of compliance notice” in clause 29(2A), “The application for review must be received by the registrar no later than 10”—and the new insertion is—“working days”, effectively, two weeks, “after the date on which the notice was served.”

So, on one side of the coin, the Minister has chosen to increase the time period for an application, but on the second, in clause 30A, her SOP reduces the appeal against review decisions to be lodged at—what it states under 30A(2), “The appeal must be lodged within”—and this what it says, existing terminology—“14 days after the date on which the notice referred to in section 30(4) was served” and has reduced that to 10; not 10 working days, just down to 10.

So I suppose my first question is—I can understand the 10 working days, because that is a useful metric. Why has the Minister chosen to reduce from 14 days to 10 days, and, even if she were to do that, why haven’t we used the term working days? Because all that’s happened is that we’ve reduced it quite significantly in terms of days. That means a week and a half, and if there’s a long weekend in between, that becomes impractical, and I would have thought that that was actually a bit of an issue.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. A question, now, on clause 25, “Registrar may monitor and investigate compliance with Act”, and reading through this one does get the concern that it is somewhat arbitrary, but, more importantly, is going to take up a lot of resources—not only of the registrars and the person that the agency will have to employ to fulfil those requirements or those duties that the registrar has power over but also for the businesses to then make sure that they are fulfilling the tasks that are set on to them.

So if you look at clause 25(1), you see that the registrar has the power to “(a) to ascertain whether information provided to the Registrar is correct: (b) ascertain whether a person is complying, or has complied, with this Act:” and then to “(c) ascertain whether the Registrar should exercise any of the Registrar’s powers under this Act:”, and “(d) to detect offences against this Act.” The powers there—there are quite a lot of them that are listed, you know: to require a person, to confirm information is correct. So presumably that means the registrar will have to employ a set of people. They will then go out to these large companies and say, “Can you please confirm this information is correct?” and then require that company to produce documents which will then get sent to the registrar. Just try and think through how you would operationalise this. You know, then they’ve got to go away and inspect them all and review them and then give that feedback back. And, you know, they’ll take copies of the documents, they’ve got the ability to take possession and retain them.

What I can see here, and I’m wanting to get a bit of feedback from the Minister or ministry officials on this, is: what is the cost imposition on this? Not only to the registrar—how big of a workload do they see them taking on? Has there been any study done on what sort of burden this would place on the registrar or any consideration to the time and money loss to businesses who have to fulfil all of these requirements: answering these inquiries, producing the documents, sending the documents, answering queries, going backwards and forwards? What sort of analysis has been done around how often the registrar will require information to be collected or reviewed or copies sent in and the general cost that this could have, and also the consideration around lost productivity as a result of filling out information for a registrar. Thank you, Minister. Thank you, officials.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well, I thought I might talk on that excellent Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 365, which happens to be in my name! I can’t claim to be perfect because I’ve got to acknowledge the help of the House in preparing this. But in the spirit of trying to improve this bill—the Opposition is committed to this bill, albeit that we don’t agree with the bill—what my SOP does seek to do is to make sure that if this bill is pushed through, and no doubt it will be by Labour as it commands a majority in the House—

Hon Scott Simpson: At the moment.

ANDREW BAYLY: “At the moment”, as my good colleague says.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member is speaking to Part 4 of the bill.

ANDREW BAYLY: Yeah, I thought we’re on new clause 48A.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Can I ask the member to come back to Part 3?

ANDREW BAYLY: Oh, that’s right. I see we’re one over. OK.

Hon Scott Simpson: He’s getting ahead of us.

ANDREW BAYLY: Slightly ahead. I thought I was very careful about that but I wasn’t.

So what I’d like to talk about now is the pecuniary penalty for contraventions of compliance notice or involvement in a contravention. In clause 39, there’s a whole stack of contraventions and why a person might be deemed to be subject to pecuniary penalty. For instance, if they have “(2)(a) aided, abetted, counselled, or procured any other person to contravene the requirement; or (b) induced any other person, whether by threats or promises or otherwise … or (c) been in any way, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, the contravention”—gee this is a long list—“(d) conspired with any other person to contravene”—

Barbara Kuriger: Don’t run out of breath!

ANDREW BAYLY: Yes. Then, Holy Toledo! What happens is we make our six-monthly report and we realise that we’ve made a mistake. Under subclause (3)(a) in the case of an individual, we’re subject to a $50,000 fine or, in any other case, $500,000 for each act or omission.

So one of the things about this is, first of all, there was some debate about the level of these penalties, because it does introduce the issue of proportionality. If an entity ends up saying that they think that they meet their payments at 49 days, as opposed to the reality being 50, then they’re potentially up for $500,000. So why does the Minister believe that these fines are proportionate? Because inevitably we find in legislation going through we see the same sort of figures being driven through; albeit for differing types of severity. It’s fine that the Minister might say, “Well, $500,000 is the maximum.” Well, actually, it is the maximum, but it’s a high bar to start to work back towards what the ultimate fine might be for an entity, or even $50,000 for an individual.

I suppose it gives rise to the issue around, given the level of the severity of these payments and whether in fact it actually has caused any loss to a particular entity, because if it hasn’t actually resulted in loss, i.e., a firm has entered into an agreement with a company because it thought it would pay within a certain prescribed period of time and it hasn’t made that payment within one day of it or one day extra, has a loss actually occurred? I would have thought that was a pretty important issue in determining what a proportionate fine is for any person who contravenes this requirement to publish or provide the data.

So maybe we’ll just start off with that point and then we can come back to a wider issue as well.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for Small Business): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, in terms of compliance, the bill’s penalties in Part 3 are really consistent with those used in other regulatory regimes and were vetted by the Ministry of Justice’s penalties vetting team, in fact, for that very purpose. The infringement penalties are not large when taken into consideration that they would apply to some of New Zealand’s largest companies. And I have had several people ask me what the compliance approach will be.

I can’t speak in terms of hypothetical situations, but I can say that what the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has advised me is that the primary focus in this area will always be on communication and also on education, and there won’t be a compliance holiday as such. But equally we can expect the registrar to show a level of good faith and also common sense to see how these compliance tools would be used. In relation to a pecuniary penalty, I think that it’s really important to note that it only follows a compliance notice. So it’s the end of the line in terms of notifications and that level is obviously up to the court to do that.

The next point I’ll come to is I do note this is actually in the title and commencement clauses, but I will touch on it anyway because the question was raised in relation to the transitional period being extended from six to 10 months. So it was clear that the select committee wanted a six-month transitional period, but it was looking unlikely that the bill’s regulations would be gazetted immediately after the bill passes. Because it’s not possible to guarantee that, we believed it was the most prudent thing to do to extend that transitional period. And by doing that, it will ensure that the regulations are gazetted up to four months after the bill passes. But it also gives effect to the select committee’s intent that there would be that six-month implementation period. And so we’re not compromising that by the fact that the regulations have taken a slightly longer time.

So that point around the six to 10 months was raised in conjunction with another point, and I don’t quite see how they’re related but I will speak to them anyway. So it was the point of 14 calendar days and 10 working days, which is included in the Supplementary Order Paper. So what that does is it just standardises. So 14 calendar days are the same as 10 working days. By making them all the same, it removes confusion by having one term for both.

And the final point I’ll make was in relation to sort of compliance and extra work and that sort of being, I guess, non-productive and causing extra red tape. What I would say is that the more we move to an e-invoicing system in New Zealand, the more we get not only big businesses but small businesses using cloud services, using digitisation. We know that that in fact is a significant driver of increasing productivity in our economy. We know that the more that small businesses use those platforms, the more that they’re able to use those ways of digitising their finances. That, in fact, improves our productivity. And interestingly enough, it also frees them up to have a bit of better work life balance so that they know things are ticking over regularly. That’s definitely the reports we see back from businesses like MYOB, from Xero, that we’re wanting to drive a system where we can do all of these things in a digital platform format.

So I think that this bill incentivises businesses to be using this. I think also the other really important incentive that I haven’t mentioned—and while I touch on a few things more than once, I haven’t mentioned this—is that it will incentivise those big businesses to be proactive in paying. And that’s what we’re looking for. We’re wanting to drive that change so that if there is a bill that needs to be paid, it’s more likely to be done if it’s made public, knowing that that particular company is a good payer and they’ve got a good reputation and they can be proud of that reputation, and more people will want to do business with them if they have that reputation.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Lucky me. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, I appreciate you taking a five-minute call there to run through the list of questions this side of the Chamber have been putting to you. That is definitely an improvement from what we saw earlier today, so it’s appreciated from our members.

You mentioned there around productivity and how the move to e-invoicing will improve productivity. Yeah, it absolutely will. That’s a really positive thing and a better work-life balance—absolutely a good thing. Just a quick question about that. Why would we then undermine those advances by burdening companies and officials or people who could be doing productive stuff in the economy? Why would we then burden them with a regime like this that gives them information that goes into a system that is out of date and probably won’t get used for the specific purposes that your side of the Chamber has been saying that this is why it’s such a fantastic thing to have? Thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Yeah, thank you for the response, Minister. I’m reminded, when I heard those soothing words, that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will be supportive and do educational things. I’m reminded about when we did the health and safety reforms, and we had two key aspects in the health and safety reforms, which we worked closely with the then CEO about having both an educational aspect—and a big focus on that—and alongside that, the enforcement.

Of course, the preference was for as much educational focus as possible to support and encourage better health and safety practices across businesses. Now, four CEOs later, you could argue that we’ve ended up with an agency that seems overly fixated on prosecutions and is probably paying less attention to education, and that’s where I am concerned. Whilst it sounds all very nice that these fines and all that sort of stuff and the approach and that the ministry will be supportive; actually, in many years to come, that often is not the case. Some people forget and certainly don’t go back and listen to the debate or the speech by the Minister in the chair at the time.

So I suppose the issue with these fines and the compliance, the pecuniary penalties, has got to be read and understood in connection to clause 15, which I did highlight earlier on, which is saying that the regulations will specify at what point an error or omission has occurred and at which point a company or a CEO or an owner, whatever, has to come and say to the registrar, “Look, I made a mistake.” There’s an inevitable consequence of that, because that’s what clause 39 is about. If it’s deliberate or whatever—and that’s obviously an interpretation issue—and if there’s a different interpretation why the company actually ended up with an incorrect period than what they nominated in their return, then potentially they could be up for a $50,000 fine individually or $500,000 for the entity.

So one of the big concerns we’ve always had is about this reliance on regulations, because the Minister says it’s out for consultation. I know most of the business associations actually oppose this bill because they don’t think it’s necessary. So without the clarification of the regulations, but we know on the other side the hard coding around the pecuniary penalties, then there’s a real issue with that. What’s disappointing in the bill is there’s no graduation of different types of infringements that may lead to a penalty; it’s just hard coded, those amounts.

So what further assurance can the Minister give that the type of errors or omissions—whether genuine or not—covered in clause 15 are and not going to lead to the situation where an individual is up for a $50,000 fine or in fact a company or an entity is up for a $500,000 fine? Because those are not insubstantial amounts of money.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Report of Committee of the whole House

Report of Committee of the whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Grocery Industry Competition Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has considered the Charities Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has considered the Worker Protection (Migrant and Other Employees) Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Business Payment Practices Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 7 to Minister

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): I seek leave to make a personal statement to correct an answer to an oral question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: In response to question No. 7 this afternoon, 20 June 2023, I stated that I was advised that the equity adjuster is used in two hospitals: Auckland and Middlemore. However, I have since been advised that the equity adjuster is used in Auckland and Greenlane hospitals. Due to outsourcing arrangements, patients within the Auckland district are sometimes treated outside of these two hospitals. Since answering the question, I have also been advised that the equity adjuster was also in the process of being rolled out across a small number of subspecialties in the wider northern region.

Personal Explanations

Annual Review Debate—Correction

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you. I seek leave to make a personal statement to correct an answer to a question in the annual review debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: In answer to a question about cameras on fishing boats, I said that $68 million was a fixed price with Spark. In fact, that is the total funding of the programme over four years.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good evening.

The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.