Tuesday, 12 December 2023

Continued to Thursday, 14 December 2023 — Volume 772

Sitting date: 12 December 2023

TUESDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

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

Members Sworn

SPEAKER: Members, I have to report that on Friday, 8 December 2023 the Hon David Parker was sworn in as member of Parliament by the Clerk of the House.

I understand that the Hon Kelvin Davis is present and wishes to make the Affirmation of Allegiance. Would he please come forward to the chair on my right.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): Ko ahau, ko Kelvin Glen Davis, e kī i runga i te pono, i te tika, i te ngākau tapatahi, me te whakaū anō ka noho pirihonga, ka noho pūmau ki a Kīngi Tiāre te Tuatoru me tōna kāhui whakaheke e ai ki te ture.

[I, Kelvin Glen Davis, solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, His heirs and successors, according to law.]

Standing Orders

SPEAKER: Members, I’d like to draw your attention to a change in the Standing Orders that was agreed last Thursday by the House, and that is the adoption of the term “Amendment Paper” to replace “Supplementary Order Paper”—something that might be useful for members in debates over coming days.

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

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

CLERK:

Petition of Deirdre Kent requesting that the House investigate an energy rationing scheme such as the tradable energy quotas.

petition of Alva Feldmeier requesting that the House urge the Government to make a commitment and release a strategy to help Aotearoa achieve 750 megawatts of community energy generation and 400 megawatts of community energy storage by 2035

petition of Focus on Iran requesting that the House of Representatives urge the Prime Minister to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp as a terrorist entity.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. There is quite a list.

CLERK:

2022-23 annual reports of:

Crown Law Office

Crown Regional Holdings Ltd

Ministry of Education

Health and Disability Commissioner

Health Quality and Safety Commission New Zealand

Health Research Council of New Zealand

Ministry of Health

Network for Learning Ltd

New Zealand Blood Service Ltd

New Zealand Infrastructure Commission

Parliamentary Counsel Office

Sport New Zealand Group

Tamaki Regeneration Company

Ministry of Housing and Urban Development

Ministry for Women.

2023-24 Statements of Performance Expectations for:

Health and Disability Commissioner

Health Research Council of New Zealand

Health Quality and Safety Commission

Pharmac.

2023-27 Statements of Intent for:

New Zealand Blood and Organ Service

Health Research Council of New Zealand.

2023-27 Strategic Intentions for the Parliamentary Counsel Office

Reports in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the year ended 30 June 2023 for the following portfolios within Vote Business, Science and Innovation:

Economic Development

Regional Development

Sport and Recreation

Tourism

Climate Change Commission 2023 advice on the direction of polity for the Government’s second emissions reduction plan.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. There are no select committee papers. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Finance: What plans does the Government have for supporting the Reserve Bank to achieve low and stable inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Inflation has been out of the Reserve Bank’s target range now for 2½ long years, and New Zealanders are doing it tough in a cost of living crisis. The public knows that this Government’s commitment to beating inflation is rock-solid, which is why, later this evening, the Government will introduce legislation returning the Reserve Bank to a single focus on inflation. After 30 years of an extremely successful inflation-targeting regime, where the Reserve Bank largely managed to control inflation, the previous Government muddied the waters by introducing a secondary objective to focus on employment as well as inflation. Now, as the Reserve Bank wrestles with trying to bring inflation back under control, our Government will clarify the bank’s objectives and support public confidence that inflation can and will be returned below 3 percent.

David MacLeod: What support has she had from the Reserve Bank in returning the bank to a single focus on inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I wrote to the Reserve Bank outlining proposed changes to the monetary policy remit last week and the governor wrote back offering the Reserve Bank’s support for the changes, noting that “Giving the inflation objective priority will assist the credibility of the inflation target.” I want to thank the Reserve Bank for their support in recent days as we move back to a single focus on inflation. I know the Government and the bank are in lockstep in our shared goal of getting inflation back under control.

David MacLeod: What other plans does the Government have for achieving low and stable inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Amending the Reserve Bank Act is an important step but just one step in our plan to beat inflation. The governor was right when he said monetary policy needs mates, but the mates have been few and far between for the last few years. For years, the last Government’s only response to inflation was more spending. Instead of just delivering income tax relief, they experimented with broken policies like the cost of living payment and, during their term in office, managed to increase Government spending by 80 percent. And yet, which New Zealander can point to a central government service that is 80 percent better?

Hon Grant Robertson: This is not actually within the Standing Orders.

SPEAKER: A bit of order—that’s enough.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The past Government may be prepared to put more fuel on the inflation fire, but we won’t.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Government not just wasting the House’s time removing the Reserve Bank’s dual mandate, as the governor said in response to my questioning in 2022 that it had not changed their approach to monetary policy and targeting inflation—virtue-signalling, if you will?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I note that both the Treasury and the Reserve Bank are supportive of an approach to monetary policy that more clearly prioritises achieving price stability.

Hon Grant Robertson: On what date will inflation fall below 3 percent as a result of this piece of legislation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Quicker than under your watch! But I would note that I asked the member the same question when he was the Minister of Finance, and as he well knows, the Reserve Bank is required to return inflation within the target band over the medium term. This very point is one that the coalition has committed to exploring, and we will be taking advice on whether we should better define the medium term so that New Zealanders can have even greater confidence about the time period in which inflation will come under control.

David MacLeod: What other plans does the Government have for achieving low and stable inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government recognises that inflation has many influences. We are also committed to reducing costs on business which end up being passed on to New Zealanders, and this will help reduce inflationary pressure in the economy. We’re already taking actions through our 100-day plan, including ending the ute tax, abolishing the Government’s broken Resource Management Act reforms, restoring flexibility in the labour market, and cancelling Labour’s plans for fuel tax hikes next year.

Question No. 2—Acting Prime Minister

2. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and policies?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): With regard to evidence and information at the time of those statements, yes. But, of course, where new information or evidence emerges, we acknowledge that and don’t just carry on like a bigoted lefty shill.

SPEAKER: Can I just remind the member that the question is to the Acting Prime Minister and Hansard will record that.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with the statement made by then Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters in 2018 that the oil and gas ban “makes sense” and that introducing the ban was the change that New Zealanders wanted?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say that the Prime Minister and this Government have its settings on the future, and if the Prime Minister and that member with the question were to go back and examine the time and the place when that statement was made, there was a ban on at the time. Does that member not remember that?

Hon Marama Davidson: Is reopening the New Zealand coast to oil and gas exploration a contradiction to the Minister of Climate Change’s call for a global agreement to phase out fossil fuels at COP28?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister: right now at COP 28, they are wrestling with that very issue, and they’ll be probably working days longer than that because they haven’t come to an agreement. And the two representatives at that time—the previous member and Minister in charge of it and the present Minister—are doing a fine job to ensure that New Zealand’s commitments remain the same going forward.

Steve Abel: Does he agree with the United Nations Secretary-General that “the 1.5 degree limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels, not reduce, not abate?”, and if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect to that questioner, the UN Secretary-General Guterres has made it very, very clear that this is a subject for COP28, and he’s awaiting the outcome for that, and so are we as contributors.

Steve Abel: Does he consider the repeal of the ban on oil and gas exploration to be a betrayal of our Pacific neighbours, who today called for a global phase-out of fossil fuels as the only way to save the Pacific from going to “their watery graves?”

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, we do not, and the reason is very simple. We are in the middle of a transition, and rather than bringing in a whole lot of inferior Indonesian coal, which the previous Government was doing, we’re looking for safer products to take us—[Interruption] They might think this is a laughing matter. I hear them scoffing over here—brought in all that Indonesian coal, trying to excuse themselves, and not even using New Zealand coal, which would have been a better, cleaner substitute. And here we go now into a transition where gas will be very critical and, when we get there, we’ll be able to face the Pacific nations and have done our duty to them as well.

Question No. 3—Acting Prime Minister

3. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Hon Grant Robertson: That’s you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): The pause was because the same question was asked when it was question two, and did not the former Prime Minister see that? The answer is: ditto.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his Government’s commitment in the National - ACT coalition document to “amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 to limit ministerial decision-making to national security concerns?”, and is he confident that all parties in the coalition will be supporting that amendment?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If that wasn’t the case, we would not have signed up to it.

Hon Grant Robertson: You did!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, I said if that was not the case, we would not have signed up to it. Words matter, Mr Robertson, not this gobbledygook. And the reason we signed up to it was because we could see under the previous administration they had no idea of the importance of international investment and the security of long-term policy which persuades people to come here.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Winston Peters in 2017 that “last year, 465,000 hectares of land was sold to foreigners. That’s up to four times on the year before. We in New Zealand First are going to stop land sales to foreigners and house sales to foreigners who don’t come and live here.”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, can I just say that having heard that quote from one of the brightest guys that have ever come to this Parliament, it was voiced by not me—a previous Labour Party person said that; I was just borrowing his words. But the point of the matter is that we were looking to ensure that any offshore investment in this country had the national interest and economic benefit of New Zealand—like Ireland, like countries like Singapore—first in mind. And with that in mind, we welcome overseas investment.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why is the Government repealing that test from the Act?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because like everything the Labour Party put its hands on, they didn’t interpret it properly.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his Government’s commitment to repeal the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Act, or does he agree with Shane Jones that the dual mandate brings us “into international best practice area. This is not a journey into the unknown; this is to link up progressive, far-sighted Government passing legislation that shows a great similarity to other reserve banks in their mandates, which have moved away from this bare, sparse, barren approach reflective of Don Brash’s stewardship of said bank.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m certain that members and those in the gallery and those who are watching on TV are going to enjoy today’s conversation because they’re hearing so many wise words being repeated back to them—in this case, by the Opposition—with respect to National Party members. But we have to move on. The point is this—

Hon Grant Robertson: You’re out, Shane!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, we have to move on in this context. [Interruption] The Minister of Finance is wrestling with something very similar to what’s emerged in Australia lately, and that is inflation. Unlike what the previous finance Minister said, it is not foreign grown; it’s home grown, and massively so, because of their squanderous expenditure. That’s why we had to have a talk with the Governor of the Reserve Bank and get him to help us, both ways, to turn back the tide of inflation and give New Zealanders a chance to go into the future with the hope that we’ll have a better cost of living.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he therefore agree with Winston Peters that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Act “makes very important changes to the Reserve Bank Act that will significantly improve monetary policy as it relates to its impact on New Zealanders and the real economy”; if so, why is the Government repealing them?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because at the time that Winston Peters said that, he was having regard to an immigration policy which he had persuaded the then Government to adapt. It hardly got there, and when the handbrake went off, they ran amok and in the last year have brought in 118,000 immigrants—that’s a massive record for this country—with no infrastructure, no houses, no health, no nothing. And he now wants us to carry on with the same policy. No, it’s important that we address the circumstances we’re in right now, left by them.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was an interesting answer, but it wasn’t to the question. The question was about the Reserve Bank, not about what was talked about.

SPEAKER: Well, the question was actually about a quote from the Rt Hon Winston Peters from some time ago, and what the Acting Prime Minister thought of that quote. I think he answered it fairly concisely.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with David Seymour that “you can’t trust Winston Peters, and a lot of things will be much, much harder than they otherwise would.”, and that Winston Peters is “just a muppet; the problem is he can’t work with anyone. The good news is he’s going down on flames; he’s yesterday’s man.”, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because even politically, as the Good Book says, nobody’s beyond redemption. Nobody is for not understanding how helpful a person can be. The people who should be the authority on that are sitting over there, because without our open-mindedness and liberality, no one would have ever heard of those people ever again. But they hardly got the job and they thought they got there by themselves. And when the handbrake left, what a mess they were. My evidence for that is in their first week of being a parliamentary Opposition, they asked 6,000 questions, which kind of suggests in 2020 to 2023, they had no answers.

Hon David Seymour: Has the Government ever reversed position—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold on. Just a bit of order. The question’s being asked. The Hon David Seymour.

Hon David Seymour: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Has the Government ever reversed policy positions before, such as putting on a bonfire the RNZ-TVNZ merger—

SPEAKER: Yeah, nice question but out of order. So we’ll go now to question number four.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Point of order—better be one.

Hon David Seymour: It’s a question about Government policy. Surely I can ask about policies—

SPEAKER: No, you were citing a previous Government’s policy, and as you know, that’s not permissible. The member himself would have probably elicited that very ruling from a Speaker in the past.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made on setting speed limits in New Zealand?

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Today, I announced that the coalition Government is amending speed limit rules as part of our commitment to stop blanket speed limit reductions across the country. Kiwis have been faced with blanket speed limit reductions due to the previous Government’s speed limits rule, which fails to prioritise the economic impacts of slowing New Zealanders down and the views of road users and local communities alongside safety. Changes that I have announced today will remove deadlines for speed management plans and allow road-controlling authorities to stop blanket speed limit reductions on our roads while we write a new rule.

Tom Rutherford: Why have these changes been made?

SIMEON BROWN: These changes have been made to remove mandatory requirements set by the previous Government for road-controlling authorities to implement blanket speed limit reductions across the country. This coalition Government wants to see a transport system that boosts productivity and economic growth and allows New Zealanders to get where they want to go quickly and safely. Given our coalition Government has begun work on a new rule, I wanted to ensure road-controlling authorities avoid wasting public money—something the Opposition doesn’t care about—on finalising speed management plans only to have to revisit these plans under a new rule.

Tom Rutherford: What are the next steps for ending blanket speed limit reductions?

SIMEON BROWN: Very good question. The next step is to write a new rule that takes into consideration a wide range of factors including economic impacts, including travel times, and the views of road users and local communities alongside safety when setting speed limits. The National-ACT coalition agreement is committed to reversing blanket speed limit reductions where it is safe to do so, and this will come as welcome news to Kiwis around the country who have been faced with unnecessary blanket speed limit reductions under the previous Government. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. Just to remind members that when questions are being asked the questioner is given the courtesy of a quiet House. Tom Rutherford.

Tom Rutherford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What requirements will the Minister set for speed limits outside of schools?

SIMEON BROWN: This new rule that I will develop next year will require road-controlling authorities to implement variable speed limits on roads approaching schools during pick-up and drop-off times. This differs to the previous Government’s rule which resulted in blanket speed limit reductions to 30 kilometres per hour on many urban roads. Our coalition Government’s new rule will keep young New Zealanders safe while allowing Kiwis to get where they want to go quickly and safely.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by Nicola Willis’ statement, “Coming back to those extra source of revenue and other savings areas that will help us to fund the tax reduction, we have to remember that the changes to the smoke free legislation had a significant impact on the Government’s books—with about $1 billion there.”; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes.

Hon Grant Robertson: What is the source of her statement that there is a billion dollars a year impact on the Government’s books from undoing the smoke-free changes?

NICOLA WILLIS: The source was my answer to the question, and I continue to seek advice from officials on the spending and revenue implications of coalition commitments. Many of those details are Budget sensitive and I will make announcements about them in due course. As the member well knows, the statement he is referring to was made before I was sworn in as the Minister of Finance.

Hon Grant Robertson: Has she been advised that there is a billions of dollars a year impact on the Government’s books from undoing the smoke-free changes?

NICOLA WILLIS: As I say, I continue to seek advice from officials on the spending and revenue implications of coalition commitments. Many of those details are Budget sensitive and I will make announcements about them in due course.

Hon Grant Robertson: Is she ruling out using the revenue from winding back smoke-free initiatives to fund tax cuts?

NICOLA WILLIS: As the member knows, the Government has multiple sources of revenue and multiple spending commitments. It is this Government’s expectation that, just as was the case with his outgoing Government, tobacco will continue to be regulated and taxed. I note that during his time as finance Minister, he collected hundreds of millions of dollars in tobacco tax revenue, which was used for a wide range of purposes, including health and education services and Working for Families payments.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe that question was addressed in that answer. I asked her whether she was ruling it out or not.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s often the case. The question is asked; an answer is given; the question is addressed.

Hon Grant Robertson: That’s very philosophical, Mr Speaker. Will she today rule out using the revenue gained from stopping the smoke-free changes for tax cuts in light of Sir Collin Tukuitonga describing doing so as “immoral”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Just as was the case with his Government, tax revenue from a range of sources will be used to support the activities of Government, including delivery of health services through to transfer payments and paying down debt. The member may not like the answers to my questions, but in Opposition he’s going to have to get used to it. And if I may say to the member, Opposition does appear to suit him.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Justice: What is the Government’s position on sentencing, and why?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The coalition Government will take a tougher approach to sentencing law so serious offenders face real consequences for their crime as part of our plan to restore law and order. The coalition Government will prioritise public safety and victims through a series of measures we have agreed to implement. These include limiting massive discounts that weaken offenders’ final sentencing.

Cameron Brewer: What recent estimates has he seen about sentencing discounts?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’ve been advised by officials that, for serious and violent offenders who pleaded guilty in 2021–22, their best estimate is that between 4,600 and 7,800 offenders were issued with a sentencing discount of greater than 40 percent.

Cameron Brewer: Why is the Government concerned about large sentencing discounts?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The strong feedback we’ve received across the country this year is that many New Zealanders are concerned with increased violent crime and want to see tougher consequences for serious violent and sexual offenders. Part of the role of sentencing is to denounce the criminal act and to recognise the harm caused to victims.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does the Minister agree with the statement of Mr Penk of the Maxim Institute in an opinion piece in the New Zealand Herald that “Serious crimes deserve serious punishment, but three strikes is a blunt tool, capable of doing serious injustice”; if not, what advice has he received suggesting that a three-strikes regime is an effective sentencing approach?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I haven’t seen that report, and I don’t agree with the sentiments there. I think three strikes did send a very clear signal to offenders that serious consequences for crime are required. And I think we’ve seen right throughout the last year, all around the communities, that New Zealanders have been concerned about the rise of crime under the previous Government.

Cameron Brewer: What progress has he made on implementing the Government’s plan to take a tougher approach to sentencing?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’m pleased to inform the House that the coalition Government is prioritising its plan to restore law and order after six years of a Government being focused on reducing prison numbers without reducing crime. As well as the measures listed in our 100-day plan, we have committed to limiting total sentence discounts to 40 percent. This will ensure that serious offenders face real consequences for their crime.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that the previous Government’s policy with respect to serious crime is going to be consigned back to the fishing industry, and that no longer for serious crime are we going to have catch and release?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not a reasonable question.

Question No. 7—Workplace Relations and Safety

7. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she accept the Treasury’s advice that the removal of fair pay agreements would disproportionately affect women, young people, Māori, and Pasifika; if not, why not?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I have not received any advice from Treasury, nor would I expect to.

Teanau Tuiono: Does she acknowledge that Christmas is a particularly stressful time for low-wage workers, and if so, why is her first action as Minister to remove workplace rights instead of improve them?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I acknowledge that many Kiwis are struggling with a cost of living crisis, and that’s why this Government is focused on improving productivity, reducing regulation, and getting rid of inflation so that Kiwis have more money for them and their families. But I want to acknowledge, when it comes to the fair pay agreements, nobody will be worse off with the removal of the fair pay agreements, because there have not been any fair pay agreements finalised.

Teanau Tuiono: Does she know how many workers are in sectors that have already instigated bargaining under the fair pay agreements framework, and, if not, why hasn’t she asked?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: There have been six fair pay agreements that are currently in a bargaining process. There are many New Zealanders who are being represented during that process. But, of course, I want to stress that not a single member involved in that process has a fair pay agreement, because not a single fair pay agreement has been finalised or signed. So no Kiwis are worse off.

Teanau Tuiono: Is she aware that bus drivers, cleaners, and early childhood education teachers earn at least 30 percent more pay in Australia, where sector-based bargaining is in place, and, if so, why should New Zealanders settle for less?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Workers in Australia, across industries, are better off. But that’s why this Government is focusing on making sure that we have a flexible labour market where we increase productivity, where we have businesses able to invest in their workers and invest in their businesses so workers and business are better off in our economy. That is the focus of our Government—to have a thriving economy where businesses have more money to pay their staff more.

Teanau Tuiono: Has she sought advice from officials on their preferred option of minimum employment standards to ensure there is no race to the bottom for low-wage workers, and, if not, is that because she is more interested in disproven right-wing ideology than in lifting wages?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I have not asked for any advice on alternative models. I am focused on delivering on this Government’s 100-day commitment to repeal the fair pay agreements. I look forward to working with the member, over the next three years, in this portfolio. Clearly, he’s interested in where we get to.

Question No. 8—Acting Prime Minister

8. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and policies?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): In the same way as we answered for questions two and three, and again in question eight.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he stand by his decision to use parliamentary urgency to push through legislation that will increase unemployment and insecure working conditions, while reducing wages, when people are trying to survive a cost of living crisis and put more kai on the table for Christmas?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because none of those statements in that so-called question are true. But they are relevant to the inheritance that this Government is, sadly, having to deal with now, and desperately before Christmas. And so if they’d paid more attention to the economy, rather than their woke, idiotic, left ideals—

SPEAKER: Yep, that’ll do.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —the workers of this country would have done far better. But it’s been my observation that the Greens—the economies that they admire are all in the Third World.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, through you, please, e te Pīka. There are a couple of ones I could bring in—perhaps Standing Order 121, personal reflections, or relevance to debate, Standing Order 112. I’ll leave that up to you, please.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know. But I could also rule out your first supplementary because it had suppositions in it. So we do try and get a degree of flow, if at all possible. But if you just restate your concerns, there, because I didn’t quite pick up the first one.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: My concerns are that the question, for the Deputy Prime Minister, wasn’t answered. And we also take exception with reference to “woke”. They’re personal reflections and they don’t belong in this House. Ko tōku whakaaro.

[That is my opinion.]

SPEAKER: Yes, there’s an awful lot of things that happen in this House that don’t really belong here, so I think we might just let that one slide. Do you have another supplementary at all?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yes, I do. Thank you. What is his justification for repealing fair pay agreements and reducing the wages and conditions of Māori, Pasifika, young people, and women, as highlighted by his own Government’s leaked Cabinet paper?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, first of all, the integrity of the person answering this question on the subject of incomes and wages is that that threshold was set in the previous Government, not by Labour or the Greens but by New Zealand First. We want the working class of this country to get fairly paid, but we want a thing called productivity, and we know it’s only based on—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: It’s nonsense.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s not nonsense; it’s totally true and I can prove it. I can go back to 2017 and prove that categorically. We know what they campaigned on, so don’t come here today and try and tell us what you couldn’t do. At the end of the last three years, the workers of this country were dramatically let down by a failed economy, and our job is to turn that around. When we do so, we’ll uplift the wages of everybody in this country.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is this Government planning to bring back 90-day trials, which will disproportionately punish tangata whenua, particularly rangatahi trying to get their foot in the door of the job market, when the research commissioned by the Treasury in 2016 found no evidence that trial periods increased firms’ overall hiring but instead just make it easier for firms to sack people without cause and with fewer dismissal costs?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The fact is—if anyone understands economics—a willing business and a willing worker are critical to employment. So whether it’s one month, two months, or three months, the fact of the matter is that the sound connection of those two will work. However, it is our intention as the Government, the moment someone is no longer able to work, to be on their case to get them back into work. So the consequences that that member’s talking about simply will not happen.

Hon Grant Robertson: Given the member’s pride in the minimum wage level, can he tell the House what the minimum wage is today?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Twenty-two dollars, $23, $22.70. $22.70—am I right? Yeah. [Interruption] No, I didn’t ask him—no, I was telling him. I said $22.70, knowing that I’d have an affirmation on my right from the Minister of Finance and the Leader of the House. Over here, we consult before we open our mouth.

Rawiri Waititi: He aha tō whakautu ki ngā rōpū e mahi ana mō ngā tamariki rawakore e karanga ana kia heke te whika o ngā tamariki rawakore mā te pene, mā te hiki i te whiwhinga pūtea, mā te ngāwari o te hoko kai, me te māuiui ārai?

[What is your response to the groups that are working for underprivileged children that are calling for a reduction in the number of underprivileged people by the pen, by raising wages, by making it easier to buy food and medication?]

SPEAKER: Is the member going to translate that or does he want to give the Minister a moment to receive that translation?

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, no. It’s only a question; it wasn’t any kind of a direction.

Rawiri Waititi: Absolutely not.

SPEAKER: OK. The question doesn’t need to be answered if the Minister—or the Prime Minister in this case—doesn’t feel like he wants to answer it. So does the member want to have another question?

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I guess, strictly speaking, your ruling is in order, but the practice in the time I’ve been in the House is that that is only done when a question is definitively out of order. We have a simultaneous translation system in the House to allow for members to answer. I wonder whether the right course of action here might be for Mr Waititi to repeat the question and the Acting Prime Minister to use his earpiece for the translation.

SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’ll answer the question.

SPEAKER: Oh, we’ve got an answer to the question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I just wish that the courtesy of the House would apply so that the person asking the question, Mr Speaker—point of order—also had the comfort that the people who are watching on television also are part of this parliamentary debate. That’s what a democracy is called. It’s not just about 5 percent; it’s about the other 95 percent as well. It’s called “one people, one country”. Now, back to my point. If the member is concerned about the cost of living—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: You are—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, no. On the marae, Megan, you keep quiet. You do. Willie knows that; he keeps quiet too. You don’t shout out like some bunch of clowns at university. That member’s asked a question; he deserves an answer and I’ll give it to him. If the member is concerned about the cost of living, then that is the greatest concern of this Government as well. When we went into the last election it was a massive issue, and just behind it was crime and lawlessness and Māori gangs, by the same way. But the cost of living can only be addressed by dealing with the causes of it, and the causes of it are the number one centre and focus of this Government going forward.

Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Was that a point of order?

SPEAKER: No, that was an answer.

Hon Marama Davidson: He raised a point of order.

SPEAKER: No, no, I’m sorry—sorry, hang on. The Acting Prime Minister made it very clear: when I called him on a point of order he said, “No, it is an answer.”, and that’s how we progressed.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect to the House and to everyone watching, can we please seek clarity from the Speaker: are our questions in te reo no longer going to be answered by Ministers if they choose not to use the interpreter? That’s a really important subject that we’re looking for clarity on, please.

SPEAKER: I can’t answer that question for Ministers. The provision is made here for the translation. A Minister decides whether or not an answer can be given, and there are very clear outlines in the Standing Orders as to how they might make that decision.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The questions were for the Deputy Prime Minister, so I respect that Ministers may choose to do what they want to, but this is a question that would have gone to the Prime Minister, who isn’t here. So can I seek clarity again: is it the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister, or the Government that’s making this decision before us today? Because it is a big decision.

SPEAKER: No, it’s not; it’s straightforward—that all Ministers are part of the Government, including the Prime Minister, whether they’re Acting Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, or a Minister, and it is very clear under the Standing Orders how they may or may not answer the question.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think, in fairness to the members asking the questions, sometimes the contemporaneous translation service doesn’t quite keep up with the asking of the question. So if I could say to members who wish to use te reo when asking questions: if they could perhaps indicate they’re about to do so, so that Ministers and Government respondents can get the translation device, the hearing equipment—the earpiece—so that they can actually listen to the question as it’s being asked. That will also help the translator do their job as well, so that we can have the expeditious exchange rather than what we just had.

SPEAKER: Next in line was Marama Davidson.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you, Mr Speaker—genuine and important conversation happening right here. Are we to believe, then, that it simply becomes a choice for a Minister to not answer a question, given that te reo is an official language, similar to New Zealand Sign Language? I understand the point that Mr Bishop is trying to make, that, yes, I’d too be open to the person asking the question to repeat the question so that we all have time to pick up our translators; agree. But are we to understand that it is simply a choice not to answer a question that is asked in an official language of this country?

SPEAKER: No, I think the member confuses two things: one is that there’s no question that te reo is an official language of this country. The fact that it is not a language that is shared with any fluency by a large number of members of the House is neither here nor there. The use of it is permitted. When it comes to the answering of a question, there’s nothing new in this; it has always been the case. In fact, Speakers’ ruling 199/4 makes it very clear the parameters for Ministers able to decide to not to answer a question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The concern I have here is—you’re quite right to point out Speakers’ ruling 199/4, but also Speaker’s ruling 199/3 says that where a question is clear, there’s an expectation that Ministers answer it. It’s unfortunate how this has played out, however, where there were the words “point of order” used, it’s been ruled that it was a comment, but nevertheless the response that was part of that suggested that that Minister—perhaps others—will not answer questions if they are asked in te reo. Now, I’m not sure that it’s useful to continue that, so I wonder if you would reflect on it, perhaps watch it over again, because it would be an unfortunate reflection on the House if that was what is suggested, backed up by the suggestion that Ministers don’t have to answer. We shouldn’t go down that track.

SPEAKER: I take the member’s point on board and will, in fact, reflect a little further on it. It’s one of the penances you do in this job, reflecting on these things, so I’ll go ahead with that and come up with whatever it might be.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just following on from the speaker who has resumed his seat, the reality is that there was a slight delay in the translation, reflective of the rudimentary nature of the Māori language and my ability to make it sound more sophisticated in English.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Hang on, we’re talking about his one.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to it?

SPEAKER: Well, I’m sure that’s a wonderful piece of—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to it?

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’m just congratulating him on his self-congratulations inside of the point of order. It was quite remarkable. The Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, and I thank the Minister for his contribution. However, the issue that arose also from the suggestion from the Hon Grant Robertson that Rawiri Waititi be given the opportunity to repeat the question, that all members in the House therefore would have notice, and would be able to listen to the translation—however, the response was that Ministers don’t need to provide an answer, and now we are where we are.

SPEAKER: No, it was two parts to the point. I answered the first part. If the member wants to ask the question again, then I think we can progress by doing so.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. With respect, e te Pīka, just again to seek clarity from this party’s perspective, and the 70 percent of our population who are under the age of 40 who kōrero e te reo Māori, if we need to bring about a different practice, because this is a practice that we’ve had since we came in three years ago, Te Ururoa had—that we’ve had Te Pāti Māori enjoy, and other members across the House. Is the decision today—and it may need to go up for reflection for the Business Committee—that we need to indicate when we’re transferring language, or is there going to be a different set of protocols applied around—

SPEAKER: No, it’s not a decision that’s been made here at all. I’ve said that I will reflect on how we might make things work more smoothly, because you might notice that most of the people in this House are not reflective of that 70 percent—in age, if nothing else—so if we are to get answers to questions, we need to have something that works. That’s certainly my desire.

Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Marama Davidson—last point of order on this matter.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s just in relation to Speaker’s rulings 199/3. It’s very clear that where the question is clear, there is an expectation that Ministers will answer it unless they consider it not to be in the public interest to do so. So I’m just seeking clarification on whether it is not in the public interest, or what is the ruling that you are calling to allow Ministers to have that choice?

SPEAKER: The ruling stands, but it is not for the Speaker to determine the interpretation of that ruling. Do we have another supplementary on this question?

Rawiri Waititi: Just for clarification, Mr Speaker, and your guidance: is it a repeat of the first question, or are you saying that I have to move on to the next question?

SPEAKER: No, look, I’ll tell you what: you make the choice. Is that OK? You can ask the first question again if you want, and that won’t cost you your subsequent supplementaries.

Rawiri Waititi: OK, first supplementary question: He aha tō whakautu ki ngā rōpū e mahi ana mō ngā tamariki rawakore e karanga ana kia heke te whika o ngā tamariki rawakore mā te pene, mā te hiki i te whiwhinga pūtea, mā te ngāwari o te hoko kai, me te māuiui ārai?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If we’re going to help all those people who are working with the poor, then the first thing we should do is uplift our economy, and leave no one out. That is the purpose and the focus of this Government—that with the reforms that are going to go ahead, running a far more successful economy, and ensuring that no one is left out in housing, education, and health, and in terms of infrastructure access, then people will be uplifted; not like the disaster we had, where there were all those tens and tens and tens of thousands utterly forgotten, and the homeless went up by 35 percent.

Rawiri Waititi: He aha ngā kaupapa here a tēnei Kāwana mō te hiki i te whiwhinga pūtea kia ngāwari ai te utu mō ngā pire o te kai me te penihīni i mua i te Kirihimete?

[What are the policies of this Government for raising incomes to make it easier to pay for food and fuel bills before Christmas?]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, the first thing that is going to happen is that in parts of the economy the cost of petrol is going to go down, because the unfair charging that was imposed by a previous Government for no purpose while roading was a mess—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: We’ll hold you to that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, you are going to hold us to that—you won’t have to hold us to that because unlike that member, we keep our promises. We don’t just make them and break them one after the other; we keep them. So those pricings should go down. It depends of course on all the international circumstances of supply chains to this country. And whilst I’m at it, they left this country’s fuel supply in a desperate circumstance when they wound back Marsden Point. We could be closed down within three days because of their short-sightedness, and Megan Woods is the person who never acted in international interests—just allowed the refinery that is so critical to this country in an emergency to be not operating any longer. And on the bigger question of costs of living before Christmas, well there’s only two weeks to go and we’re going to do the best we can to signal to the market and through the Groceries Commissioner a fairer pricing regime going forward.

Question No. 9—Police

9. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: How many Constabulary Full Time Equivalents does Police expect to need to train each year for the next two years in order to maintain the 1 to 480 ratio, and will the Government’s commitment for “no fewer than 500 new frontline police within the first two years” be in addition to that?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): I’m advised that the 1:480 ratio was never finalised, nor was it funded adequately by the previous Government.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will the number of constabulary fulltime-equivalents be 500 higher in two years’ time? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The honourable member is asking a question. I didn’t even hear it. Can you do that again?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will the number of constabulary fulltime-equivalents be 500 higher in two years’ time?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, in the police, numbers matter, and we’re committed to the coalition agreement that we have with New Zealand First. They delivered 1,800 additional police officers, and they’re now committed to an additional 500.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We’ve had two questions to the Minister of Police and he hasn’t answered either of the questions. One of them was a primary question on notice. If you go and have a look at the primary question on notice, it was: “How many Constabulary Full Time Equivalents does Police expect to need to train each year for the next two years in order to maintain the 1 to 480 ratio,” and will he commit to there being “no fewer than 500 new frontline police within the first two years”. He didn’t answer that. That was a primary question on notice.

SPEAKER: No, he did. He actually said—

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: Well, just a minute. What he actually said was that he didn’t agree that the 1:480 ratio was ever funded.

Hon Chris Bishop: That’s right—which gets to the premise of the question.

SPEAKER: That would seem to be a reasonable answer. But, Mr Bishop?

Hon Chris Bishop: No, you made my point.

SPEAKER: Right.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question would have had to have been authenticated. Therefore, you have accepted that the question is valid; therefore, you should accept—you should require the Minister to provide an answer.

SPEAKER: Actually, no. Many times, there are questions that are asked in this House that the argument—the authentication has been run and not necessarily accepted by the Minister who’s answering the question. Now, what I do is irrelevant here. What he says is what the House gets as an answer in addressing a question. I’m sorry that that’s the way it is. It’s not changed from when other Ministers were on the other side of the House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I recall a previous shadow Leader of the House asking a then Speaker whether or not a Minister could stand up and simply say “Rhubarb!” in answer to a question, because at that point the Speaker had ruled very similarly to what you have ruled today—that simply standing up and giving an answer was sufficient to address the question. So I once again raise the point of order that was raised by the then Hon Gerry Brownlee to the then Speaker—I can’t remember which Speaker it was at the time—as to whether or not that continues to apply.

SPEAKER: Well, I can assure you that the Hon Gerry Brownlee got a very unsatisfactory answer at that time, and I’m sorry I can’t give you a better one now.

Hon Grant Robertson: A further point of order—a further point of order.

SPEAKER: No, no, we’ve got David Seymour—point of order, David Seymour.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ve got some sympathy for the point that Chris Hipkins is raising, but if he thought it was important, he should have raised it at the time, not one or two questions later.

SPEAKER: Thank you for that advice. The Hon Grant Robertson.

Hon Grant Robertson: Mr Speaker, acknowledging the ruling you’ve made, how was Mr Mitchell’s answer to the primary question an answer to the second leg of the primary question?

SPEAKER: Can you say that again. Sorry, I didn’t pick it up.

Hon Grant Robertson: Sorry. How was the answer that Mr Mitchell gave to the primary question an answer to the second leg of the question? The first leg of the question indeed was about the ratio. We may differ on whether or not that was addressed, but the second part of the question was most definitely not addressed.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the—

SPEAKER: Well, I thought he had actually said that he expected for that to be the number. But if I’m wrong—the Hon Chris Bishop? The Hon Ginny Andersen.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he aware that 500 additional police officers over two years is not enough to even replace attrition, and is he comfortable overseeing a reduction in front-line numbers?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the 500 is additional police officers. The challenge that we’ve got as an incoming Government is that it’s become very apparent to us that the police have got big challenges around recruiting. The recruiting pipeline, there’s pressure on that; we’ve got the Australians here recruiting our police officers; we’ve got a lot of officers coming up to retirement age. So she should understand that there’s challenges there, but the good news is the police remain committed to delivering an additional 500 police officers.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can the New Zealand public have confidence in him if he expects to oversee an overall decrease in constabulary front-line numbers?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, they can have confidence in me and this Government because we take public safety seriously.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he expect New Zealanders to feel safer with fewer police on our streets, and, if not, what is he going to do about it?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, there’s not going to be fewer police on the streets, number one. Number two, police officers are actually going to be on the front line serving the communities that they work in, and, number three, you’ve got a serious Government now that actually takes public safety seriously, and the country’s going to be safer.

Question No. 10—Police

10. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Police: What reports has he seen on policing in recent weeks?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Very good question. Police have done some outstanding work recently. This has included Operation Shadow in Hamilton City and the wider Waikato region, targeting illegal street racing offenders. Police have made 12 arrests, issued 220 infringement notices, and suspended three licences in response to road users blocking roads and exhibiting unsafe driving behaviours. There were seven arrests made for excessive breath alcohol, two for disorder, one for driving while suspended, one for a breach of home detention, and another had an existing warrant for arrest. I know and the police know that our communities are fed up with this behaviour, and I congratulate police for their outstanding work. Police said—and I quote—“We want to send a message to anyone involved in this type of behaviour that Police will work incredibly hard to hold you to account for any illegal activity”.

Rima Nakhle: What reports has he received from police on the policing of gangs?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I was very impressed by how police staff handled the recent gang tangi in Foxton. Police monitored the movements of gang members across the North Island roads and made it clear they had a strong presence and that law and order would be maintained. They made sure members of the public were able to go about their business freely and safely. I want to thank police for ensuring there were minimal disruptions to the public and that they were kept safe.

Rima Nakhle: Given his focus on public safety, is he concerned by any recent reports that he has seen on policing?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, I’m very concerned about a report that was released last week. The report was released by the Committee for Auckland with Deloitte and Auckland Unlimited. It says—and I quote—“Auckland ranks only 124th in safety, marking a three-year decline and positioning it among the lowest-performing peer cities on safety and [the] bottom within Australasia.” I am incredibly concerned that our biggest city and our economic centre is now one of the lowest ranked cities in the world for public safety. It is a stain on our nation and a terrible indictment on the record of the previous Government. This Government is committed to turning that around, supporting police, and improving public safety.

Question No. 11—Children

11. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) to the Minister for Children: What changes, if any, is the Government proposing to the legislation that governs Oranga Tamariki?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The coalition agreement between National and ACT commits to repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act. Section 7AA was introduced as a way for Oranga Tamariki to honour the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. While it might’ve been well intentioned, the law has had some serious unintended consequences. That’s because section 7AA creates a fundamental conflict between protecting the best interests of children on one hand and honouring the Treaty in the other.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What impact will this change have on the services and supports Oranga Tamariki provides to Māori children and young people?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Nothing about this change will affect the support services and programmes that Oranga Tamariki provides for Māori. Repealing section 7AA is about ensuring the safety and wellbeing and the best interests of children and young people so that it’s the paramount consideration of Oranga Tamariki. The Oranga Tamariki Act already has provisions which protect the rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi, and I have also already made it very clear to officials that they should continue working with iwi and Māori organisations where this is achieving positive outcomes for young people.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Given the ACT coalition agreement requires the Government to assess the quality of new and existing legislation and regulation, will she commit to doing a regulatory impact assessment on the impacts of removing section 7AA on Māori children?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: As part of the coalition agreement between National and ACT, we have committed to repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order. The Minister did not answer the question.

SPEAKER: Well, we could have a repeat of the question, but I thought that she did actually say what the coalition was prepared to do in relation to the question. [Interruption] OK, well, ask the question again.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Sure. Given the ACT coalition agreement requires the Government to assess the quality of new and existing legislation and regulation, will she commit to doing a regulatory impact assessment on the impact of removing section 7AA on Māori children?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I repeat that as part of the coalition agreement between National and ACT, we’ve committed to repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, and I wouldn’t expect to receive that advice.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Supplementary, Mr Speaker? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on; we’re out of control here. Is this a question or a point of order?

Kahurangi Carter: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Please ask your supplementary question.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she stand by—

SPEAKER: Sorry, wait on; I’ve misunderstood. Point of order, the Hon Willow-Jean Prime.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, the Minister did not answer the question.

Hon David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order, I listened very carefully and the Minister said, “I would expect to receive that advice”, which I imagined was her reference to a regulatory impact statement. I recommend the member asking the question try listening carefully. She might learn something.

SPEAKER: Just in any event, I think the response, given it was a question about the coalition agreement, was probably reasonable. Can I call on Kahurangi Carter.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she stand by the Crown’s acknowledgment in the Wai 2915 inquiry that the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi require the Crown to take active and positive steps to address the significant disparity in the proportion of tamariki Māori in care, and, if so, how do the proposed changes to Oranga Tamariki legislation achieve this?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: As I have stated in previous answers, nothing about this change will affect the support services or the programmes that Oranga Tamariki provide for Māori. The Oranga Tamariki Act already has provisions that protect the rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi, and that will not change.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: The question is: what will the changes that the Minister is proposing mean for children who come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The dilemma Oranga Tamariki faces between protecting the best interests of children and honouring the Treaty is causing harm. Section 7AA has resulted in Māori children being removed from safe, loving homes they’ve lived in for years and being placed with family they may not know, because their parents or their caregivers may happen to be the wrong ethnicity. As Associate Professor Nicola Atwell of Otago University says, section 7AA has led to practice which is ideologically driven and neither child centred nor trauma informed. Ethnicity should not be a factor in deciding what is in the best interests of at-risk children.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What other changes is the Government proposing for Oranga Tamariki?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I believe there must be a greater level of public accountability within Oranga Tamariki for its performance. We need to put an end to finger-pointing whenever Oranga Tamariki fails. Better performance must start with accountable governance. Greater accountability will include creating a truly independent monitoring and oversight agency for Oranga Tamariki and will also improve attractiveness of caregiving to give caregivers the right to make everyday decisions about a child’s life by default. In too many cases, the State care system is failing children and young people, and as the Minister for Children I’m committed to creating a system focused first and foremost on a child’s safety. We need to eliminate the “sweep it under the rug” attitude which has been pervasive in the State care system.

SPEAKER: A very long answer.

Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety

12. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her recent statements in relation to fair pay agreements?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes, especially regarding my comments that fair pay agreements (FPAs) would reduce flexibility, choice, and agility in workplaces; also, that to lift productivity and drive economic growth there needs to be flexible workplaces where employers and employees can agree on terms that suit their unique situations.

Camilla Belich: In response to an earlier question, she stated that she hadn’t received any advice from the Treasury. Does she accept that she received advice from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) that the removal of fair pay agreements would disproportionately affect women, young people, Māori, and Pasifika?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I have not asked for advice on the costs and benefits of repealing the fair pay agreements from MBIE. What I have received is a cover sheet to MBIE’s 2021 regulatory impact statement (RIS), which updates the sections of that RIS to reflect the proposal which is to return the fair pay agreement system to the status quo. To be clear, the regulatory impact statement from MBIE from 2021 recommended against introducing a fair pay agreement system.

Camilla Belich: Does she accept that the regulatory impact statement cover sheet that she received from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on 28 November 2023 states that the removal of fair pay agreements would disproportionately affect women, young people, Māori, and Pasifika?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: What I accept is that the statement within the cover sheet to the regulatory impact statement has been taken out of a wider context where it suggests that the benefits of the fair pay agreements that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment mentioned only apply to employees within the scope of a fair pay agreement. To be clear, there have not been any fair pay agreements finalised, so no one is worse off.

Camilla Belich: Does the Minister accept that on paragraph 13 of that RIS, it clearly states that depending on the sector and occupations where FPAs are concluded, they could disproportionately benefit some population groups covered, including women, young people, Māori, and Pacific peoples?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: What I acknowledge is that that statement has been taken out of the wider context, which is that this cover sheet is an update to the regulatory impact statement which was against the fair pay agreement. What the statement suggests is that we’re taking away the fair pay agreement bargaining process. There have not been any fair pay agreements signed, and so therefore anybody who was worse off is only in theory worse off, because there have not been any fair pay agreements signed. What this Government is committed to doing is making sure that we have a Government that benefits business and benefits workers. The best way to improve the conditions of all Kiwi workers is to make sure that we have high productivity. We reduce regulation—

SPEAKER: That’s good—that’s good. The Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister confirm that the 2021 regulatory impact statement she’s referring to recommended against the introduction of a fair pay regime, and, if so, why?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I can. MBIE, in 2021, recommended against a fair pay agreement system.

Camilla Belich: The regulatory impact statement cover sheet, which she’s referred to in her previous answer, states—just to be clear on what we’re talking about here—in response to that question, she stated that in theory people covered by fair pay agreements would be—[Interruption] this is a question—

SPEAKER: Sorry, there is silence while members are asking a question.

Hon Chris Bishop: It’s not a question; that’s the issue.

SPEAKER: That might be the case, but it’s a rule of the House that when people are asking questions they get silence of the House. You got a point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, people are expected to turn up here ready to go and prepared. That was not a question. It didn’t show any sign of becoming one.

SPEAKER: I don’t—well, yeah, OK.

Hon Grant Robertson: Well, Mr Speaker, throughout the course of today we’ve had answers that have been completely out of order. You’ve said you want things to flow, and I think points of order such as the one taken by the Rt Hon Winston Peters go against your desire for things to flow. If we want it to just be a complete free-for-all, by all means, Mr Speaker. But, you know, I thought you were playing the advantage on both sides there.

SPEAKER: Well, the mere fact that you have just given me that advice has sort of accounted to where we might have got to. You were very quick on your feet.

Camilla Belich: Does she accept, then, that if the fair pay agreements legislation which she intends to repeal was not repealed, in theory it would benefit Māori, Pacific, young people, poorer workers?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No, because this Government believes that the fair pay agreement system would have made vulnerable workers worse off. This is because of disemployment effects where businesses who could not stomach the added cost to their businesses lay off workers or close up entirely or don’t offer any more jobs. The best way to help vulnerable workers is to have a flexible labour market that works for all New Zealanders, where every business has the opportunity to employ more staff and have more money to pay their staff more.

Address in Reply

Debate resumed from 7 December.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): It’s clear from the question time today that members opposite are adjusting to their new situation. They’re feeling a little uncomfortable about their new situation, and I think that New Zealanders around the country would welcome me reminding members opposite why they lost and why they no longer control the Government benches. That’s because over their six long years, they managed to preside over an economy that worsened and made the outcomes for New Zealanders worse.

We have had inflation out of control for more than 2½ years, and the result for working people, for New Zealanders across the country, has been a cost of living crisis that rolled on and on and on. In the face of that cost of living crisis, we then had a Government who instead of doing the right thing and looking at what it could do to control that inflation, to reduce that inflation, instead decided to spend New Zealanders’ money with wild abandon. It increased spending by dramatic amounts even while inflation roared on, and it spent that money on wasteful things; on projects that New Zealanders would not have prioritised but which were political projects and ideological projects for the members opposite.

What that party opposite refused to do at any juncture was reduce the income taxes that New Zealanders were paying. Even while inflation pushed people into higher tax brackets—even while inflation stripped people’s bank accounts bare—the members opposite continued to say there is never a right time for tax reduction. Well, the members on this side of the House know, because we spent time with the working people who voted for change at this election, that New Zealanders want to be able to have a Government they can trust to be good stewards not only of taxpayers’ money but of the economy in which we all play a part.

So in the address from this throne, we heard the commitments of our Government, and they are going to be to reduce the cost of living and deliver income tax reduction. And what we’ve heard over these past two weeks is every reason under the sun why we shouldn’t offer tax reduction. What I’ve put to you is that there are some members of this House, some politicians, who believe that they can always spend New Zealanders’ money better than they can. I am proud to be part of a Government that knows that New Zealanders who this week are worrying whether or not they can afford to pay for swimming lessons for their kids this summer, New Zealanders who are worrying about how they’re going to pay off the credit card in time to put food on the table for Christmas, New Zealanders who are worried that the mortgage payments are now so high that they may need to consider selling their house—I want all of those New Zealanders to know that they now have a Government who understands you can’t just ignore the economy and spend and spend and spend. Actually, you have to deliver.

So we—we—will make sure we bring Government spending under control and will prioritise the things that actually matter to working people: effective public services that are sustainable into the future and that provide good value; delivering the conditions and the infrastructure that allow private enterprise to flourish, that allow for greater innovation, that allow for greater productivity, that allow for more people to be hired.

And we are at work. Already we have introduced 90-day trial legislation, which will mean that some people will have an employer give them a go where previously they were not prepared to. Already we have removed the bureaucratic fair pay agreement regime, which would have imposed mandatory union deals on workforces that didn’t even want a bar of it.

I am at work. And I tell you, it is a solemn thing when you get given the Government books as the Minister of Finance and when you turn those pages and you find that actually we had a Government that committed to all sorts of things—whether it was new Pharmac medicines, whether it was school lunches—but didn’t actually remember to put the money in the Budget to pay for those things into the future, and who did that on such a grand scale—so many billions of dollars of commitments that weren’t funded into the future—that what I see in those books is a Government that was prepared to recklessly leave a hole in the Government finances.

So the task ahead for our Government is not just the task that we campaigned on, which was to ensure we addressed the cost of living and took pressure off inflation and reduced the taxes that people pay. Our task is also to restore a sense of fiscal responsibility to Government. That means that we need to get rid of these bad habits that crept in by the big spenders on the other side. We will be needing to make changes to ensure that when any Minister on these benches appropriates money that belongs to New Zealanders, they ensure that it is spent in a way that is responsible—and that when members opposite present policies or accounts, they can look people in the eye and say we are making this announcement today, confident we can fund it into the future.

Because it seems disgraceful to me that we had a Government that was prepared to sign up to long-term contracts for medicines but wouldn’t put the money in the Budget to fund them. And yet they crowed—they crowed about a supposed return to surplus in 2026–27. Well, smoke and mirrors. Because actually what they were playing was one big game of duck-shoving, in which, in fact, their surplus was never going to return on their watch. They were prepared to keep doing what they had already done three times—move that surplus out—because fundamentally they like to spend more than they earn.

So we will be restoring the discipline that is needed to give New Zealanders confidence—confidence actually that the things we fund can be afforded not just for the members of this House today but for the kids and grandkids who follow us. Because it is a reckless Government that drives the books into ongoing deficits, and that was the intention of the members opposite.

I tell you what, it’s been a solemn experience, and members here will have had the same experience, when you take that warrant as a Minister and you reflect on the responsibility that comes with it. When I think about that responsibility, I want to tell you about the people I have in my mind. I have in my mind the family whose door I knocked on in Johnsonville during the campaign. Parked out the front was a Wellington Combined taxi. As I came to the front door, the mum spent a bit of time coming to the door. She had two children at her feet. She said her husband was at prayer and she was going to bring him to the door because he really needed to speak to me. He came to the door and he said, “Nicola, I just want to know why the Government makes it so hard for people like me. I work my taxi shift and I work a cleaning shift, and my wife works at McDonald’s. We work every hour that we can and we do everything to care for our children. But the rent keeps going up, the food keeps going up, and they take my taxes and they spend it on things I do not want.” And I said to that man, “You need a change of Government, because it is time that you had a Government that will let you keep more of those earnings you work so hard for. It is time that you had a Government that won’t play games with things like inflation, that will make sure the Reserve Bank does its job and gets it under control. It is time for a Government that treats your money with respect and doesn’t just give speeches about nice things but delivers results, that sets targets, that has high expectations of public servants, that expects performance, that drives performance, that gets results for you.”

So when I go to work each day, I’m not actually thinking about which piece of spin or which piece of lovely rhetoric the previous Government gave in a speech, whether it was the 100,000 KiwiBuild houses or the nuclear-free moments. I’m thinking about what it’s going to look like for that family in 2026. On this Government’s watch, we will get the cost of living under control, they will have more money in their bank accounts, and we’ll have public services that deliver good value effectively. And here’s what’s more: we will have the books in better order so that all of those things can be sustained into the future. It is time for responsible Government, for grown-up Government. The adults are back in charge, and New Zealanders say to the last lot: good riddance.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I’m going to start by just reading a text I received from someone I knew who was at the international airport leaving the country on 24 October. This person texted me to say, “Am en route to the US”—

Hon David Seymour: Were they a former Labour MP?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: National staffer on leave. In brackets: “Pissed.” Says, “National will take six weeks to sort coalition. Willis is”—a derogatory word—“and can’t do simple sums. Judith is a big threat to Luxon. Should be foreign Minister. Someone Christmas should be AG but won’t make it and is National’s only rainbow person. They expect to lose three electorates. Angee is nice but not quite good enough.”

I share that with you as a reminder to the House to be careful about what you talk about in public spaces, including the Koru lounge, but also just to give some evidence of the fact that it’s not just this side of the House that has no confidence in that Minister of Finance and her ability to be able to do simple sums. Turns out the people closest to her do not have the confidence in her as well. So I thought I’d start on that very positive note.

On the next positive note, can I acknowledge the new Speaker of the House and all of the presiding officers. We hope for only one thing: that there will be fairness and clarity in the rulings that are undertaken here. If that is how things are conducted in the House—and that is our expectation—then the Speaker and all of the presiding officers can expect that this place will be orderly and that we will reciprocate our respect to the Speaker and to the Deputy Speaker and all of the Assistant Speakers.

I also want to acknowledge the absolute privilege that it is to be elected into this place as a member of Parliament. I want to thank the Kelston electorate for supporting me again. It is a privilege. It is the primary reason that I’m here: to support the electorate that I have been elected to serve.

Of course, the ideal is always that we are elected into Government, but New Zealanders didn’t choose us this time round, and of course we respect that decision. However, New Zealand should rightfully expect that we will be a strong Opposition, that we will hold the Government to account for working in the best interests of all New Zealanders, and that we will hold the Government to account for the promises they made, the promises that led to New Zealand electing them. And we will.

What a great opportunity that this Address in Reply debate provides for us to do just that. Before we even got to the Speech from the Throne, we had the coalition negotiations, and I want to speak to that a little bit. It reminded me of a really bad circus I once took the family to, one where they were trying to balance multiple people on a bike, circling a ring, but each time they’d go around, someone or multiple people would fall off. The audience got increasingly nervous. Were these people going to be OK? Is this going to result in someone getting hurt and an ambulance needing to be called? Were these professionals? Did they know what they were doing? And what had we just bought tickets to?

I think there are a number of New Zealanders who bought tickets to this political circus asking themselves the same question right now. After the coalition bandaged up and finally managed to get through the negotiations, we started to get hit with the early musings of what were their priorities. At that point I was starting to wonder whether the Government were deliberating focusing on issues far removed from the cost of living issues as a strategy to take attention away from the number of issues that they have campaigned on: “Let’s repeal smoke-free legislation. Let’s get rid of te reo Māori names for Government agencies. Let’s take away any bonus for te reo - speaking public servants who may be undertaking additional duties in their workplace.”

I was confused. How were those things going to help us as a country get back on track? How was bashing Māori, banishing te reo Māori, encouraging social and racial division, and making moves to increase the uptake of smoking in Aotearoa New Zealand going to help New Zealanders pay for their bread and butter?

Then it became even more confusing. The first move in the House this week is to get rid of fair pay agreements, extend 90-day trials, remove the Reserve Bank’s dual mandate to focus on keeping inflation down whilst not taking their focus off employment—and just keep in mind that Australia has just moved to put that mandate in place.

So apparently, putting jobs on the line, pushing towards a world where more Kiwis can find themselves unemployed, equates to supporting New Zealanders with the cost of living. I thought the Speech from the Throne might help to provide more clarity, but, yeah, nah. Instead what we got hit with was the biggest demonstration of gaslighting a nation that we as Aotearoa New Zealand have ever faced.

Look at some of these examples that I just pulled out: “It is the people outside Parliament who will be the Government’s priority in decisions over the next three years.” So you will start off by making legislative changes that put at risk their ability to work and provide for their families? It wants “people to see demonstrable, measurable results that make their lives easier and helps them to get ahead.” So then the Government moves to get rid of regulatory impact statements so that New Zealanders can’t see what the impact or benefit or losses might be to them through the legislative changes? And then: “Having 11 percent or one in nine New Zealanders of working age on a main benefit means too many people are dependent on the efforts of their fellow citizens instead of being self-supporting.” While they are at it, they are thinking, with the two other strategies, “Let’s put the boot into beneficiaries in the good old-fashioned way, including all of those on main benefits with a disability or health condition so that New Zealand has someone to blame for these crappy changes and the crap results that are likely to ensue.”

Many people have been saying outside this House—and I’m going to add my voice to it—that this Government is looking like the most backward, regressive, divisive Government that we have ever seen as a country. I absolutely agree with that. What concerns me is that there a number of communities that will be impacted by these regressive changes more than others.

On behalf of our Labour Pacific caucus—because we have a Pacific caucus—I want to acknowledge one of New Zealand’s most prominent Pacific health leaders, Sir Colin Tukuitonga for going on record and saying it as it is. He said, “I really don’t want to work with this Government. I have no confidence. They are not going to treat Pacific people well and I want to be free to speak up and speak out.” Sir Colin Tukuitonga is absolutely right with what he is saying. And to follow that up, I want to quote Dame Luamanuvao Winnie Laban, who once said—in fact I think she said it more than once—that “if you are not at the table, you are on the menu.” And right now that is where the Pacific community and many of the other communities that are going to be impacted by the negative effects of that Government’s policies are sitting—on the menu.

Very genuinely, it does scare me. I don’t get the sense, despite the previous speaker’s attempt to try and make it sound like she was in touch, that the Government actually cares about New Zealanders. I don’t get the sense that they have an understanding of the reality and the lived experience of the most vulnerable New Zealanders. We all clearly got the sense in the lead-up to the election that there were certain sectors, certain New Zealanders, that that Government had in mind when they were proposing their policies, and the ones that lose are vast majority of New Zealanders; every other New Zealander that doesn’t sit in those rich-list groups that that side of the House has very obviously demonstrated their support for over the course of—actually, not just an election campaign, not just through the Speech from the Throne but over the course of decades.

I may have paid once to go to that really bad circus that one time and I won’t be going back, but I have no doubt that if the Government continues on the trajectory they are on—and they will—New Zealanders won’t just be pledging to forego tickets to the next show; they will be wanting to leave the show early and asking for a full refund.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Let me start by saying it’s a privilege to be here in Parliament, and I hope every member of Parliament feels the same way. Can I congratulate you, Mr Assistant Speaker O’Connor, on your appointment to this role and say how much we look forward to working with you, and with the Rt Hon Gerry Brownlee as our Speaker. If the last week or so is anything to go by, the House will be able to flow freely. It’s a place of robust debate and it’s where we test out ideas.

With that in mind, it didn’t take very long for nasty Labour to come back, did it? Carmel Sepuloni was on her feet, talking—making up, actually, some text message of fake news somebody happened to send her with such intricate detail from the Koru lounge, from a drunk person. What absolute rubbish! But I’ll tell you the problem we’ve got with the Labour Party—and we’ve been there. We know what it’s like. It’s hard to accept that you’ve been rejected by the public—we were there for six years. And what we have heard or will continue to hear is that actually nothing is wrong—the public got it wrong, and actually they’ll change their minds very soon.

Carmel Sepuloni actually reminded me of Chris Hipkins. It’s a little bit like that story I used to tell my kids—you know, the little engine that thought it could: “I think I can, I think I can.”, and then the public said “You can’t.” And now they’re over there not sure what they’re doing. Carmel Sepuloni said she’d been to that circus once and she’d never go again. Sorry, Ms Sepuloni, you’ve got to go back to the Labour Party caucus every single week, because I think that’s where the circus is.

Can I say on behalf of my colleagues that we are very proud to have formed what will be a strong and stable Government. Carmel Sepuloni says she thinks about those who have the least, the poor in society. The bit that she forgot to say is that over six years, those poor people, the vulnerable she’s so worried about, are worse off today than they were six years ago. It is an obligation on this Government to grow the economy and help people to help themselves so they get ahead, and with New Zealand First and with ACT in coalition, the first coalition Government ever formed in the history of New Zealand where three parties sign up to a deal together, we are focused on what needs to be done and we should be judged on what we deliver, not “I think I can, I think I can, I hope I can.” And, of course, Labour never did—they couldn’t.

Can I thank the Rt Hon Prime Minister Christopher Luxon for the confidence he has shown in me and all of our caucus in asking us to work very hard on behalf of New Zealanders. I’m extremely proud to be given the opportunity to serve as a Minister in this Government. And as with every single other Minister in this Government in National and ACT and New Zealand First, we pledge to work hard for New Zealanders and put their interests first and deliver for them, not just put out press releases about houses that nobody can live in or under, not just put up roading cones around the country, but to do the hard work and deliver for Kiwis to get the country back on track and make sure that, actually, they are better off.

I have been given agriculture as a portfolio and it’s one of the best portfolios you could have because of its absolute importance to New Zealand and the New Zealand economy. Every morning, all around New Zealand in every part of the country, hard-working men and women get up, they put on their gumboots, they get on their tractors, they go to milk the cows, they work hard because they care about their land and they care about their animals, they care about their communities, and they are the heavy lifters of the New Zealand economy. And, actually, if you have a look over time, this place—they say there have been fewer members of Parliament than there have been All Blacks but if you actually look at the All Blacks, a team that all New Zealanders can be proud of, over the history of it the number of farmers that have served as our top sportspeople in itself talks to the importance of rural New Zealand to the fabric of society in New Zealand. And to anybody in this House that doesn’t understand that when rural New Zealand does well all of New Zealand does well, and when the rural economy is strong the New Zealand economy is strong, they will be on that side of the House because of all the things that Labour did to our farmers over six years.

We have a strong team in the Government. Our rural team, Nicola Grigg, Andrew Hoggard, and Mark Patterson; a rural team to go out and deliver on the commitments we made before the election—because we trust farmers—to get Wellington out of farming, to stop Wellington trying to run farms, to focus on outcomes, not process. To trust farmers and work with them to find the solutions because they are committed to meeting their environmental obligations—they want clean water, the same as everybody else in New Zealand—to meet their climate change reduction obligations sensibly, not closing down farms and putting people out of business. On behalf of the National-led coalition Government, can I thank those men and women of rural New Zealand for the hard work that they do, and say they can be very proud of their contribution. Finally, after six years, they have a Government that backs and supports them, will stand behind them, and help lead in the great things they do.

From horticulture, where we are the best in the world at producing kiwifruit, and there is so much more that we can do. You know, the average kiwifruit grower gets more from their exports in international markets than kiwifruit growers anywhere else in the world and we thank them for that. In viticulture—very important—did you know, Mr Speaker, in the UK market, a very competitive wine market, New Zealand wine gets on average £1 to £2 more per bottle than anything else, which means our wine growers are not competing on price; they’re competing on quality and they are winning there. I thank them for their hard work. In apiculture—something we can be very proud of—our beekeepers and others who produce mānuka honey that others around the world in Australia and elsewhere are trying to emulate and take that name, but the reputation of high quality of the great benefits of mānuka honey and all other honey that comes from New Zealand is the reason those prices are so high.

To our sheep and beef farmers, who, actually, probably have done it hardest over the last six years under a Labour Government and then a Labour - Green Government where it’s very, very hard. We have farmers who don’t know whether or not they can survive the next winter, let alone whatever else Labour had in store for them. To tell them that we value them, we’re going to work hard to get costs down on their farms, because the New Zealand economy needs sheep growers and beef and wool, we need that desperately. And to our dairy farmers, who from time to time have had a bad rap from people who want to use their hard work politically: thank you for what you do. Without the contribution of the primary industries, our economy would be poorer.

To the foresters, those who invest in forests, who grow trees, and those who process the wood: as a Minister of Forestry—and a previous Minister, Shane Jones—we’re going to work hard to make sure that everybody in New Zealand knows the importance of the contribution of forestry to the New Zealand economy, and that people plant trees because of the value of wood, not because the Labour Government told them they would give them bits of paper called carbon credits that would be worth more than the wood in the future. You know, we want people to be growing trees, we want to be processing that wood in New Zealand, adding value, creating jobs, and the New Zealand First -National - Act Government will deliver upon that. We’re going to do this by focusing on the rules and regulations that Labour forced upon farmers to put costs up to levels that now they cannot make money. We’re going to focus on better rules, fewer rules, on the outcomes, so that our rural sector can be as strong as we need it.

Finally, I’m given the privilege of being the Minister of Trade, a very important role because as we produce enough food for 400 million people around the world to get 10 percent of their diet from New Zealand, we have to sell it. You will see an unrelenting focus—a focus that New Zealand has never seen before—from this Government on growing exports by value. We’re going to double that over 10 years; the building blocks will be put in place now. We’re going to lead more trade missions around the world to help our exporters find new markets and we will judge the success of those missions not on the number of meetings they have but on how much more they will sell. We’re going to make more of the agreements we have in place and negotiate more, and I will be on a plane on Monday of next week going to India, the very first meeting. Do you know, the Labour Government said it was a priority for them? It took them virtually 4½ years to get anywhere near India and they’ve been there two or three times this year. It’s a shame they didn’t go last year or the year before. Well, actually, within the first hundred days before Christmas, we’ll be there showing India why the relationship that we share with them is a strategic priority for this Government. There are many great things we can do together in India and Indians in New Zealand, but the first thing we have to do is rebuild the harm to the relationship that was done under the Labour Government.

Finally, can I thank the people of the Rotorua electorate for having confidence in me and giving me an opportunity to continue to serve for them. The time of the last six years of the talk about how you’re better off because we are nice to people is over. We’re going to roll our sleeves up and actually deliver for the people of the Rotorua electorate, from Te Puke and the kiwifruit through to Rotorua. We’ve made commitments to close down those homeless motels that people were being dumped in from all around the country and they were languishing; it was harming them, it harmed the reputation of our city. It’s no wonder the then Prime Minister Chris Hipkins never came to Rotorua during the campaign. He was ashamed. I’m not ashamed of Rotorua. It’s a great place, full of great people. We will be fighting hard for them.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Rural New Zealand is back. ACT is back alongside the collective rural caucus—they are back—and farmers are celebrating. We all came here to this place to speak our truth, the way in which we all see it, to share in a contest of ideas and have them canvassed, have a full and frank debate. As a rural advocate, a farmer, I am certainly one of those people. I came here, ACT came here, the farmers came here unapologetically to speak to the issues affronting the rural sector without pause, without fear, without equivocation, but with pride and a respect for the men and women that feed a nation; her people. For that, I say they deserve forthright representation, they deserve our loyalty, they deserve our respect, for without them we are a country economically destitute; we are a country half starved.

For six years—perhaps more—rural New Zealand had been in a state of emotional decline. Many had suffered the left’s farming illiteracy. But there’s hope on the horizon. Real optimism has returned to the rural sector. The National - ACT - New Zealand First Government—we have heard those folks. We are here to deliver to those in the sector; they deserve no less.

From previous vanity projects, utopic or utopian ideas, or burdensome regulation, those former Government handbrakes will be a thing of the past, and in quick order. This Government—

Ingrid Leary: Are you reading your speech?

MARK CAMERON: Well, you could read it for me if you like.

We heard the drive for change. Our rural caucus had consulted with the parties. All three parties had listened, offered to discuss the problems, and have them defined. Before solutions were sought, we stressed the point, the need for cost-benefit analysis and understanding on farm regulations to give farmers certainty, not theatricality nor piety.

There is much to fix. Whilst I absolutely refuse to politicise mental illness, while I absolutely refuse to politicise suicide, the terrible havoc and loss it leaves on rural communities is enormous. It is felt especially by those in small, tight-knit communities. Sadly, this is becoming more common-place and it must be reversed. We must not forget that for the last three years, the world ground to a halt. Our country ground to a halt. COVID pushed pause on almost everything and everyone.

Yet farmers, rural New Zealanders—we persisted. We kept working. When the rules of nature halted so many, they persisted. They kept working to feed a nation and to help feed the world. This Government, we recognise that reality. We know that for many who wouldn’t or couldn’t, farmers kept going. In spite of all the challenges and in spite of the former Government, farmers were good for it.

Hon Nicola Grigg: Hear, hear!

MARK CAMERON: Absolutely.

Not those previous unworkable, untenable outcomes that only knew piety, not practicality. We need to balance places like the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee with practical people, not those that were wet behind the ears, but those who have experience on farm—vets, farmers—who understand outcome and the rigour of farming practices, not theorem.

We will return the live animal export trade. Trying to reconcile that is worth half a billion dollars to this country. Imagine what you could do with half a billion dollars and employ the logic of a gold standard—giving certainty to farmers, certainty to markets—

Chlöe Swarbrick: How are we going to do that, Mark?

MARK CAMERON: —must be done; clearly evident. I’m not going to engage with that now. In coalition going forward, we all agreed.

Farmer morale has been at an all-time low. How do you reconcile that? I’m fascinated by the fact that we’ve had high payouts and yet we’ve got farmer morale at an all-time low. We all see this. We acknowledge it. This coalition Government knows that good lawmaking is tantamount to good outcomes, that farmers and their canvas—it is their work; it is his work; it is her work. This is marked in inputs to outcomes, where weather, markets, costs on farm are meted out to farmers as their daily rigour.

Farmers in this building, we all collectively recognise the absolute importance of sensible, pragmatic lawmaking—something for so long we have missed out on—that achieves tenable outcomes on farm, something that the previous Government, and I have to stress this point, were so often four sheets to the wind on. I am drawn into thinking of a story that highlights the spirit of Kiwi farmers. It is our tenacity; it is our guts; it is our pride.

Recently, I attended the RRT gathering, an acronym for the post-cyclone rapid response team day out in Northland. Some were in tears, many shed in their gratitude. A community embraced its people. I heard of a chap that illustrated to me the absolute epitome of rural New Zealand, absolute Kiwi pride. He had travelled ill with cancer for four hours from Kaitāia to be part of that day. He battled on with his condition; he battled on with his post-cyclone recovery, and yet he still managed the time to be there for himself, for his community. Surely there is no greater conviction, no greater belief, in rural communities.

I say to the members of this House, rural New Zealand is full of fantastic people, driven people, capable people, and this Government sees it. It is my hope all parties will come in this House to know this as a truism, to know this as a fact. For to do any less is what I say to them is to have turned their back on rural New Zealand, and this is something we must absolutely not do. After all, I’m sure everyone would agree, everyone here eats; we are a nation ever hungry and we must never ever forget that reality.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): He caught me by surprise! He had a couple minutes left on the clock, so I’ll have to get stuck into it.

Now, we’ve heard many things today, and I will acknowledge the fact that, yes, New Zealanders did vote for change at the last election. But I question: did the change they voted for include more people smoking to enable the funding of tax cuts for rich New Zealanders, because that’s not what I’m hearing back. I don’t think that New Zealanders voted for that. And did New Zealanders also vote for the kind of change that will deliver lower wages and worse working conditions for hard-working New Zealand workers, right before Christmas? Did they know that—that that would drive it down?

So I think it’s important to note that the first two pieces of legislation that this new Government brings to this House under urgency is targeted on jobs and employment, making sure that unemployment is removed out of the Finance Act, and also driving down workers’ wages through repealing fair pay agreements. They are the first two pieces of legislation out the gate.

And I ask you, what does this say for the leadership of the National Party? What does this say for the leadership of the National Party, when some of the most meanest stuff that’s in their basket so far has been farmed out to some of their coalition partners? Shane Reti has sheepishly shoved the cigarettes and the lighter over to Casey Costello, giving her the delegation to have to look after this one while he can concentrate on improving outcomes for Māori. The fact that we have a Māori Minister of Health who is promising to improve health outcomes for Māori while delegating responsibility for more smoking for Māori to his coalition partners is an absolute stain on the name of the new Government.

Secondly, the other one that’s been passed over is the fair pay agreements, slid over to Brooke van Velden today, to leave her to make the embarrassing statements such as “Workers will be worse off. They would’ve been worse off under fair pay agreements.” They’re delegating those out. So, if this is the honeymoon period, then it’s going to be one hell of a divorce, I can tell you. It’s going to be a rocky old relationship if this is the courting period.

So, let’s take a close look at what’s happening with fair pay agreements. In a cost of living crisis, we’re hearing that Kiwis are stretched and they need more legislation that’s going to be brought in that will do exactly the opposite of what they’re trying to do. It will drive down wages and it will decrease the working conditions. It’s really interesting to note that the OECD has put out a good report available online—if anyone would like to check it out—showing that productivity actually increases under fair pay agreements. Not only did the OECD agree but also so does the Treasury, who gave great advice, saying that the official advice was ignored by the Minister that Pasifika women, Māori, young people, disabled would all be adversely affected by the fact that fair pay agreements will be repealed.

I think it’s important to note that it’s not just about good things for our workers, but it’s actually good things for our employers. An interesting point that came up, that was obviously on Newstalk ZB with Nicola Willis last Thursday—we talked about productivity and flexibility. And what Nicola Willis said on the radio—and we just say, “Look, actually, that would impose huge costs. It would reduce flexibility. It would actually be a step backwards for New Zealand and the flexible employment relations that workers enjoy.” Well, what I would actually like to say is it does the opposite, because if we have a standard agreement across an industry, that means in those regions that are crying out for workers that need people in there, we can have workers go from one area to another with a standard agreement on what their wages and their conditions are. So research provides that it in fact increases productivity and increases flexibility. It stops them from being undercut by employers who offer lower wages and lower conditions.

A classic example, if you live in the Wellington region, would be our bus industry. We can all remember the “bustastrophe” that occurred right here in Wellington, and that was exactly the opposite of what fair pay agreements would have done. So the Public Transport Operating Model, introduced by Steven Joyce under the National Government—which was the privatisation of the public transport system—enabled a contracting race to the bottom that meant lower wages and lower working conditions. Fair pay agreements would enable a standardised wage and a standardised set of conditions that would have meant that we did not have bus drivers leaving to become truck drivers; leaving to go to Australia—and that is what the National Government is stepping away from, and it will be their basket to carry when we see things like this occur again.

I’d like to pick up on the point around productivity, because when we don’t have a race to the bottom—as we had with the bus drivers in Wellington—in areas such as manufacturing, we have employers that actually compete on things like better products, technology, improving the products and the way they’re doing their intellectual property, skill development of their workers. Instead of having a race to the bottom, instead of having that type of competition, we’re actually competing on smarts and having a better level of products marketed out in innovation to our global partners that we can compete on, instead of racing amongst ourselves to the bottom. Because all it does is it’s a trickle-down approach that gets us nowhere. We’re back in the 1980s, we’re back on that old treadmill that National always brings us back to: the sad trickle-down that never sees those at the bottom get a drop.

I’d like to touch on one other area today, and that is te reo Māori and the move away from Māori language and tikanga Māori. It’s been a message loud and clear that’s come across from this Government, and I would like to stand and say how disgusted I am with the approach that we’ve taken. The fact that we have Māori heritage, Māori culture, and Māori language in New Zealand is what defines us from the rest of the world. I’m proud, as a New Zealander, to be able to speak Māori; I find it to be an important part of my identity as a New Zealander. The fact that we introduced a new public holiday—Matariki—that was the first of our own public holidays here in New Zealand—I’m proud of that fact.

When my kids came home and taught me about Matariki; told me about the names of the stars in the sky, I could see the pride in their faces when they talked about it. We were able to look up at the stars and reflect on loved ones that we had lost in the past year and tell those stories. Those are important parts of our national identity, and it makes me sad, upset, and disgusted that as a Government, we are stepping away from who we are as a nation. I think we need to set the standard by saying that we are proud New Zealanders, that we have a shared history, and the Treaty of Waitangi is part of our history. Yes, there will be debate, and it is healthy to have that debate. But to hide from it and to sweep it under the carpet is a sad indictment on us as New Zealanders.

I look forward to being able to continue to move in a way that we see better moves for us as a country, and I want to make sure that in the upcoming weeks, months, and years, we will continue to interrogate this Government—as it struggles to find money for the tax cuts that it has promised New Zealanders, as we see that when the tobacco money runs out, as we see that there is no foreign buyers tax, and as we see that New Zealanders realise that the change that they voted for will not be delivered by this Government. It will be a circus. There are clowns in this circus, and they are performing their roles for the greatest spectacular we will ever see in New Zealand politics. As we watch the buck being passed, and as we see those at the very bottom—those who struggle the most—suffering as a result of the selfishness of this new Government, we will be there to make sure we fight for our people, that we fight for the fact that we have workers who deserve fair pay, workers who deserve fair conditions; that we have people who want to be able to live healthy lives, without having to have people capitalise on pushing tobacco. And as we have a country who is proud of te reo Māori, proud of tikanga Māori, and proud of who we are in Aotearoa, we will continue to call upon our partners, right across New Zealand, to continue to this fight, to say that we are not selfish. We do not just want more money for those who already have some; we will fight for those who need more—and I am proud to be part of that.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Mr Speaker, tēnā koe. Tātau e te Whare e noho tahi nei i roto i tēnei taha o te tukunga pōti, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Mr Speaker, thank you. All of us of the House that are sitting here together on this side of the election, greetings to all of us.]

Firstly, to those of you who are new MPs, including my colleagues here in New Zealand First—welcome. Believe you me, it is immeasurably more comfortable on this side of the House than on that side of the House, having suffered the misfortune of being on that side of the House more days than I care to remind myself. To erstwhile colleagues on that side of the House, it was a fateful and bleak day that the leader and I woke up in 2020 after a night of heavy contemplation in Russell and then realised that we were unemployed. Yes, there was the small matter of a gallon of red wine, as I remember—that was celebrating whakapapa, the Dalmatian side. However, as a consequence of a very vigorous campaign and respect that we engendered within the electorate, New Zealand First is back and contributing to this coalition Government.

Technically, the Address in Reply debate is traceable back in terms of our parliamentary traditions to the House, where members of the House sought to change the content of the Sovereign’s address. Now, years passed, and it’s morphed into what we have in New Zealand at the moment, which is a broad, free-ranging debate in terms of the Government’s agenda. So after three years of banishment and a period of self-reflection—something that comes to me with great difficulty—we have contributed to some key policy outcomes that are reflected in this speech, and I want to start with the first one.

We’re going to bring rigour and common sense to the hysteria surrounding climate change. Climate change policies in New Zealand have been driven by a tiny minority with loud voices who have no conception as to the consequences of their narrow, shallow ideas on the day-to-day functioning of the economy. For those reasons, whatever work has been happening in the Ministry for the Environment—not unlike Thomas Beckett, the “meddlesome priest”—that is now stopped. The coalition agreement says that there’ll be no more uncertainty as to the role of the emissions trading scheme (ETS) as the pivotal, paramount institution guiding us as we make the transition from our current emissions profile to a more sensible and defensible place—but not at the cost of those legacy industries that give us our wealth, our wellbeing, and jobs. So for those of you buried in the Ministry for the Environment, working away on those policies: they belong to the old regime that now sit on the other side of the House.

Now, of course, the perfidy didn’t just stop with ETS. We’ve got the significant natural areas; we’ve got the national policy statements pertaining to biodiversity—they’re gone. They will no longer have any legal impact in our rural economy, on our farmers, on our landowners—squashing the bejesus out of people’s property rights. Similarly, we will no longer have onerous, unworkable water regulations; not only unworkable, but completely destructive of the viability of the very industry that is our key contributor in terms of export earnings. Two national policy statements that will go the way of my dear friend David Parker’s magnum opus: out the back door, into oblivion. And just to show that there are other areas that people want me to concentrate on, I am the Minister for Resources. I look forward to leading the debate changing the law, enabling gas and oil exploration, wealth development, to take place yet again in New Zealand.

Now, just to ensure that the other side of the House feels that’s a little bit unbalanced, mining is coming back as well. We most certainly need those rare earth minerals. In those areas called the Department of Conservation (DOC) estate, where it’s stewardship land, stewardship land is not DOC land, and if there is a mineral, if there is a mining opportunity and it’s impeded by a blind frog, goodbye, Freddy. We are going to extract the dividend from mother Nature’s legacy on the DOC estate in those areas previously called stewardship land. Now, why is this important? If we do not have coal and gas continuing to contribute to our power system, we’re going to have blackouts, brownouts; we’re going to have a power system that lacks security, riddled with risk; and it’ll diminish the status of our nation as a first-class, First World country. This side of the House is not taking that risk.

Of course we’ll hear from the other side of the House, but 2030, Jacinda Ardern’s aspirational figure, inversely related to reality, the majority of her legacy—that will no longer be the case. We are not going to meet the 2030 dreamy, fairy-tale, aspirational figures that we’ll be freeing ourselves of fossil fuels as a source of generating energy. We’re going to deal with reality. We’re going to have not only a plan but we’re going to have some certainty for the providers of international capital who are going to help us develop our economy. If you look at what’s become of our current account deficit, none of us can be lackadaisical. None of us can continue to spend the way that we have been, as has been evident on the other side of the House.

Couple more things: we will have a strategic, fast-tracked piece of legislation in this House. One of the great lies about climate change is that, yes, apparently, it’s a crisis. Name me one law that has changed in the last nine years expediting simplifying investors’ ability to navigate the digestive tract otherwise known as the Resource Management Act and in a timely fashion secure resource consent, find the money, deliver the project. No one in this House can. With the development of our fast-tracked bill, where authority will lie with us the politicians—no more unelected grandees who destroyed the aquaculture ambitions of Murihiku, who caused Ngāi Tahu to squander the thick end of $2 million and not a single bit of kaimoana in the water. How are regions going to grow unless we give certainty to investors and hope to the people who want to continue to raise their children in these areas, go to church, play rugby, netball, support the local businesses? Stand by for the fast-track process where the authority rests with the politicians. Fast track for aquaculture, fast track for mining, fast track for energy, fast track for infrastructure. That’s the future coming in your direction, and to people who want to boost productivity and resilience in New Zealand, you could not pick a better champion than my good self. Modesty forbids me to say much more!

We’re also going to tame some of the ethos problems in the bureaucracy. As we go and dive further with the senior Minister of Finance, we are learning we have been living beyond our means for too long. This is not only a challenge for our broader societal concerns but it’s a challenge for the leadership of the democracy. Two issues stand out: the debacle of Te Pūkenga. As someone who loves the language, why have we used these beautiful words to describe the most fiasco-, snafu-orientated bureaucratic developments? It diminishes the language. Oranga Tamariki, describing that particular Government department—should never have been given that name given the large number of children that have suffered. It ruins the quality of the language.

In this last thing, I would remind us: I was in this House when $1.8 billion, $1.9 billion was allocated for mental health. Not even Treasury or the gnomes who work in the audit department—sadly, they’re still chasing me for terrible falsehoods of the Provincial Growth Fund time—can find a sliver of evidence as to how that money has improved the capacity of families and communities to look after themselves. So if there’s ever an event that’s an indictment on the people who’ve held the health portfolio on that side of the House, it’s the $1.8 billion that got poured down the orifice of the bureaucracy, supposedly going to give you and me and our whānau better health outcomes of a mental character. The opposite has happened. But rest assured, your spirits will soar—New Zealand First is back.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, that contribution from that member who has just resumed his seat, Shane Jones, made for incredibly painful listening, talking about the thousands of young people who have marched in our streets asking our leaders to pay more attention to addressing climate change, depicting them as a tiny minority who’ve been advocating for change, not to mention, of course, recommitting to mining on conservation land and a whole host of other policies designed to take us backwards as a nation.

But, Mr Speaker, let me begin my first contribution in this Parliament by congratulating you on your election as Speaker and all of our other presiding officers as well, and also extending a warm welcome to our new members of Parliament, whose maiden speeches we have been listening to as well.

I’ve been reflecting on the Speech from the Throne, because that, of course, is meant to be the contribution from the new Government laying out their vision, their vision for progress for us as a nation. They started off by saying—and I quote—“The new Government is committed to delivering; to getting things done. It wants people to see demonstrable, measurable results that make their lives easier, and help them to get ahead.” Lofty goals, great aims, but what are they actually delivering in order to be able to achieve that? They then went on to say—and I quote—“The Government’s aim is to improve outcomes for all New Zealanders, while leading a unified and confident country.” Again, I don’t think any of us on either side of the House would disagree with us wanting to achieve all of that, but the devil is in the detail, or the proof is in the pudding, as they say.

So I listened on, hoping to hear of some vision as to how they would actually deliver on this, and yet the main cornerstone of their economic policy appears to be cutting spending on things like Auckland light rail, axing Industry Transformation Plans, the Lake Onslow pumped hydro scheme, the Income Insurance Scheme, and, of course, delivering tax cuts for their rich mates. That is the cornerstone of their economic policy. Once again, we see the axing of investment in high-quality public transport networks to keep hundreds of thousands of people connected in our largest city while also reducing emissions and congestion—back on the scrap heap, but yet building another 13 new roads of national significance somehow is not wasteful spending. Somehow, that’s going to ease congestion and improve productivity. How? I don’t know.

Arguably, this election was a cost of living election. We heard from many who were struggling to put food on the table and, as the member Nicola Willis said earlier in this House today, families who were struggling to send their kids to swimming lessons. What in this Government’s policy is actually going to deliver benefits to those people? When they talk about making lives easier, for whom, I ask? Their rich mates? The tobacco lobby? That’s who is going to benefit from the policies of this new Government, not those families that they talk about, not those families whose doors they knocked on and stories they heard. Not one will benefit, because what this Government is delivering is tax cuts in deregulation. Well, I have news for them. The 80s called and they want their trickle-down economics back. The last 50 years has seen a dramatic decline in taxes on the rich across advanced democracies. This is nothing new. Thatcher tried it. Ronald Reagan stood and campaigned on it; so did Trump, and so did our new incoming Government as well—all elected on promises of major tax cuts for top earners, arguing that freeing up money for the wealthy allows them to hire more workers, pay better wages, invest more.

Has it worked? No. It’s been an abject failure. Wealth doesn’t trickle down. All that happens is that the inequality gap widens, public services decline, housing is privatised, public transport is privatised, education is privatised, public transport declines, roads increase, and unemployment increases. Where have we seen all that before? 2008 to 2017—the Key Government, and we’re on the cusp of seeing all of that again. Not to mention that they’re funding their tax cuts for their rich mates by repealing smoke-free legislation.

Now, the coalition agreements say that decisions will be based on data and evidence, and yet this decision to repeal what would have been globally leading legislation—smoke-free legislation—flies in the face of data, in evidence. We know that it will cost thousands of lives, that young people will be encouraged to take up smoking, and that it will result in $1.3 billion in terms of healthcare costs. But do they care? No. No, they don’t. Their agenda will only benefit tobacco companies and their rich mates.

So, then, I looked for their social development and housing policies, thinking, “Well, they slammed us for not doing enough even though we delivered over 13,000 public homes in our term in office, so surely they have some ingenious plan to clear the public housing register.” Here’s what they said, and I quote, “Turning to social housing, the performance of Kāinga Ora is a concern. There will be a review of its finances, procurement, development and asset management practices.”, and then some whinging about antisocial Kāinga Ora tenants. That’s it. That is the sum game of their ambition to clear the public housing register. And then what about welfare and work? I thought, “Surely, something about encouraging employment”. All we see: sanctions, bringing back 90-day trials, repealing fair pay agreements that we know, and evidence tells us, will disproportionately benefit women, youth, Maōri, and Pacific people.

Where is the ambition and vision? Nothing in the Speech from the Throne about supporting social services that play a significant role in supporting individuals, families, and communities. We’ve seen the role they play time and again, whether it was during the pandemic or the severe weather events that we’ve seen as well. Nothing ambitious to address the intractable issues that face us as a nation: child poverty, family and sexual violence, systemic discrimination; nothing about lifting the wellbeing outcomes of Pacific peoples or ethnic communities.

Instead, just a lot of Maōri bashing—scrapping Te Aka Whai Ora, the Maōri Health Authority, just because its very point is to address health inequities; looking to scrap affirmative action to incentivise te reo in the Public Service; pushing to scrap te reo names of Public Service agencies; introducing a Treaty Principles Bill, and I want to quote on that point Dame Anne Salmond, who said it better than I can ever put it. She said, “Far from trying to reconcile different understandings of the Treaty, their text ignores or distorts the original promises. This is disrespectful, and arrogant. For a party that won just 8.6 percent of the vote in the recent election to attempt to rewrite a pact that involves Queen Victoria and her descendants as well as the rangatira and theirs is presumptuous in the extreme.”

In these times of crisis, a new Government will be assessed on its ability to bring New Zealanders together. ACT’s proposed approach to Te Tiriti will do the opposite. I agree with Helen Clark that it would “rip us down the middle”, and with Jim Bolger that it’s a “bloody stupid” idea.

Everything that they are repealing, rehashing, and proposing will take us backwards as a nation. It will entrench inequity, and it will divide us. The thing is, they don’t understand equity. Equality is about providing the same for everyone—giving everyone the same resources and opportunities. Equity is understanding that we don’t all start from the same place—people have different circumstances, and equity seeks to remedy this by taking into account advantage and redistributing resources to then reach equal outcomes.

While others have said before me that New Zealanders have voted for change, I don’t believe that this is the change that anyone has voted for. Repealing smoke-free legislation, repealing everything that will actually lead to what they say they want to achieve, which is a unified and confident country—nothing that they’re actually doing is going to achieve what they claim they want to achieve. Therein also lies another problem. They’re not actually doing what they’re saying they want to do.

This is a Government that is an absolute shambles. This is a Government that will take us backwards. It’s a regressive Government, and I absolutely don’t believe that they will achieve even their own loftiest goals. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Disability Issues): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m exceptionally pleased to be taking part in this Address in Reply debate after the wonderful Speech from the Throne that we were able to listen to the other day. I want to take this opportunity to say what a privilege it is to be sitting on this side of the House, and to thank the good people of New Zealand who voted for change and have given us that privilege.

I also want to congratulate you in your elevated position. We took part in a number of debates together and I think that your measured approach and your very sound thinking has been rewarded, and I acknowledge that elevation that you have received. Well done.

We know that we are entering into Government during a time where there is going to be incredibly tight fiscal constraints due to the excesses of the previous Labour Government, and we are all going to have to cope with those constraints. But across the portfolios that I have the privilege to have been given, there are some bright spots and they are provided by people on the ground who we know are able to bring life to policy.

I want to talk, first of all, about a young man called Flynn Laker who lives in Arrowtown. I know Flynn and his family well. He is the son of Tracey and the late Tony Laker. He’s the brother of Meg Laker. Flynn has Down Syndrome, but he has never let that stop him get on in life. Flynn works part time and he also runs his own business, and he’s something of a television celebrity. Flynn has “Flynn’s Sox” and on his website Flynn is the boss of that business. If you are hoping to get some socks for Christmas presents from Flynn, you are out of luck—he is completely sold out.

I talk about Flynn because he is a wonderful example of, given the right support and the right encouragement, how people from our disabled sector who are living with a disability can be involved in employment and self-employment, and the wonderful experience that that brings for our disabled people should not be diminished in any way. And so I take that story and I make that something that will go with me all my time—that I have responsibility for the disability sector. I’m thrilled to be able to give a shout-out to Flynn today.

I now want to talk about the environment because I’ve also been given that privilege of that portfolio. In the previous Government, it has made me incredibly sad and disheartened to see how environmental factors and environmental issues have been used to split this country—rural against urban, different sectors of our population against each other. The reality is that every one of us, regardless of what we do and where we live, impacts on the environment, and therefore every single one of us has a responsibility to improve the lot of the environment. So, whether it is improving the quality of our freshwater, minimising the amount of waste that we produce, or reducing the amount of plastic pollution, we all are to blame for what happens, and we must all take responsibility for that. So I think it is incredibly important that we get away from pointing the finger at different parts of our economy, at different parts of our communities. We have to be joined up on taking responsibility for improving our environment.

So I want to talk about a wonderful example of collaboration which has been in the media today in my part of the world; where collaboration between WasteNet and Phoenix Metalman has seen a recycling initiative to recycle lithium and alkaline batteries in Southland. I note that the Invercargill City Council’s manager of infrastructure operations has highlighted the environmental importance of this initiative, saying that there have been numerous fires in regional landfills that have been caused primarily by lithium batteries, and this recycling initiative will reduce those fires and other environmental risks. I just want to say how pleasing it is to see people on the ground taking initiative, being innovative, being entrepreneurial, and coming up with solutions.

The other portfolio that I am very pleased to have is the tertiary education sector. I acknowledge the challenges that a number of our universities are working through in response to declining New Zealand domestic student numbers and international student numbers not yet being back to pre-COVID levels. I recognise that this is a difficult time for staff, and I recognise that the universities are playing a very difficult balancing act between being financially responsible and retaining capability. So I acknowledge the universities and the staff during this challenging time.

I also want to mention Te Pūkenga, the combined polytechnics and industry training organisations’ mega-merged entity that we will be working through the process of disestablishment for. Sadly, there have been no enduring benefits for the over $200 million that has been wasted by the previous Government on this failed experiment. We will work through this disestablishment sensibly and calmly, working a process in consultation with staff, with students, with community, and with industry. And we will listen to what they are saying, unlike the consultation that took place during the rogue process which established Te Pūkenga, which ignored the advice of officials, which ignored the feedback from the sector, and which ignored the concerns of communities.

We will listen and we will make sensible decisions following that consultation, because the industry training and polytechnic education and training in this country is incredibly important. We will make sensible decisions about where economies of scale can be achieved, we will make sensible decisions about where shared services actually save money—not cost more—and we will ensure that maximum regional autonomy can be achieved because we know that’s where the best decisions are made.

I give these examples across those three portfolio areas that I am so proud to have been given by our Prime Minister. Because we know that it is the people on the ground who are innovative, who are entrepreneurial, who are able to self-determine their future. They are the people making a difference. This Government will stop the top-down, one-size-fits-all, Government-knows-best mantra that we have had to put up with for the past six years—and it did not work. We will ensure that we are empowering and enabling people to find solutions—people who are on the ground, who know how to make things work in their sector. Mr Speaker, I am delighted to be given this opportunity to speak. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Mr Speaker, just want to welcome you to the big Chair as the first Green to sit in that place. Welcome, welcome—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teaunau Tuiono): Kia ora. Ngā mihi.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —and hope to not give you any cause to pull me up.

I’m just reflecting on some of those comments as just made by the speaker who’s just resumed her seat, the Hon Penny Simmonds, particularly with regard to her now being the Minister for the Environment. It was really, really interesting to hear her thinking or speculating about the notion of division or the rural-urban divide and also talking about how we’re all, as Aotearoa New Zealand, responsible for our emissions profile. I was thinking about how that is exactly what is laid out in the emissions reduction plan as enabled by the zero carbon Act, the independent Climate Change Commission, and many of the other blueprints and frameworks that were laid out by the Greens in our last six years of Government.

I found it really, really interesting to hear her say that we needed to not point the finger at certain industries, when in fact we know—again from the emissions reduction plan and from our own emissions profile, as determined by the science, not by politicians—that we know full well which industries are disproportionately responsible for our emissions profile. We know that the top-polluting sector is the agricultural sector.

Mark Cameron: IPCC 2016—read the paper.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: And you can yell all you like about it, but those are the facts. That is science. You then know that following on from that, it is transport. Yet what we have from this incoming Government is a dedication, against all of the evidence, to pull back on the measures and the metrics that we have put in place to actually start to pull down those emissions within those certain sectors through an industry-wide approach known as the emissions reduction plan. So I just think that it’s really important for the incoming Government to be fully honest with themselves and with New Zealanders about what it is that that they are trying to achieve here.

In my first speech here in the House subsequent to the election, I just wanted to start—obviously, firstly—by acknowledging those comments from the Hon Penny Simmonds, but in my opening remarks by thanking the people of Auckland Central. It is genuinely the honour and privilege of my life to serve my home and community of Auckland Central from the central city, the 45,000-odd New Zealanders who live within the motorway boundaries, Eden Terrace, Newton, Saint Marys Bay, Ponsonby, Freemans Bay; out across the mighty Hauraki Gulf; Rakino Island and the dozen-odd people who live there permanently; Aotea Great Barrier Island and the 1,100 folks who are out there—where we first discovered Caulerpa brachypus, and I’ll be on at our Minister of Conservation about that—and also, obviously, my 11,000 constituents on Waiheke Island.

I am so honoured to have received that mandate as the local MP, not by virtue of the work that I solely have done—and I think that that’s an important thing for all members of Parliament to recognise: that we are here by virtue of the communities who put us here and the hundreds of volunteers who worked overtime in order to organise to put us in this place. We built that community in Auckland Central, conversation by conversation, on values of compassion and of empathy, and, God forbid, an earnest belief in the importance of evidence-based policy.

It would be remiss of me not to mention one of the metrics that my campaign manager Leroy—shout-out to one Leroy Beckett—constantly cites subsequent to our election retaining that seat, obviously firstly historically in 2020 against the red wave and then against the blue wave in 2023, where we received the largest-ever votes of any Auckland Central candidate, ever, in the country in that seat of Auckland Central. What we said there is that this was not a moment, this was a movement; and I said in our rallying cry on the night of the election that that work must continue. We did not do that organising solely for the sake of getting into this place, but by continuing to work on the mission that I was elected upon. That’s pretty abundantly clear to anybody who was following the Green Party’s progressive proposals throughout this election to emphasise and to prioritise the place of people and planet—not to have the economy that we currently have in place that exploits both of them.

I also just wanted to acknowledge and thank the New Zealanders, across this country, who voted for the strongest ever Green Party result, this election in 2023, to give us 15 MPs to hold this Government to account, because we are just warming up.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Oh!

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: We also have three Green electorates, Mr Paul Goldsmith. Those Green electorates, two of which you would have come through on your way here, to the House, Rongotai and of course Wellington Central—and you’re welcome to visit Auckland Central anytime, in your arts and cultural capacity.

We may have a reactionary right-wing Government hanging on by a thread, but I’d like to remind New Zealanders that we also have the most left-wing Parliament that we have ever seen in my entire lifetime. So, to unpack that, just for a second, we have 21 seats—21 seats—explicitly to the left of the Labour Party. Also, for the first time in the history of an MMP environment, we have a good—I’d say, actually, even a great—relationship, that is not gatekept by one of the two legacy parties, between two ostensible-minded parties. That is, of course, the relationship between the Greens and Te Pāti Māori.

Now, while this Government may be blu-tacked together by hot takes from your uncle at Christmas, you know, led not by the Three Stooges but, in fact, by the three Scrooges, who are coming for you this Christmas, trying to ram through legislation—anti the workers, anti the renters, and we’ll just wait and see when it comes to being anti the planet.

But what we know, out there, and what many of us have felt—even, most recently, at the rally on Parliament’s lawn at noon today—is that there has never been a sentiment of political awareness that I have ever felt in this country in my lifetime. New Zealanders are waking up and understanding that this place, this Parliament—politics is the manifestation of their will. And we get the politics that we think that we deserve.

Our call to action for all New Zealanders, if they are feeling disenfranchised or disempowered by what they are seeing from the agenda of this incoming Government—which is far less of a vision than it is a shredder—is for them to get engaged. Because things will only get worse if regular people—normal, good, decent people—stand by on the margins and let it happen.

To that effect, I just want to remind people that the most important thing, here, is not just to get mad, not just to get sad, but to get organised and to get mobilised. Because, as we’ve just said and as we’ve just seen, we are just warming up.

Everything is impossible until it’s not. We have a fascinating economic history, in this country of Aotearoa New Zealand, where, every 40 to 50 years or so, we see a form of economic transformation. In the 1930s and 1940s, of course, we had the advent of the welfare State in the wake of world wars and austerity proposals—an opportunity for us to come together and create the social contract, which, of course, gave us social housing, social welfare, and, with it, some of the greatest periods of prosperity that this country has ever seen.

Then we saw the shredding of that, in the 1980s and 1990s, with trickle-down economics, which this Government seems intent on bringing us back to.

Actually, on that point, I thought it salient to reflect on what was just put forward before, in an earlier debate point, by the Hon Shane Jones, a member of this incoming Government, who was talking about the importance of bringing back oil and gas for sake of certainty within the sector. That is quite the opposite of the point that New Zealand First was making when they were supporting the moves of the incoming Government in 2017, when, of course, we were repealing—or, rather, banning—new, offshore oil and gas exploration, when New Zealand First reflected on what occurred in the 1980s, particularly to regional and rural communities, and what occurred to those communities who were whacked with massive change overnight and saw massive job losses that disproportionately impacted those communities.

New Zealand First said then, in 2017-2018, that the most important thing that they could do, in supporting this oil and gas ban, was give those communities an opportunity to prepare, because they knew that the writing was on the wall. And the science tells us, funnily enough, as the Hon Shane Jones himself was reflecting, that we cannot burn all of the fossil fuels that we have already discovered. Because if we burn anywhere from one fifth to one third of what we’ve already discovered—we know because the science tells us; if the Government was interested in listening to it—we are going to burst past 1.5 degrees of warming, which is critical for retention of life as we know it.

To that effect, again, I just really, really, really want New Zealanders to reflect on the fact that all of these things are choices. We do not have to have an economy that exploits people and the planet; we can have an economy that supports them. We can have free dental care; we can have free tertiary education; we can have a guaranteed minimum-income; we can have rent controls—if we decide, as a Parliament, to move ahead with an evidence base and values of compassion, to implement policies that support both people and the planet.

Just on the final point around climate in particular, I want to make it really, really clear to the Government that you can negotiate with and you can change the rules of the economy, but you cannot negotiate with the laws of science, of physics, and of chemistry—of planetary boundaries. We will be organising, and we will not be letting this Government get away with anything quietly. What they have seen and heard so far, from the thousands of New Zealanders who have mobilised against their agenda, is that we’re just getting started.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Firstly, congratulations, Mr Speaker, on your appointment to the role. I’d also like to congratulate Prime Minister Chris Luxon, ACT leader David Seymour, and Winston Peters, leader of the New Zealand First Party, for putting together a comprehensive coalition agreement that sets out the real change New Zealand has demanded, and how we will transform New Zealand over the next three years. I’d also like to congratulate returning ACT members of Parliament and the new ACT members of Parliament, who are looking forward to making a productive contribution in this House and in their roles. I’d also like to congratulate members of the Opposition. You are now sitting in the right place, according to most New Zealanders. And I’d like to thank the volunteers and the supporters of the ACT Party in West Auckland and central Auckland—where I spent a lot of time during the election campaign—and around the country, in those regions which asked for ACT to go to Parliament to deliver real change. Thank you for your support. We could not be here to deliver for you without all of those hours of effort you put in, putting up signs and helping us organise events and meetings. Thank you.

Now, I want to come to the proposals set out in the Speech from the Throne—in particular, those which relate to resource management reform and the need to deliver infrastructure in a more coherent and cost-effective way. This Government has made it clear, in the coalition agreement, we have a plan to do it, and we have some specific measures that will deliver that. It’s quite different from the incoherent but aspirational Speech from the Throne that I heard in 2020, as a new Member of Parliament, delivered by a former Labour Prime Minister. Now, in order to reform the system used to fund, finance, and deliver infrastructure in New Zealand, so that Kiwis can receive better infrastructure services, we must approach it through a value-for-money lens. We must think about how we actually solve this mushrooming infrastructure-deficit and the eye-watering costs that have been produced to deliver even the most basic things like hospitals and fixing three-waters infrastructure.

The last three years, we reached peak stupid when it came to infrastructure proposals. We had the $750 million walking and cycling bridge across Auckland Harbour, which, for that amount of money, didn’t even include a bus lane. We had plans for Auckland Light Rail and Let’s Get Wellington Moving—imagined in a bubble where capital is unconstrained. Projects that are under way now, like KiwiRail’s Inter-island Resilience Connection terminals in Picton and Wellington, have been managed so poorly by the sponsors in the last Government—the former Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, the former Minister for State Owned Enterprises, Dr Duncan Webb—that this new Government is now potentially on the hook for billions of dollars to rebuild the landside and the coastal structures and to pay for these Interislander ferries.

There are good reasons why this Government will soon begin work on a national infrastructure agency, one of the measures set down in the coalition agreement, and institute long-term city and regional infrastructure-deals, allowing public-private partnerships, tolling and value capture, and other innovative measures to generate revenues to pay for infrastructure. That’s because it’s not good enough just to pick projects from some ideological bucket and announce them on a campaign trail; you actually have to consider how individual projects and programmes of work deliver economic and social benefits for the regions where they’re to be delivered. That’s what this coalition Government will do.

We’ll also introduce commercial rigour in the way that infrastructure projects and programmes are delivered and the way that money is allocated and costs are controlled.

Hon Nicola Grigg: What is this innovation that you speak of?

SIMON COURT: For example, this innovation I speak of means that, when proposals are delivered to Government, basic questions will be asked: who is this for, how much will it cost, how certain are you that this cost will land there, and the time frames—questions that didn’t seem to be asked by our previous Government, but that anybody involved in delivering infrastructure projects in the private sector or in the commercial world would always ask the proposers. The coalition Government also intends to introduce financial incentives for councils to enable more housing, including considering sharing a proportion of the GST revenue collected on new residential building with councils because local government has all of the costs of delivering local infrastructure, but, apart from some very basic rating tools, does not have the ability to access revenue to deliver those big pieces of bulk infrastructure which are needed to allow cities to grow up as well as out.

Now, it’s not good enough just to reform the funding and financing aspects in order to build the infrastructure so we can build cities; we also need to reform the resource management laws. This is not a new problem. We’ve had successive governments run into activist judges and poorly thought-out environmental legislation. Think of the Basin Reserve flyover, a project proposed almost a decade ago to unlock transport in Wellington; stymied by a heritage grandstand which, I promise you, if it was knocked down in an earthquake nobody would miss. Think about projects like the Mt Messenger bypass in Taranaki; stymied by objectors who in the end were found to not have a case but who held the project up for years and have cost the Government and taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Or the objectors to seabed mining off the coast of Taranaki who—it turns out, all of the environmental considerations were addressed, and yet that project is still stuck dealing with the Supreme Court directions to consider tikanga, an esoteric concept that cannot be readily defined by applicants or lawyers or the Environment Court.

Well, I heard for three years, sitting on the Environment Committee, all kinds of ways the previous Government was going to deal with that. However, the former Labour Government’s Spatial Planning Act, and Natural and Built Environment Act didn’t address it. They introduced new novel terms like “te oranga o te taiao”, which submitters told the Environment Committee could take a decade to litigate, to work out what they even meant. How is anybody supposed to get a consent to build infrastructure—roads, bridges, waste-water treatment plants, let alone a housing subdivision anywhere if you don’t even know what the terms in the bill mean?

Well, forcing decision makers to give effect to the Treaty wasn’t going to get more housing and infrastructure built but this coalition Government does have a plan. We will repeal those two pieces of legislation—the Spatial Planning and the Natural Built Environment Acts—in the first 100 days. This Government will introduce a fast-track consenting regime to get infrastructure projects built that are currently locked up, stuck in consenting and permitting. This Government will amend the Resource Management Act, which will be reinstated to make it easier to consent new infrastructure including renewable energy to allow farmers to farm, to get more houses built, enable aquaculture and other primary industries to get ahead. Then we will replace the Resource Management Act with a new resource management law, premised on the enjoyment of property rights as a guiding principle. Imagine that: being able to use your land to build or grow what you want without the risk of having people come out of the woodwork, come from far and wide, bring their homemade signs to protest and oppose what you want to do with your own land. ACT believes, and this coalition Government believes, that’s one way that we can help Kiwis get ahead: let them use their own land to become more productive.

Now, there are many more things in this Government’s 100-day plan, that coalition agreement, which will improve the lives of everyday New Zealanders, make this country more productive, give certainty to businesses and individuals who want to invest in building infrastructure, whether it’s a culvert or a bridge on a farm or a culvert under a State highway. It’s going to take a little bit of time to solve some of these problems, but the solutions are clear in the coalition agreement. We’ve been thinking about this for three years and, to those New Zealanders listening or watching at home, we are ready to get on with it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade): I also add my applause to that commentary just given. Mr Speaker, congratulations on your ascension to that fine role.

SPEAKER: You as well.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: We’re all very pleased to see you there.

It is a privilege, after that stonking great election result, to be standing on this side of the House after three years on the Opposition benches, as part of the 54th Parliament and, indeed, a part of this innovative, visionary coalition Government. I would like to welcome members from across the House, particularly too those of you who are new here. Some people liken it to Hogwarts: you do get lost, but you will eventually find your way. That is the topic I’d like to talk about a little bit today: after six years in the wilderness, after six years of directionless ambling around, directionless travel, economic hard times, we are back. We are going to rebuild this country. We are here to get New Zealand back on track. We have a very big few years ahead of us. There is a lot to do, there is a lot to repair, there is a lot to renew. We have a vision for this country, despite what the naysayers will have you believe. We have a vision, we have a plan, we are excited. We believe New Zealand is the best little country on planet Earth, and it deserves a Government who will serve it and accompany the success of Kiwis, not try to determine it.

As we all went out on the campaign trail just, I don’t know, it was about six months ago—it feels like a lifetime ago—we took on the feedback of New Zealanders. They wanted to be heard; for six years they have been told what to do, how to live their lives, and they wanted to be heard. That came through loud and clear. So here we are with a coalition signed, sealed, and delivered; we are ready to deliver on what they have asked for. It’s really interesting listening to the speeches on this side of the House about the new ideas, the big ideas, the huge energy. We’ve been itching to get back to work since the election. The results rolled in and New Zealanders were heard loud and clear. The coalition Government has done and will continue to do what the previous Government could not do, and that was to listen. I would like to acknowledge the leaders of the coalition Government: of course, our new Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon; the leader of the ACT Party, David Seymour; and of course the leader of the New Zealand First Party, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. We have formed a coalition under the leadership of these three gentlemen that will deliver on the needs of New Zealanders with commitment, with cohesion, and with consideration.

The speech delivered by the Governor-General on behalf of the new Government has outlined our direction and optimism for this great country. It has most certainly highlighted that we’re determined to get things done. We’re determined to get things done for New Zealanders and for them to see tangible differences in their everyday lives, because that is what really matters. We want to establish stability again, we want to grow economic prosperity, we want to restore national unity and national pride. We want to boost social cohesiveness alongside rights and responsibilities of being a New Zealand citizen, amongst all our goals.

On this side of the House, rebuilding the agricultural sector is very near and dear to my heart, and indeed to those of my colleagues. I’ve been very privileged to have been named the National Party’s Associate Minister of Agriculture (Horticulture), and I’d also like to identify the dream team, made up of Andrew Hoggard from the ACT Party and Mark Patterson from New Zealand First. We will be supporting the lead Minister of Agriculture, one Hon Todd McClay, and we are ready to get things done.

The agricultural sector, like the rest of New Zealand, has really, really battled for the last six years, and if you think inflation is bad in the urban environment, go out on-farm. At 16 percent, it is making life miserable. It has been very, very tough out there for an industry that actually only wants to do the very best it can, despite the rhetoric that has come from Government benches over the last six years. They have been bombarded with regulations, with rules, and with restrictions that are not fit for purpose and that have not been based in scientific evidence of best practice. They have been slammed with increased costs, and they have been all but forgotten by the previous Government.

So I want to take the opportunity this afternoon to speak about our agricultural and rural sector. We do know, over here on this side of the House, how very important these good men and women of New Zealand are to our culture and our economy, and let’s not forget that they have so often served as the economic lifeline for this country and they really should be recognised as such. We have not forgotten that they need confidence and they need our support, and that is why we are going to make our intentions clear.

A lot of other speakers have talked about our 100-day plan, and I just want to quickly outline some of the coalition highlights, and they are that we are going to enable our farmers and landowners to offset their emissions. We’re going to calculate the sequestration against their on-farm emissions. We’re going to amend the new “Resource Management Act Mark II”, as we call it. We’re going to allow farmers to farm, we’re going to get houses built, and we’re going to enhance the primary sector, including fish and aquaculture and forestry and pasture and horticulture and mining.

We’re going to cut red tape. We’re going to cut regulatory blocks on irrigation, on water storage and on managed aquifer recharge and flood protection schemes, and, goodness me, all of these are actually beneficial to the environment. I know, Mr Assistant Speaker Tuiono, you are also very strident in your views about the agricultural sector, and I’m sure that we will come to a lot of alignment in the coming years as we all work together for the benefit of this sector.

We’re going to be ambitious for our country. We’re going to liberalise genetic engineering laws. We’re going to ensure strong protection for human health and, of course, the environment.

We’re going to reverse the ban on live animal exports, but New Zealand will become a world leader in ensuring the highest standards of animal welfare. We’re going to reform the NAWAC, as Mark Cameron alluded to—the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. It is not fit for purpose. It’s membership, its functions, and its mandates are not appropriate.

We’re also going to cease the implementation of those significant natural areas that have also been previously mentioned. We’re going to improve farm environment plans. Farmers are great custodians of the environment, and this House must remember that. They are so often so unfairly targeted with vitriol that is entirely undeserved.

We’re going to replace the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. We’re going to make it fit for purpose. We’re going to go catchment by catchment, and region by region. We’re not going to allow this top-down, nonsensical, unscientific approach to continue.

We’re going to incentivise the uptake of emissions reduction mitigation. We’re not just going to tax the sector into submission; we are going to encourage it to lead the world in this space. We are going to meet our carbon zero 2050 goals. We are on track to meet those targets, and I know that every farmer in New Zealand is on board with that and is thoroughly incentivised to get going with it.

Of course, we’re an export-dependent nation down at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, at the bottom of the world. We are going to prioritise trade agreements—fair free-trade agreements—and we will be targeting as our first port of call the great nation of India.

On trade, I’ve also had the privilege of being made the Minister of State for Trade. Of course, when the Prime Minister rang me, I did actually have to ask him what exactly that meant. But a quick google away and I soon discovered what exactly it meant, and I’m very excited to get on board with that, as well.

New Zealand has gained so much by having really strong global relationships with our overseas partners. We do play a very important, prominent role in the globe. We are seen as a fair player, and that in this day and age is very important. So we’ll be working very closely with the Hon Todd McClay, who is the Minister for Trade. I am excited about his vision and the opportunities available to New Zealand. We understand that there are about $10 billion in non-tariff barriers sitting on the table that that previous Government ignored for six years. That is some work to do.

From tomatoes to wine and everything else in between, we will get our exports to market. We are excited to rebuild our relationships, we’re excited to rebuild our economy, and we’re excited to see the results that that means for every living New Zealander in this country. Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to make the contribution.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you, Mr Speaker—“Mark Patterson”, I think. But may I start by congratulating you on your ascension to the Chair, and it’s pretty historic for your party as well as for yourself. So that’s a fine achievement.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon on becoming Prime Minister of New Zealand. It is the highest honour we can accord one of our citizens, and we in New Zealand First have been impressed by the way that he’s tackled the task so far and his relationship that he’s sought to establish with us. He’s been very direct in his expectations—gone is the fluff and in is the action. Also, I congratulate the Hon David Seymour and the ACT Party on forming the balance of the coalition, and we look forward to working with you over these next three years.

I would like to congratulate, as has been said, the new MPs in the House, and across the House particularly. If my experience is anything to go by, no matter how much you’ve been around this place, until you’ve sat in these green chairs and had to debate the issues, big and small, and the gravity of those—every issue is important to someone somewhere and some of them are important to everyone, and nothing quite prepares you for that. So enjoy the ride, but it is a big responsibility.

I’d like to congratulate particularly the new New Zealand First team: Casey Costello, Tanya Unkovich, Andy Foster, and Jamie Arbuckle. They will be fine contributors to our team.

To Ingrid Leary, for winning—or just squeaking in, I might say—over myself and Scott Willis in the Taieri electorate, I say congratulations, Ingrid. It’s great to see you here, and Scott as well, who is the most rarest of rare species: a practical Green. We’ve had a bit of a pledge between us. We do have quite a constructive relationship and we will work together on local issues. Ingrid and I have already started on lobbying for some extra funding for a forestry school in Milton. Scott and I have already started on a much more serious matter. He had to bring the suits up from Dunedin that I’d forgot on Sunday, when I headed up to Gisborne. So thank you, Scott.

New Zealand First is back, and we can thank a lot of people for this, but I think the people we really need to thank are the Labour Party for their increasingly authoritarian stances, for their attack on our very democracy, for being out of touch with the working New Zealanders that they purport to represent, for trying to centralise almost everything, and for running our economy into the rocks to where our economic outlook is sitting at 159th in the world by IMF measures, sitting only just above Equatorial Guinea, which actually happens to be in the middle of a coup at the moment. So the cavalry has arrived in just the nick of time, and the attack on our agricultural community, as the Hon Nicola Grigg was just outlining before—and I’ll get back to that shortly—was nothing short of extraordinary.

In fact, my decision to stand again for this House was not one that was taken lightly, but when the Labour Party announced that they were prepared to sacrifice 21 percent of the sheep and beef sector at the altar of the climate change policy, I just could not sit by and take that. So New Zealand First is back, I am back, and I’m sure our farmers are pleased that the coalition Government is now in charge and that sort of policy would never be allowed to pass anywhere near into legislation.

Thank you to the voters. They turned to New Zealand First for our pragmatic, common-sense, and egalitarian policy platform.

I must pay tribute to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, one of the most consequential politicians ever to have sat in this House. You’ve got to realise, when you’re a political party outside of Parliament, outside of this platform, to get back into Parliament—the leadership to do that was inspirational, it was totemic, and it was historic. It is probably the one thing that we do have in common with Te Pāti Māori is we’re the only parties that have fought our way back from outside Parliament. The wealth of knowledge that he brings to this House will be most needed in this time.

I also must take the chance to acknowledge Darroch Ball, Julian Paul, Holly Howard, and Dot Jones, who gave their time voluntarily full-time for three years, without a pay cheque to put the structures in place. While Winston’s out front—and we, as politicians, were out front—they were laying the foundations. We stand here, guys, on your shoulders.

We need to turn New Zealand around. We need to be lifting our growth. We need to be providing more opportunities, and that is just what we intend to do as a coalition. It is my great honour to have been named and trusted with responsibility of Minister for Rural Communities, and Associate Minister for Agriculture. I do acknowledge the Hon Nicola Grigg and the Hon Andrew Hoggard and the team that Nicola referenced under the Hon Todd McClay. We intend to set the agricultural community alight with some common-sense and pragmatic stewardship.

We can say that agriculture is back in this House. It’s not only the leadership that I’ve referenced, but I welcome the gumboot-wearing MPs—I think, Wayne Langford, the President of Federated Farmers. It is great to see so many farmers back in this House, and that is a consequence of the uprising from rural New Zealand. They saw that they needed to have some leaders in this House to represent their interest. Rural confidence was at a 20-year low; it didn’t come before in the nick of time. Agriculture and horticulture are New Zealand’s only industries of scale that are internationally competitive. They are incredibly important to this country. The numbers get thrown around time and time again to the point where they seem to not mean anything: $57 billion or $58 billion of foreign exchange to an economy that is running a current account deficit could not be more critical; 350,000 New Zealanders directly employed; it is 82 percent—82 percent—of New Zealand’s merchandise export trade. We will champion our farmers and growers, we will respect our farmers and growers, and we will see them as the solution, and not the problem. [Bell rung] Time goes a bit quicker after three years, I’ve noticed!

We do have our challenges: water quality and quantity, our emissions profile from agriculture and how we’re going to do that, and getting the right tree in the right place. I am glad to see that not only is New Zealand First back in the House, agriculture is back in the House, but wool will be back in Government buildings. It is my favourite part of the coalition agreement. It astounds me that we could not get this past the Green Party the last time we were in Parliament to champion this. This sustainable fibre is back in Government buildings and we intend to do a lot more with wool as we look to get it back to contributing to the New Zealand economy.

Rural communities—those 700,000 Kiwis—as I’ve said, it’s where the nation’s wealth is created. We need to return the vibrancy back to that. It is not just farmers or the shearers or the truckies or the stock agents. We want the artists and the entrepreneurs and the small-businessmen out there. After COVID, people have reassessed their priorities. These communities are now starting to grow again as people question the merits of sitting two hours a day in traffic, and sitting in a glass tower behind a desk. People are coming back. We have to make sure we are ready for them. We have to make sure they’ve got good primary healthcare including mental health, good education, good roading and, increasingly, connectivity and communications. They need a police presence, and they need access to resources so they can actually sustain their economies. The Rt Hon Shane Jones outlined earlier exactly what we intend to do to build our economies.

So, in this role, I will be a strong advocate. I expect to have a battalion of rural MPs knocking on my door, filling my inbox with invitations. My door is open. Let’s get rural communities back on track. Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I’m just mindful of the fact that we’re approaching a time when maiden speeches are coming up. I’m very much looking forward to hearing Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s speech. Unfortunately, you’ll have to wait for 10 minutes of my speech beforehand; great to see the media is accumulating for this operation.

It does take my mind back—takes me 12 years back to when I gave my maiden speech. I referred to my great grand-daddy Charles George Goldsmith coming out to the Poverty Bay in the 1840s. He was a great lover of the wāhine of the Ngāti Porou. He had many relationships, and he had a lot of children. That was the kind of enterprise that founded this nation, and I agreed to follow in his footsteps.

But of course, coming into Parliament, the goal of—I’m sure—all MPs over time is to be able to be a part of a Cabinet and a Government that works hard to improve the lives of New Zealanders. So I’m very thankful for the opportunity that the voters gave the National Party and our coalition partners to form a Government and to be a part of a Government that, I believe, will improve the lives of New Zealanders in many ways. If we go back to what people were focused on during the election campaign; certainly, when I was up and down the country talking to people, the number one issue was the cost of living. Everywhere you go, if you went on to the doorstep and asked people, “What are you worried about?”, immediately they’d be talking about the cost of rents, the cost of food and day-to-day articles, and how they’re going to put together the money that they need in order to feed their family and to get ahead.

That is why the overwhelming priority and focus of this Government at the start—under the leadership of Chris Luxon and Nicola Willis—is on trying to push back against the inflation that has dominated over the last couple of years, and do what the Government can do to take pressure off households, starting off with some tax relief. People think this is an amazing thing. Well, because there have not been any adjustments to the tax rates over a long period of time during inflation, people are paying more and more tax. It is right and appropriate that the Government adjusts those thresholds so more money isn’t being taken out of their pockets at a time when they are struggling to pay the bills. So that’s what we will do.

Then we’ll also bring back and restore some discipline to Government spending so that Government isn’t stoking the fire. It’s a fair criticism to be made of Grant Robertson, the former finance Minister, who was stoking the fires of inflation—

Chlöe Swarbrick: How much are the name changes costing?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you very much, Chlöe. Very much focused on poor quality spending. So that’s going to be a focus for us. Also recognising the impact of ill-conceived regulations in terms of the cost. I was just talking to an architect in Auckland last week who was talking about the latest home insulation requirements in Auckland, and the extremely thick insulation required in a pretty warm part of the country, and the additional costs that that’s adding to building houses, and ultimately to the cost of housing, which flows through to every household in Auckland trying to get affordable housing. So regulatory side of the State is so important.

The second thing that you’d hear on the doorstep after cost of living was law and order. I can remember many times during the campaign trail, previous Ministers of Justice who I debated against—there were a number of them—and general academics would say, “Oh, you’re fearmongering when you’re talking about crime”. Well, that, I’m afraid, is not the truth. People see what’s going on in their communities, and they raised it with us over and over again. So we all visited shopkeepers all around the country who had been the subject of ram raids and attacks in their workplaces. People could see the impact of gangs in their community and they wanted the Government to do something about it. They were concerned that the only clear target that the previous Government had was to reduce the prison population irrespective of what was going on in our communities, and we needed to change that. That’s the first thing we’ve done in Government—change that to show that our focus in justice is upon improving public safety and reducing the number of victims of crime. That’s what we’re going to be focused on.

We’ll be restoring real consequences for crime, because part of the goal of sentencing people who are convicted of crimes is to denounce the act and to give some succour to victims that there is justice for them. So we’re going to be working our way through some changes in the justice area. We’re going to be restricting the ability of judges to significantly reduce sentences so that people actually do face real consequences for crime. Then we’ll be giving the police the powers that they need in order to deal with gangs in our communities. So whether that’s banning gang patches in public places or whether it’s giving the police powers to disperse gangs when they’re taking over a township like Ōpōtiki, as we saw in the past, and also dealing with firearms that have become a real issue in our communities.

But at the same time, we also want to make much better progress in rehabilitating prisoners. So an important part of our overall justice priority is to deal with those—half of the prisoners who are in prison right now are remand prisoners who are awaiting their trial. At the moment, they are not eligible to access all the rehabilitation programmes that are available—drug and alcohol relief; a whole bunch of things that are there in order to help them get ahead and get back on track when they leave prison. So one of the things we’ll be doing is making sure that all prisoners are eligible for those rehabilitation programmes and we think that will make a big difference.

Of course, the other area, when we talk about youth crime, much more significant things are about making sure the kids are at school. After six years where truancy got out of control, our Government will be focused on dealing with some of those long-term drivers of crime.

I also was very pleased when the Prime Minister, Chris Luxon, gave me the Treaty negotiations portfolio. I’m very conscious of the fact that I stand in a proud tradition in the National Party of a party that has actually delivered in that space, because there’s a lot of talk on the other side. But it was Sir Douglas Graham that kicked things off with Prime Minister Jim Bolger, who got the Ngāi Tahu settlement sorted and one with Tainui, which set the benchmark that that got things going. And then after a long period of drift, after Helen Clark, Christopher Finlayson turned up and really turbocharged that Treaty settlement process in order to bring some progress.

Now, not everybody is going to be happy with every outcome, but we made progress and certainly my goal is to continue that tradition so that iwi and hapū across the country can reap some compensation for the breaches of the Treaty and get their feet established so that they can do well in the future. So that’s something that I’m looking forward to. Obviously, we’ve got big challenges up in the Far North and I’m hoping for goodwill to abide on all those areas.

Recognising that we as a country are trying to do something that is quite unique around the world and it is a challenging prospect of how a country recognises the Treaty of Waitangi and honours that Treaty, while also stands for those core human rights of equal citizenship and equality before the law. And that I don’t for a moment think is an easy discussion but it’s one that we’re going to carry on with goodwill.

The final one I’ve been given is arts and culture. And I certainly celebrate with all people across the House the magnificent creative industries that we have in this country—our artists, our writers, our historians, our musicians, and our photographers, and all the many people, film makers, who contribute to making this such a rich and vibrant culture. I regard that as actually quite an important economic portfolio, because the creative sector is significant in our economy. It’s actually a big export earner. The film industry is a big export earner. The music industry is a big export owner. So when Todd McClay goes heading off to our places on trade missions, as well as the meat workers he should also have some of the musicians and the artists, because they are great exporters as well and that’s something I’ll be championing. Thank you very much for your commentary on that score.

So with that, I just want to acknowledge the maiden speech coming up and I wish the member, Hana-Rawhiti, all the very best in Parliament. This is a broad church, this Parliament, but we all desire to improve the lot of our fellow New Zealanders. And on that basis, thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I call Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke to make her maiden statement.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe, e te Pīka. Tēnā rā tātou, e te Whare. Ka ngau ki Mōkau, ka ngau ki Tāmaki. Ka rū te whenua, ka mate te marama, ka taka ngā whetū i te rangi, ka ara Waikato i te rua, au, au, aue ha.

Haka—E ko te tūī

He aha rā, he aha rā?

He aha te mahi mō runga i te marae e tū nei!

E ko te tui, e ko te tui!

E ko te hono ki te kotahitanga ki te Kīngi Māori e tū nei

E tū nei i runga i te mana Māori motuhake e tū nei

Whiti! Whiti!

Whiti ki te tika

Whiti ki te ora

Whiti ki te rangimārie

Titia iho

Au! Au! Aue hā!

Hikohiko te uira, papā te whatitiri, whakahekeheke mai te Kōhanga ki runga o Pāremata.

“Kua ara ake ahau i te papa o te whenua, kua kite au i ngā whetū e tū takitahi ana. Ko Matariki te kairuri, ko Atutahi kei te taumata o te Mangōroa. Ko te Atua tōku piringa, ka puta, ka ora.” He tongikura nā Kīngi Tāwhiao.

Kei taku kīngi, Kīngi Tāwhiao Pōtatau Te Wherowhero te Tuawhitu, me te whare kāhui ariki whānui, te Puhiariki o te motu, Ngā-wai-hono-i-te-pō, kua rangatira tō tātou nei pō i a koe. Rirerire hau, pai mārire.

Ngā mate o te tau, o te marama, o te wiki, o te rā nei, ngā rārangi kīngi o te pō, hoki atu rā koutou ki te pare kawakawa o Pareārau.

Ki te mana whenua o Te Ātiawa, nei rā ka tūohu.

He raukura nō Rongowairereiao, Taranaki.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to us all, to the House. I wander to Mōkau, I wander to Auckland. The land quakes, the moon wanes, the stars fall from the sky, Waikato arises from the abyss, it is our time.

Haka—E ko te tūī

What is it, what is it?

What is the purpose of the gathering on the marae that stands here!

It is to unite, it is to unite!

It is to come together under the mantle and unity of the Kīngitanga

Upon the foundations of our Māori self-determination

Emanate and shine!

Emanate what is right

Emanate life

Emanate peace

Let all these things come together

Au! Au! Aue hā!

Lightning flashes, thunder crashes, the Kōhanga generation descends on Parliament.

“I arose from the bed of the earth, I have seen the stars standing alone. Matariki is the one who serenades in farewell, and Atutahi is at the zenith of the Milky Way. God is my refuge, I emerge, I am well.” A royal statement by King Tāwhiao.

To my king, King Tāwhiao Pōtatau Te Wherowhero te Tuawhitu, and the entire royal household, the Royal Consort, Ngā Wai-hono-i-te-pō, this night has been honoured by you. Peace and goodness be upon us.

The dearly departed of the year, of the month, of the week, of this very day, the ranks of kings of the night, return to the kawakawa wreath of Jupiter.

To the mana whenua of Te Ātiawa, I bow to you.

The leader from Rongowairereiao, Taranaki.]

Over 1.2 million acres confiscated. He uri o Whakaotirangi o Waikato.

[A descendant of Whakaotirangi of Waikato.]

Over 1.2 million acres confiscated. He whakahekenga nō Āhuaiti o Ngāpuhi.

[A scion of Āhuaiti of Ngāpuhi.]

Over 200,000 lands confiscated. He mangainga nō Hamo-i-te-rangi o Ngāi Tahu.

[A descendant of Hamo-i-te-rangi of Ngāi Tahu.]

34.5 million acres confiscated. Ka ora tonu tō rātou uri whakaheke. Ko Mutuwhenua te marama i te rangi nei, ko Hine-i-te-weka te whetū.

[Their descendant heir will live on. The moon phase today is Mutuwhenua, the relevant star is Hine-i-te-weka.]

Well, I was almost just going to say, “We are here; let’s get to mahi.” But those flights down for our whānau were pretty expensive and some of my cousins even missed Allen Stone’s concert tonight for this. No, this is better. Ironically, they say the stars align, but I think tonight is a little bit more than the stars aligning. The meteors will shower. The comet 46P in a full circle moment will shower tonight across Aotearoa. Last time this meteor showered was in 1972, when te Petihana was brought to Pāremata from our grandparents. This mokopuna delivers their maiden speech 51 years later.

I truly feel like I’ve already said my maiden speech outside the steps of Parliament last year, for the 50th anniversary of Te Petihana, where my last statements of my speech—I quote—“I will leave the decision with you whether or not you jump on our waka or not, because with or without you we will sail in both worlds. We’ve come so far, but we’ve got a long way to go. Let’s see what we can do in the next 50 years.” My last question at the time was to Minister Grant Robertson: “Aotearoa, te Whare Pāremata, are you ready?” A whole year later, we can say we have made it inside the House and we have arrived. We are here. We are sailing. We are navigating, just like our ancestors once did, in the biggest ocean in the world, Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa—even though some others aren’t even jumping on the Waka Kotahi.

Ki te māreikura, te wahine iho pūmanawa, e Nanaia Mahuta, e kore e ea te kupu, e kore e oti ngā whakamānawa ki a koe. Nāhau rā i para tēnei huarahi, nāhau rā tēnei Whare Pāremata i hamahama, nāhau rā i ringa raupā ki tō tāua nei iwi. Nei rā tō mokopuna e tūohu ana ki a koe.

[To the esteemed lady, the most talented lady, Nanaia Mahuta, the word will never be fulfilled, my gratitude to you will never end. You who blazed this path, you who hammered this House of Parliament, you who worked tirelessly for our people. Here your mokopuna bows to you.]

I was given some advice before making it into Parliament, to not take anything personally or it’ll eat you up. Well, I can’t help but take everything personally that has been said in this Chamber. In only a couple of weeks, in only 14 days, this Government has attacked my whole world from every corner. Health, taiao, wai, whenua, natural resources, Māori wards, reo, tamariki, and the right of me and you to be in this country under Te Tiriti. How can I not take anything personally when it feels like these policies were made about me?

E kore rawa au e tuku i te mana ki a koutou ki te pēhi nei i tōku nei ao. Kāore au e mōhio ki tētehi ao anō.

[I will never cede the mana to you who are suppressing my world. I don’t know any other world.]

I am not fearful of this place or this debating chamber; trust me, I’ve been to marae AGMs all my life—I will not say which marae either.

I dedicated my last speech outside of Parliament to my grandparents. I quote: “This is for my nana Eileen, that became in debt with a student loan to learn her reo she once lost. This is for my nanny Ranini, that was ashamed as a little girl of her name. This is for my papa Albie, that worked in a blue collar all his life to fit in society. This is for my pop, that still finds it hard to have confidence to sit on the pae. This is for my nana Gail, in her 70s, that spends most nights studying her language and now messages me on Facebook in te reo every chance she gets. This is for my koro Taitimu, that wanted me to come here with a hammer and red paint.”

However, this speech today, my maiden speech, is dedicated to all our children that join me from up above: our wharekura, our kura. To my younger siblings, my goddaughter, my nieces and nephews from up above, no matter what comes out of this Government, I will make sure our kids hear us. Never fit in. You are perfect. You are the perfect fit. To our tamariki, your reo is whispering for you. To the tamariki Māori who have been sitting in the back of their classroom their whole life, whakamā, waiting generations longing to learn their native tongue, to the tamariki who haven’t been to their pepeha yet, it is waiting for you with open arms. To our mokopuna, they can attack me, but I will not let them attack you. Our first words we spoke in this House was an oath to you.

To Hauraki-Waikato, I am at your service in and outside of Parliament. I will die for you in these chambers, but I will live for you outside these four walls. I will be a constant sponge, soaking up and listening to our kōrero tuku iho and the needs for our people, straight from the soil. Your job for me is to keep me in line and in check.

The first thing Te Pāti Māori taught me is to believe in myself and to always keep grounded. We do not own these seats; we are kaitiaki for our people. We are not the ones, but we are the kaikarere from the home base to the Beehive. We are the protectors in here and the providers in our home.

Ki ngā hoa piri o tēnei tauā o Te Pāti Māori: Rawiri te kaiurungi e tū hakahaka nei; Whaea Debbie, te wairua nō ō tūpuna a Te Whiti rāua ko Te Tohu; Whaea Mariameno, te wahine, ā, ko Reitū, Reipae e hao nei i tēnei waka nō Te Hiku; Takutai, ka rongo i tō reo nō Rātana Pā e tiori mai nei ki a au; Tākuta, tō whakapau kaha ki tēnei tira; Meka, tō wairua atawhai, e koa ana te ngākau ki te kite i a koe.

[To the loyal companions of this army of Te Pāti Māori: Rawiri the navigator that stands here to haka; Whaea Debbie, the spirit of your ancestors Te Whiti and Te Tohu; Whaea Mariameno, the lady, reminiscent of Reitū and Reipae that encapsulates this waka from the Far North; Takutai, I hear your voice from Rātana Pā singing here to me; Tākuta, your tireless work for this team; Meka, your nurturing soul, I am happy to see you.]

I am absolutely privileged to be by your side. At 21 years old, I can definitely say this was not the plan. I was perfectly fine growing my kūmara and learning maramataka, but this House kept tampering with things they shouldn’t be touching, and that’s why I left the māra to come here.

To my whānau who have travelled near and far from across the motu and everyone watching at home, I see you, I hear you, and I feel you, but I cannot thank you enough. I know they won’t like me saying this, but I want to thank all my grandparents, my parents—this is my mum’s worst living nightmare, me being in here, and my dad watching on the TV going, “You go, girl—get em!” My teachers, our kura, our club, my cousins, my in-laws, my bestest friends, and my siblings for keeping me sane and grounded and telling me when I need a wardrobe check. My partner, for your unwavering support and constant love. To every person that has gathered up top today, i rangona tō mātou haka. I rongo? I rangona. I whatitiri tēnei Whare i tō tātou nei reo.

[Our haka was heard. Did you hear? It was heard. This House thundered with our voice.]

To every person that is watching from home, to every person in this room up above, this isn’t my moment; this is yours. Every time you hear my voice, it will echo of my ancestors. Every time you look me in the eyes, you will see the children that survived. Over the next three years, you will see history rewrite itself without a pen. See you at Tūrangawaewae on the 20th. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā rā tātou katoa.

Waiata—“He aha kei taku uma”

Haka—“E ko te tūī”

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Wairua Tapu, kuhu mai, nau mai ki konei. Wairua Tapu, arahia, kōrero mai anō, tihei mauri ora.

[Holy Spirit, enter, welcome to this place. Holy Spirit, lead us, speak to us again, the breath of life.]

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Mr Speaker, congratulations to you, sir, on your new role. It’s a privilege to serve with you and learn from you. Indeed, it’s a privilege to stand here today surrounded by friends and family, both in the gallery and down here in the Chamber. A humbling experience and some might say an unlikely one—from the chubby kid that came last in the fourth-form road race, the kid that hid in the music block for half of high school, the kid that was told it’s OK to dream about being an air force pilot, but you really should think about being a maths teacher like your mum.

My story is not one of getting everything the first time up at the plate but rather one of perseverance, of determination, of character refined in the fire of failure and forged through adversity in the truest sense of “per ardua ad astra” and “nihil boni sine labore”. My story has always been that you cannot tell the man from the boy, and I stand here as living proof—troubled yet not distressed, perplexed but not in despair, cast down but not destroyed. I’ve been knocked back a few times, but I’ve never given up.

There have been a couple of challenges that have taken me two goes and an extra three years to get there with, but I’ve found there are very few challenges that cannot be overcome with hard work, with perseverance and, most fundamentally, with character, which always plays the long game. If that chubby 14-year-old kid can go on to run a few marathons, join the air force and deploy on operations all around the world, then there must be hope for everyone.

But first, to quote the sadly now infamous song, let me introduce to you myself to you. I was blessed to grow up with the most amazing parents. They were both schoolteachers. Mum stayed at home to look after the kids and it’s a sacrifice that I’m eternally grateful for. I had a pretty standard 1980s upbringing—backyard cricket with my brother, playing Care Bears with my sister. Just the things that we all did—OK, maybe not. But look, we didn’t necessarily have everything, but I can’t think of anything important that was lacking.

Mum demonstrated what true servant leadership looks like. She shaped my view of service and while she may never get the recognition that I think she deserves, I want to honour her here today, and on the special day—happy birthday, Mum. [Applause] You’re using up my time; I do not have this time to spare!

Look, I think Dad would be so proud if he was still with us. Proud—probably also annoying numerous people in the gallery with a ton of anecdotes from the previous 53 State openings of Parliament. But it was Dad that took me to air shows at Ōhakea as a kid that set me on the path that I followed, and Dad set me on this one as well. But I believe it takes a village, and I am a child of a huge village. I’ve been shaped by faith, family, and the forces. The village I started in encompassed All Saints’ Church, Winchester School, Palmerston North Boys’ High Boys’ Brigade, a whole host of music teachers and bands, and I want to acknowledge all of those who shaped my first 20 years.

I also want to acknowledge my National Party family, particularly Lorraine Pollock, Bruce Little, and the entire team from Ōtaki. Now, I’m here for every single person in our community, but I know that I’m here because of you, because of your trust, your encouragement, and your support. Thank you. Can I also acknowledge the previous 12 MPs for Ōtaki since 1893, in particular the Hon Nathan Guy, and I’d also like to acknowledge the Hon Roger Sowry and the Rt Hon Jim Bolger.

To our new Prime Minister, absent though he may be today, I want to congratulate him on his new role and thank him for his leadership, his friendship, and his guidance over a few years now. To Shirley Sowry, the HQ team, the board, my fellow MPs, Ben and the Young Nats, everyone from National: thank you. I love being a part of our team, anchored by the same values, encouraged by each other, and inspired by the opportunity we have to deliver for Kiwis.

Can I acknowledge all the parliamentary staff who work, who serve in this place with grace and professionalism, and the entire class of 2023 from across every party. We are here to serve, and what better example of service could we ask for than the women and the men that I served with in our Defence Force in New Zealand, through the Pacific, into Asia and Europe. Sailors, soldiers, and aviators who do not seek war or conflict, but their service is such that they are willing to operate in those environments in order to bring about a lasting peace. E ngā toa o Te Ope Kātua [To the warriors of the Defence Force], to my fellow warriors of the Defence Force, tēnā koe. Kei te mihi. [I greet you.] I acknowledge all of you and the life-shaping journey that you’ve taken me on for the past 23 years.

In Afghanistan, I served with decorated heroes like Lance-Corporal Leon Smith. Now, Leon paid the ultimate price, in full, and I want to acknowledge—[Hon Chris Penk passes a glass of water]—thanks, brother—all of my brothers that I served with who lost their life while serving their country, whether in New Zealand or overseas. Leon, Nick, Muddy, Diesel, Ben, and Dan. E kore rātou e kaumātuatia. [They will not grow old.] They shall grow not old, but I will not forget them. In my service, I seek to represent all of those who preserve our democracy but don’t always get to practise it: our Defence Force, police, fire, paramedics, every first responder. I pledge to be your voice in this House, and enough of you have my phone number to ensure that I never forget.

During my service I was privileged to work for their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales. It was a role that, like being an MP, it doesn’t make me special but you get to work with some really special people and do some really special things. On one occasion, I remember we were leaving the museum at Wigram, and as the Duke and Duchess got dragged away towards the cars, I noticed a girl down the end of the line that didn’t get to give her flowers to the Princess. So as the motorcade was waiting, I raced over there and I knelt down next to her and I said, “Would you like me to take those flowers and give them to the Princess for you?” It’s always the Princess. “Oh, yes, please,” she said, and I took them and was able to pass them on. Someone said to me afterwards, “You know, Tim, what’s the point? There are thousands of kids around New Zealand that never got to give their flowers to the Princess. You can never make a difference.” I said, “Yeah, you’re probably right. But I bet it made a difference to her.”

You know, one person is always enough. I’ve always believed that the ones matter; they add up, they multiply, they have this rippling effect. In the Air Force, it was one tourist on Mount Arthur; it was a hunter in the Ureweras; it was a school teacher in the Tararuas; it was a family in rising floodwaters; a soldier whose life was in danger in East Timor; a mother and a baby in the Solomon Islands. In my career, in my service, in my life, one person has always been enough and I’m painfully aware of my limitations. I know that inevitably I’m going to say the wrong thing and I’m going to do the wrong thing. I have no silver bullets. I know I can’t change the world, but I do believe that I can make a world of difference to the ones that I meet in Foxton, in Levin, in Ōtaki, Waikanae, Paraparaumu, and everywhere in between. They may be just one, but people matter to me and one is always enough.

Imagine, if you will, a community of people inspired and motivated by the ones. I believe our country is at its best when we do community well. Too often these days, people look for community online, but all we find are echo chambers that reinforce a narrow view of a diverse world. Community calls us to reach out to cross divides, to grow in empathy and understanding, not division and intolerance; to celebrate our differences, not try and eliminate them. I want to work as an MP to break down division, be that between urban and rural, young and old, between ethnicities or religions.

Community is the long game that will heal those divides. And so often, we expect the Government to provide every solution for every need and want. Well, I believe in limited government; that, actually, we all hold solutions to many of the problems we face; that we are at our best when the community response can lead the Government response. Community balances the utilitarian perspective against the needs of those that live in the margins, the few that feel they will never be a part of the many. That’s why I love National’s social investment approach: because it’s about outcomes; it’s about targeted results for those that would otherwise be left behind. It’s acknowledging that we don’t all have the same start line in life, but we all deserve an equal shot at the same finish. So I believe in a community where we can have compassion for those at the extremes, but we can still value personal responsibility, competitive enterprise, and reward for good old-fashioned hard work.

So I come to this place motivated by people, inspired by service, passionate about community. But most of all, I just love this country. I’ve been privileged in my service to see how respected and coveted our nation is abroad, but I wonder sometimes if we’ve lost a sense of—as the great philosopher Fred Dagg said—a sense of just how lucky we are, how amazing our people, how incredible our backyard. As much as I want to build a road to Levin—and I really want to build that road to Levin—as much as I want to see our culture shift from compliance to judgment to focus on effectiveness and efficiency, not just process and publicity; actually, deep down, I really want to see us united as a nation, the way that Kiwis unite at Eden Park and London pubs and in conflict zones around the world. In those places, we rally around the national identity, not based on geography or ethnicity, but grounded in our shared ideals, the Kiwi way of life, and the belief that everyone deserves an equal opportunity in Godzone. Maybe that can be the starting point for this difficult conversation.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but this country matters to me, and it matters that we acknowledge our past, that we right wrongs, that we celebrate our differences. But it also matters that we are defined by the kind of people that we are, and most fundamentally of all, we are all Kiwi. My style of politics is anchored by the belief that that which is common to all of us is a powerful gravity—far greater than that or those who would seek to divide. That’s why I wear the kiwi as a visible and outward sign of an inward and invisible bond that we can all share. That same symbol was painted on artillery and aircraft that my grandparents fought in and on during World War II.

For 23 years I had the privilege of carrying that symbol, that patch, on my uniform and on the aircraft that I flew. In this one small image lies an indisputably strong brand; an immediate point of difference from our nearest neighbours that reminds me that we shouldn’t try and be the best small version of another country, but the biggest and best version of ourselves.

So I finish where I started. I still believe that the boy does not define the man. Our past does not define our future. Where we are today does not need to limit where we could be or what we could achieve. I stand in this place with hope, with genuine hope that greater things are to come and greater things are still to be done in this city, in our regions, and throughout this land. And if those words don’t resonate or reflect our current reality, then my work here, as part of a strong National Party team, is to join those dots and to serve in such a way that that hope is fulfilled; that all Kiwis have the quality of life, the public services, the education, and the opportunities that we all deserve, no matter our current circumstance or starting place.

Finally, if I can, to my girls. Lucy, I’m inspired by your willingness to give anything a go. Not enough for me to try eating salad, but I’m inspired by your attitude. Becky, sometimes your determination challenges me. I know I try and pretend it comes from your mum, but actually it is your empathy and your compassion that challenge me the most and I seek to replicate a little of that in my service. Alice, I love the way that you find such unhindered joy in the everyday. I wish you’d find a little bit less of that after your bedtime, but we all need more of that in this tall poppy world. And to Emma, you have borne the brunt of it over the last few years as we embarked on this crazy adventure. You have kept the ship afloat. You have parented alone. You’ve put up with every sigh, every eye roll, every tantrum, every argument over what to wear, and that was all just from me. You’re the yin to my yang, you’re the tonic to my gin, you are the glue that holds it all together, and I love you.

And so, I care about our country, our community, our people, and service. I hope that at the nexus of those four things we will find a country that not just these young women up here but every generation to come will be proud of. E kī ana mā whero, mā pango ka oti ai te mahi. Nō reira e ngā mana, e ngā rangatira kua whakarauika mai nei i tēnei wā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, mihi mai, karanga mai, mihi mai, tēnā tātou katoa. Kia ora.

[As the saying goes, with collaboration will the work be done. Therefore, to the authorities, to the noble leaders who have assembled here at this time, thanks and greetings, thank you for your welcome, greetings to all of us. Thank you.]

SPEAKER: Can I just let the House know that following the speech by Tākuta Ferris, who will be called shortly, the House will set itself aside for the dinner break. We are clearly going to go past 6 o’clock, but we’ll just wait till all your people are in place.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): E te Whare, kei ngā mana katoa, kei ngā uri o Te Tai Tonga, tātou tahi, te iwi Māori kua whakarauika mai, tēnā rā tātou. E te Pīka, e Gerry, tēnā koe.

[To the House, to all of the leaders, to the descendants of Te Tai Tonga, all of us, the Māori people who have assembled here, greetings to all of us. Mr Speaker, Gerry, greetings.]

In 1835, 28 October, Māori declared their independence and sovereignty to the world and the world acknowledged it. He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tirene, the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand, enacted by the authority of Te Whakaminenga o ngā Rangatira o ngā Hapū o Nu Tireni, the Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand. The declaration was made and the country of New Zealand came into being.

The declaration announced the arrival of Māori into the international community and was a clear signal that Māori had the intention and capacity to develop internationally and independently in trade and diplomatic endeavour, both on domestic and international fronts. These things will not be lost. They will not be forgotten, will not be relegated to the dark corners of a colonial history. They have been maintained, they have endured, and we will continue to nurture and grow them in the hearts and minds of mokopuna and the nation; a national consciousness of a new Aotearoa New Zealand.

The declaration asserted four key themes. Number one, Māori sovereignty—sovereign authority over New Zealand, Nu Tireni. Number two, Māori would not accept any form of law or government, any form of Kāwanatanga, unless appointed by them. Number three, the chiefs would meet once a year, in congress, in autumn, to frame laws, maintain peace, and regulate trade. And number four, they invited King William IV to continue as protector of their infant state, and they in turn would continue to protect his subjects who resided in their country, Nu Tireni.

Ko te Whakaputanga te tuakana; ko Te Tiriti o Waitangi te teina.

[The Declaration is the senior; the Treaty of Waitangi is the junior.]

The declaration is the foremost constitutional document; Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the second. Mana motuhake is described in the declaration as emanating from the land—“te mana i te wenua”—and is therefore inherent in every tangata whenua, be they kaumātua, pakeke, tamariki, or mokopuna. [elders, seniors, children or grandchildren.]

Mana motuhake is not something we declare; Mana motuhake is something we possess. He iwi motuhake te iwi Māori.

[The Māori people are a people like no other.]

The Māori people are a sovereign people. That fact that the Crown signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi directly with the chiefs of the confederation—a clearly defined sovereign entity—acknowledged that Māori sovereignty was paramount in 1840, and that the Māori partner in the dual agreement was indeed the principal partner in possession of 100 percent of control, power, and authority over all land and resources in Aotearoa New Zealand. This did not change on 6 February 1840, as the Māori text of Te Tiriti o Waitangi was presented to the chiefs of the confederation and subsequently signed.

The idea that a fierce and independent people, who had actively asserted their independence only four years and three months earlier, and had clearly stated they would not allow any form of Kāwanatanga, any form of government, to exist in their lands unless appointed by them, would somehow now agree to surrender their independence, cede their sovereignty, hand over Kāwanatanga, the government of their entire country, to a people from a foreign power, is nothing short of preposterous.

If anyone needs help understanding which text is the legally binding text, they need look no further than this quote by one of the longest-serving Chief Justices of Aotearoa Dame Sian Elias, who said, and I quote, “it can’t be disputed that the [text of the] Treaty is … the Māori text.” Why we continue to wallow in the ambiguity of interpretation is beyond me. It is time for this country to mature and let the English text of Te Tiriti o Waitangi be laid to rest. The time has come.

Through the process of induction into this House, I note there is only recognition of one sovereign, namely the King of England. Could it be that the very people who were invited into a sovereign land by a sovereign people, now consider themselves the sole sovereign of that land? The answer, as we all know today, is no, they are not the sole sovereign of this land. Yet they have maintained the position and systems that would render the true sovereign invisible—well, at least for a period of time.

But that time ran out in earnest in 1975, as Te Ao Māori drew breath, raised its head up, and dared to look to the future. With unwavering dedication, led by visionary thinkers such as Whina Cooper and Joe Hawke with self-determination, Whatarangi Winiata with iwi development, Taihakurei Eddie Durie in Māori law, Hirini Moko Mead and Piri Sciascia in cultural revitalisation, Ranginui Walker and Lisa Tuhiwai Smith in mātauranga Māori and academia, Mason Durie and the māreikura Rangimarie Rose Pere in Māori health, and Moana Jackson and Mereana Pitman in matters of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and constitutional law. From that time till now, we have been in the process of undoing the countless, unthinkable, unscrupulous deeds that first sought to annihilate and then assimilate a people to oblivion. Yet this is not our history. This is not our story. This is not our reality. And it is most certainly not our future.

So to this House I say: fear not. Fear not that you are incapable of identifying your sovereign counterpart in this country, for I am here today to clarify for you and to declare to you that I am the sovereign. And that as I look at my own tamariki, I know that they are the sovereign. And as I look at my parents and all of my kaumātua gathered here, I know that they are the sovereign. For the Māori people are a sovereign people, and we have never ceded our sovereignty, we have never abdicated our sovereign authority, and we have never ever left this land.

I stand here as a reminder that the Crown signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi with the chiefs of the confederation, in recognition of their sovereignty—the very same chiefs that the Governor-General acknowledged in her Speech from the Throne on Wednesday of last week. You see, the relevance of the chiefs of the confederation is not lost on the Governor-General.

I know many would rather we forget about 1975 and the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal, and even more so 1985, when that tribunal won the right to investigate historical breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, dating back to 1840. That’s right, e te iwi, when the tribunal was established, it could only consider Te Tiriti o Waitangi moving forward. Heaven forbid there’d be a light shone into the dark corners and recesses of the colonial history and narrative by a now highly educated and experienced bunch of radical Māori.

It took 10 more years of fighting to win that right, and in 1985 we were 145 years into the Tiriti relationship with the Crown. Yet it would take only seven more years to prosecute the Crown and its Government, find them guilty, and settle the first Treaty settlement in 1992—the fisheries settlement.

You see, for a long time now, the Crown and its Governments have been losing ground on their monopoly over power and resources in this country—a monopoly that they have held and enjoyed for far too long. From that time until today, the Government’s vice-like grip on control, power, and authority over resources has slowly but surely been undone. Its rule by iron fist has all but been halted, as the principal partner to Te Tiriti o Waitangi regains their feet and we begin to re-establish ourselves economically, politically, in education, socially, and most importantly culturally.

Belief in Te Ao Māori continues to grow. The seeds that were sown in 1975 that were tirelessly nurtured, tended by generations of Māori—generations who would never live to see the fruits of their labour, but had unwavering belief in their tīpuna, in their whakapapa, in their mokopuna, and in their future. These seeds have grown into Tōtara haemata [great leaders], and they now stand strong and fervent all over this country. We know we were prepared for this job and we are ready, and Aotearoa hou is within sight.

I’ve not come here to speak about myself or the nature of how I arrive in this Whare. I’ve come to talk about our people: the many independent nations, the hapū, the iwi, the tangata whenua of this land, the principal partner in Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the authors of He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tirene, the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand, the document that constituted this country we all call New Zealand. Yes, my friends, e te whānau, Te Tiriti o Waitangi did not create a country; it established a constitutional relationship between two sovereign nations, one in the South Pacific, the other in the north-western hemisphere. It afforded Pākehā the dignity of self-government in a foreign land—a land upon which their Queen’s own law and authority had no rights nor jurisdiction to exist. It afforded the Queen the right to purchase land in another sovereign’s country, enabling her to care for, to nurture, and to grow her own people. Quite the magnanimous gesture, on behalf of those chiefs, in 1840.

In recognition of the rights the Queen and her people had been granted, she in turn responded reciprocally, extending the rights and privileges of her own people in England to her host nation, via article 3 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This koha, this gesture of goodwill, did not come at the expense of pre-existing Māori rights. We were granted the additional rights of British subjects; we were not subjugated. This symbolic gesture was a tatau pounamu [enduring peace; binding contract], from one sovereign to another, in recognition of the significant rights and privileges she and her people had been granted. E te Pīka, e Gerry, might I say, magnanimous indeed.

I’m here to speak on behalf of the people who, despite the relentless onslaught of colonisation in all its guises, continue to maintain deep whakapapa connections to their land, their kāinga, their moana, their language, and their culture—not as theatrical expressions, as some may have you believe, but as an immovable foundation, an ethos, a philosophy, a world view, a kaupapa that drives every breath they take.

This is the dream that was dreamt all of those years ago, in 1975. I am indeed the product of the self-determining actions of Māori in the 1970s and 1980s, and every year since. I understand completely that the current tension that exists between Kāwanatanga and rangatiratanga, or between Māori and the Government—exacerbated in the extreme by the current iteration—is a direct result of the blistering speed at which we, the principal partner in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, are reclaiming, reinstating, rebuilding, reinvigorating, reimagining, and reasserting ourselves in our own country.

My message to all of the people in Aotearoa is this: fear not, for your rights were gifted to you in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Take a personal responsibility for upholding Te Tiriti in your everyday life, for it is your personal Bill of Rights here in Aotearoa. It is your family’s declaration and ultimately the constitutional bedrock of your rights to be here in Aotearoa. Treasure it. It was a gift from our ancestors to you. Yet despite all of this, the level of ambiguity that remains around the nature of the Māori-Crown relationship, the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the place and responsibility of Parliament and Government in it somehow continues to defy explanation. Could it be that the political agenda of the Pākehā partner is aided and abetted by ambiguity? Successive Governments and generations of Pākehā settlers and their families have benefited and been privileged by this ambiguity, but everything comes to an end.

Clarity is what my generation of Māori demand, and we are well equipped to assist—informed by 48 years of determined action from the tribunal; 48 years of prosecution experience against the Crown and its Government. We understand the story, the context, and the events perfectly well. The history, the experience, and the reality of the once-silent partner has now been unearthed, investigated, corroborated, and laid bare for all to see.

To my fellow MPs: if you are unaware of what I speak of, then I would say you are underprepared—under-equipped—for your role as an MP. The Te Paparahi o Te Raki determinations of 2014 were a watershed moment in the history of the Māori-Crown relationship. The determination that Māori did not cede their sovereignty by signing Te Tiriti o Waitangi would alter the course of history forever. The current findings of the subsequent inquiry, entitled Tino Rangatira me te Kāwanatanga, are set to take the 2014 findings even further and require the Crown to revisit the constitutional settings of this country to more appropriately give effect to and embody Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Many politicians have quoted Apirana Ngata in relation to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and his views of the early 1900s. What they failed to realise is that when Ngata, Pomare, and Te Rangi Hiroa came to prominence, the greatest challenge was not Te Tiriti o Waitangi or the revival of te reo Māori; it was saving their people from extinction. This was the blood of Māori at the turn of the 1900s as the population plummeted to around 40,000. The view of the day was that the most effective way to preserve the population was to assimilate rapidly to the now-dominant way of life, the Pākehā way, hence Apirana’s great saying, “Ko tō ringa ki ngā rākau a te Pākehā”—your hand to the ways of the Pākehā—as a means of preserving the life blood of his people.

This did not preclude Apirana from the notion of research and discovery of new knowledge, nor from investigation and the unearthing of new evidence and new understandings. You see, there has been no rewriting of history. There has been no reinterpretation of history. There has only been an unearthing of history, the investigation of history, and the discovery of new understandings—which has ultimately led this nation to the current understanding of our dual history. And whilst this might not suit the agenda of those who seek to maintain the status quo, that does not change the fact that this is the current understanding.

If anyone thinks my explanations to be fanciful, much of what I have quoted here is referenced from the He Tohu exhibition, the national exhibit of the founding documents of our country: He Whakaputanga, the declaration; Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty; and the Women’s Suffrage Bill are located just across the road in Archives New Zealand, an exhibit that is visited by thousands of schoolchildren every year. So if you think I’m a lot to handle, wait till you get a load of your kids or your grandkids.

So let me conclude by saying I’m not here to service the needs of this House; I’m here to contest it and the manner in which it exercises authority over things it has no authority over. I am here to represent the 12,800 Māori in Te Tai Tonga who voted me into this position to represent their views, give voice to their aspirations, and be a light for them. Te Pāti Māori does not presume to speak for all Māori. We understand perfectly well there are many colonised Māori trapped out there. But we do speak from a purely Māori perspective, for and on behalf of a purely Māori constituency. I have to ask the House: is that not pure democracy, pure democratic process, in action? Yet Te Pāti Māori continues to be unapologetic, championing Māori issues. We are continually called out as radical, racist, promoting apartheid—I must say the irony of it is not lost on me.

So we go to raise an army of voters—young voters, young Māori and non-Māori voters; tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti alike who will arrive in ever-increasing numbers into the future; numbers great enough to contest this democracy.

So to all our whānau, to all our people, stand up. Stand up and be the light. Be the light for your whānau, be the light for your communities. Toitū te Whakaputanga; toitū Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Tēnā tātou.

[Honour the Declaration; honour the Treaty of Waitangi. Greetings to all of us.]

Waiata—“Tiaho iho rā”

Haka—“Tēnei te rūrū”

Sitting suspended from 6.23 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Debate interrupted.

Urgency

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing through all stages of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill, the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill, and the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill.

This urgency motion is required for the Government to give effect to key elements of its 100-day plan of action. All three bills are agreed between—

Carl Bates: Great plan!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It is a fantastic plan. Very busy Government; ambitious programme of work. In order to give effect to this ambitious programme of work, from time to time the House—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Give us some vision, mate.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —as the member squawking opposite knows—sometimes needs to accord urgency to items of business, and I therefore move this motion.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand it is the intention of the Government to introduce these bills.

Introduction of Bills

CLERK:

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill, introduction

Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill, introduction

Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill, introduction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading immediately.

Bills

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I present a legislative statement for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I move, That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

It is a highly symbolic and important act that we take today because we are remedying one of the greatest stains of the outgoing Government, and that is the stain of the cost of living crisis they have left behind them. Under the watch of the previous Government, inflation was allowed to ramp on unchecked, out of target, for 2½ years and that is far too long and has left New Zealanders suffering. So we, in this new Government, are committed to taking the actions needed to address the cost of living, and we understand that inflation is our enemy. It is our economic enemy, it has corroded the living standards of New Zealanders, it has taken pay from their bank accounts, it has made their lives more expensive. We cannot have good employment outcomes; we cannot have a good economy unless we get inflation under control.

So today, in this bill, we will be focusing the Reserve Bank on that objective: the economic objective of stability and the general level of prices. To do that, we will undo the experiment that the past Government embarked on. That was an experiment which they decided to embark on after 30 years of successful monetary policy in which, with one mandate, the Reserve Bank had kept inflation under control. But members opposite decided to make a change and introduce a dual mandate, and today we will remove that dual mandate; we will remove the economic objective in this Act to support maximum sustainable employment. That will return the Reserve Bank to a single mandate for monetary policy of achieving and maintaining stability in the general level of prices over the medium term.

Now, I want to acknowledge the ACT Party because both the National Party and ACT Party policy programmes for this Government set out our intention to introduce legislation to remove this dual mandate and to get the Reserve Bank focused on putting the lid back on inflation. We have committed to introducing this legislation within our first 100 days in Government, to make our intentions crystal clear, and I intend for this bill to be passed under urgency to amend the Act before Christmas.

When the dual mandate was added in 2019 it undid success in the past and, as we’ve seen, inflation in recent years has been consistently well above the Reserve Bank’s target of achieving and maintaining annual inflation between 1 and 3 percent over the medium term, as measured by the Consumers Price Index. That persistently above-target inflation is negatively impacting hard-working New Zealanders who are trying to meet their day-to-day living costs. We need to ensure that monetary policy decision makers have no doubt that busting inflation is our goal, and to do that they must have a much stronger focus on achieving price stability. I believe that having a dual mandate clouds monetary policy. By returning to a single objective, focused on achieving and maintaining price stability, the task of the monetary policy committee (MPC) is clearer, simpler, and therefore more likely to be met.

It is perhaps characteristic of the outgoing administration that where there could be one priority they tended to pick nine; that where there were three things that could have been achieved, they tried nine and achieved none. Under a single mandate approach it is also easier to determine when the monetary policy committee has or has not fulfilled its primary function. Now, I anticipate some of the comments from the members opposite, and I say that it’s important to note that returning to a single mandate will not require the monetary policy committee to discount the impacts of monetary policy on the real economy. Flexible inflation targeting, whereby the MPC has regard to the impact of monetary policy on the broader economy when determining how quickly to return inflation to target has been central to New Zealand’s successful inflation targeting regime for many years, and was the case prior to Robertson’s dual mandate hitting the books, regardless of whether there is a single or dual mandate, that remains the case.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What does Orr say in your meetings? What does Orr say?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: So the member opposite, Chlöe Swarbrick, asks, “What does Adrian Orr say?” This is what he says in a letter that he has written to me. He says that “The Reserve Bank is supportive of your intention to amend the Reserve Bank Act to focus the economic objective of the monetary policy committee on achieving and maintaining price stability.” And he says, “The intended focus is consistent with the views we expressed in our recent monetary policy committee remit review, published in June 2023.” And I’d encourage the member opposite to read that review which made clear the Reserve Bank’s view that there needed to be a clearer statement of priority on the inflation objective.

The Reserve Bank goes on to say, “Giving the inflation objective priority will assist the credibility of the inflation target.” Because let’s face it, while the Labour Government were in charge, the credibility of that target was eroded. That’s not in the Reserve Bank piece; that’s my editorialising. “Maintaining the flexible inflation targeting approach”—I return to the Reserve Bank’s comments—“will best minimise unnecessary instability in output, interest rates, and the exchange rate, and simplifying the remit will clarify the Reserve Bank’s operational independence.”

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can you table the letter, Nicola?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m very happy to table that letter for the member.

Document laid on the Table of the House.

It is my intention, upon this bill passing in this House, that I will also publish a revised remit and charter for the Reserve Bank, which is necessary given the changed mandate. Let the message be very simple and very clear, let there be no confusion: ours is a Government which is going to get inflation under control. The Reserve Bank have the primary instruments for achieving that, and so we ask that they have that clear objective. But we know that we too must do our bit, that monetary policy needs mates. We know that the fiscal policies of the outgoing Government directly contributed to the inflationary position we are in today, and so this is but the first step in an agenda from our Government to get the cost of living under control, to strengthen the productivity of our economy, and to deliver better economic outcomes for all New Zealanders. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, point of order. I just wanted to clarify that that letter will indeed be tabled and disseminated for the sake of the argument that we’ll be having under urgency over the next few hours.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe the Minister clarified that when she spoke.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Well, welcome to episode one of the new Government’s version of Back to the Future. Here we are taking us back at warp speed to 1989. In 1989, I was in seventh form, Ronald Reagan was still in the White House, the Berlin Wall was coming down, the thing called the World Wide Web was in Tim Berners-Lee’s mind, and it was also a period of time in New Zealand where, indeed, we had seen periods of extraordinary inflation. I remember growing up in the 1980s and seeing inflation at levels in double digits consistently and seeing the impact that that had on society. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act of 1989 was a direct response to that. It was also, in large part, a response to the actions of the then just-departed National Party Prime Minister Sir Robert Muldoon, who ran riot as both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and put New Zealand in a position where we almost went broke, where the Reserve Bank was required to make sure that it went to ambassadors overseas and asked them to draw down foreign currency on their credit cards because New Zealand’s foreign reserves had been drawn down so badly. So, in 1989, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act was indeed world leading, but 30-odd years later, without a review of any substance, it was no longer world leading. It had slipped behind, and that is why the previous Government announced a review of the Reserve Bank Act on coming into office.

I think it’s very telling that the first two bills that this Government brings to the House are actually focused, deliberately focused, on taking away the focus on jobs and wages. They’re the two things—the first actions of this Government are to take us back to 1989 and to take the focus off jobs and wages, because that is what this legislation and, indeed, the next bill that is to come do.

This is an unnecessary, short-sighted bill. It is not evidence based. It won’t do the things that the National Party are telling New Zealanders it will do. They tell them it will reduce the cost of living, and we will find as we go through this debate today that that is in fact not the case. This is a bill that is designed simply to take us backwards to a time that has long since passed in New Zealand.

The other point I’d like to make at this point in the debate is to indicate that, obviously, the Labour Party will be opposing the bill, but also our very, very deep concern about the fact that this bill is not being referred to a select committee at this point. When we made the change to go the other way, we had a full public consultation process run by an independent panel and then we came back and then we put it through the House and put it through a select committee. That is what should be happening in this piece of legislation, and members opposite, who have often called for bills to go to select committee, might actually want to reflect on that.

The issue here is that this is not evidence-based policy, and to pick up just one of many of the comments that the Minister made in introducing it, there actually has not been a relationship between a country’s inflationary trajectory and its central bank mandate over the last couple of years. Let’s just look at it. For New Zealand and Australia, who both have dual mandates, our inflation peaked at either 7.2 percent or 7.8 percent, but in the UK, which has got a central bank with a primary price stability mandate, inflation peaked at 11.1 percent. So there’s no correlation there, as the member opposite might like to say.

It is important in the economy to make sure that people can do two things at once. I know it’s hard for the Government, but it is important. Mary Daly, who was a member of the US Federal Reserve, put it this way: “The enduring lesson of my childhood is that people need both jobs and stable prices. That is why a dual mandate is not a choice between two desirable things. It is a balance meant to deliver on a singular goal—a sustainable and expanding economy that works for everyone. That is the foundation of economic security.” That’s what the Reserve Bank should be doing: contributing to the overall economic wellbeing of New Zealanders. We changed the purpose of this Act, we changed the objectives of this Act to do two things: keep prices under control and keep people in work, and that is a laudable goal—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. It’ll come as no surprise to members opposite that, of course, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand opposes this bill. We oppose this bill for three really, really simple reasons, and we’ve got five minutes to lay it out for the members opposite. The first, as was elucidated by the former Minister: this actually makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. The second is that it is unnecessary to change the law to actually get this outcome, as the Minister says that she wants to achieve, as reflected in the regulatory impact statement. And the third is that the Government still seem to want to have the monetary policy committee (MPC) have regard to maximum sustainable employment. This is unnecessary. It is unnecessary to change the law, it makes no difference, and they still want the monetary policy committee to have regard to maximum sustainable employment.

What that means is that what we are currently debating is largely, as far as I can kind of ascertain, something which oftentimes those who are sitting on the Government benches allege us of, which is empty virtue-signalling. Virtue signalling is defined, basically, as saying that you deeply care about something and then engaging in an action to ostensibly achieve that thing, oftentimes knowing full well that the evidence is not on your side.

I think it’s worthwhile to just unpack a bit of those three points, given that we’ve got the time to do so and given that we’re in urgency. I’m looking forward to the committee of the whole House, where I’ll be able to put a number of these questions to the Minister, but also, hopefully, by which point in time we’ll have that letter as referenced earlier disseminated for all of us to be able to debate fulsomely. Just on the point of this making absolutely no difference, the Minister of Finance—congratulations—will be aware that when we were sitting in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, oftentimes actually working together to try and get more information out of the Government of the time, we had a hearing from Adrian Orr and, obviously, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand on 24 November 2022 where I put to the Governor the question of whether that dual mandate had made any discernible difference in their decision making with regard to monetary policy. He said, on the record, “No is the answer.” I quote: “We haven’t come across any trade-offs of employment versus inflation. There is no conflict.” Therein lies the first premise: this is unnecessary because it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to how the monetary policy committee is approaching its inflation-taming mandate.

The second thing is that it is unnecessary to change the law to achieve this outcome that the Government apparently wants, and that is outlined very clearly in the regulatory impact statement, which has just been tabled and is therefore available to any members of the public who may be punishing themselves, tuned into Parliament tonight. It says—and I quote; this is obviously from Treasury—“Owing to the value of an enduring and stable legislative regime for the Reserve Bank, the Treasury’s preference is for a new MPC Remit (only) to be issued, although it is recognised that issuing a new MPC Remit without amending the Act cannot fully meet the Government’s commitment to remove the dual mandate.” What is laid out there in public service workers’ language is basically that the Government cannot achieve its commitment, which is relatively nonsensical in the first place, unless it passes this legislation, but it can achieve the ends that it is trying to achieve without the means of needing this legislation and wasting hours of the House’s time in passing that legislation.

The third point is that we just heard outlined in the Minister’s own speech that she and the Government still want the monetary policy committee to have an eye on maximum sustainable employment, which I think, by the way, it’s worthwhile unpacking that we still don’t have a meaningful kind of definition for—but, none the less, the Government still want the MPC to have regard to that point.

So, therefore, the question really remains what the point is of this law that we are now debating in the House tonight and that we will spend hours working through and wasting time on to do something that could simply be achieved by the Minister putting forward that new MPC remit based on her own advice. Madam Speaker, this is a waste of time and the Greens oppose it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the next speaker, I just want to clarify for those that have been in the House for a while that under the Standing Orders, the first reading is now five-minute calls, apart from the first call—just if there are some people that haven’t been aware of that.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Finance): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. In a rare burst of honesty, we just heard a Green member finish her speech by saying this is a waste of time. I completely agree with her and that was a good description of the speech she gave.

We heard from Grant Robertson, and the most interesting thing in his speech was that he said he made it to seventh form—not something I would have guessed—but I think we can be pretty sure that he didn’t do maths or economics, because he tried to argue that because Australia has a dual mandate and England doesn’t, and England had higher inflation than Australia at one point, the argument of removing the dual mandate is wrong. Now, no one that’s thought for a moment about these things would say that there’s a correlation from two data points. But I assume that Grant Robertson spent his seventh form doing art history and other things that didn’t equip him for being the Minister of Finance.

Back here in the real world, we know the history of monetary policy. In fact, we know it a long way back. Some people say that men spend too much time thinking about the Roman Empire. I don’t know anything about that, but what I do know is that the Roman Empire collapsed in part because of hyperinflation and debasement of its currency.

We know that some of the most horrific events of the 20th century were in part precipitated by hyperinflation across Europe. We know that when the Governments around the world went overboard with hyperinflation, or at least excessive money printing after the global financial crisis (GFC), we saw political instability. We know that when Governments printed too much money and created stagflation in the 1970s, we had economic and political instability that led to the reforms of the late 1970s and 1980s.

What we know on this side of the House is that Government has one simple job when it comes to monetary policy and that is to maintain price stability. It’s to give the people reassurance that a dollar in your pocket this year will be worth a dollar next year. And as soon as you take away that certainty, people realise that their efforts don’t make a difference, that some people who are asset-rich get wealthy as the Reserve Bank prints too much money. They realise that their savings aren’t worth as much as they used to be, that their wages aren’t worth as much as they used to be, as the thief in their pocket called inflation erodes the value of their savings and ensures that their efforts to earn their money don’t buy them as much at the end of the week.

The latest episode in that long historical story of Governments neglecting currency, from the denarius and the Roman Empire leading to its collapse to the GFC and the problems that we’ve had over the last decade with political instability and populist movements around the world—well, they’ve had a more recent episode right here in New Zealand. Grant Robertson, he of the seventh form art history but no mathematics—he is the guy who was responsible for printing far too much money under the monetary policy that said, “Hey, Reserve Bank, you don’t have to maintain price stability. You can do it kind of in the medium term. You can kind of print more money. If you do something with employment or maybe house prices, then that’s all OK.” The Reserve Bank took the initiative, and they printed dollar after dollar. In fact, pretty soon they were printing billions.

What New Zealanders saw all up and down the country was they saw the value of their savings and their wages eroding. They saw people getting stupendously wealthy, with a massive increase in house prices through the COVID period. And all of a sudden people realised that if the Government couldn’t look after the value of a dollar in their pocket, it couldn’t do much else.

That, Madam Speaker, is why the people of New Zealand have put the empty rhetoric of the Chlöe Swarbricks and the Grant Robertsons over there and put the Government over here. That’s why the Government now, in urgency, is sending a very clear message that we know the lessons of history, that we know the value of a dollar to the hard-working people who earned it. We’re going to preserve the value of that dollar by making very clear that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has one job, one job above all others, and that is to make sure that the value of a dollar in your pocket today is worth a dollar this time next year or very, very close to it, so people can have trust in the State, trust in New Zealand, and trust that their own efforts make a difference.

That’s what it’s about. Isn’t it great this country’s under new management that gets the basics right. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to be back in this House and I’d like to first congratulate you on your appointment, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I’d like to speak on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill, and on that note, I commend it to the House.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka, otirā, tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to speak to the first reading of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill. Te Pāti Māori will also be opposing this bill. The decision in 2018 that required monetary policy to be conducted so that it contributes to supporting maximum levels of sustainable employment within the economy was welcomed and long overdue. Previously, the Reserve Bank was only mandated to control inflation, which it does by changing the official cash rate, which is the interest rate at which banks can borrow money. Banks use this to help set the interest rates on loans as well as savings accounts.

Limiting the amount of information that the Reserve Bank can consider is ridiculous. It makes absolutely no sense. Get our country back on track? This change takes us back to 1992. It takes us back in regard to the campaign slogan in the 2023 elections stated by National and the New Zealand First parties. This is the first legislation of “taking us back” to a period where the few control the many. This is what outdated legislation looks like. It is no longer 1992, for goodness’ sake. We must shape legislation that ensures decision making has outcomes positive for all communities, not just a few rich that fund those in Government benches. Therefore, we are disappointed that this new Government has set a bonfire to its commitments by repealing the mandate which allows the bank to look at employment when making its decisions.

We know this change will disproportionately impact tangata whenua. Why? Because members opposite, in regard to this legislation and the looming Order Paper are taking us backwards, having no regard at all for vulnerable populations. Not only will this adversely affect Māori, but you can spray a fire hose across this House and not hit any Pasifika whānau. The Government benches are a disgrace in not having the voice of our Pasifika whānau endeavouring to blunt the brutal legislation.

Māori unemployment stubbornly sits at double that of general unemployment. Māori unemployment has risen to 7.6 percent in the year to 30 September 2023—up 1.2 percentage points. There is a clear ethnic divide between those more likely to be in insecure employment. Māori and Pasifika peoples have been heavily hit by manufacturing downturns stretching back into the 1980s. Māori and Pacific workers, in particular, are disproportionately represented in precarious, temporary, and seasonal work. It’s often these same workers who are having to work two, three, or sometimes even four jobs just to scrape by.

This repeal knowingly locks out people into the last hired first fired category, and this takes us back to a period of overt known consequences and the Government benches take great delight in these known consequences. There is nothing efficient or sensible about limiting the data and inputs that inform monetary policy decisions. We must also be clear that it is very unlikely that this bill would lead to lower inflation. Where is the modelling? Where is the evidence that this repeal will have the material effect on inflation that members opposite believe will appear by petition? It is one thing to argue the cost and benefits of legislation; it is another thing to merely repeal it to pay back a few billionaires who will do well under neoliberal economics.

This repeal is being rushed through under urgency in the knowledge that the majority of citizens in Aotearoa believe Governments would never move legislation that locks in disadvantage—the ability to achieve a brighter and better future for all citizens.

This is the first piece of legislation that sheds a shining light on a Government that is anchored by coalition agreements inspired by the advocacy of clear targeted dislikes of matters Maōri in regards to foreseeable consequences. So many people across Aotearoa are trying to survive this cost of living crisis, which for Maōri and working people is on top of the entrenched poverty crisis that they have been surviving for decades. Instead of urgently implementing policies to help people get into secure homes, put food on the table and pay the bills, this Government is doing the exact opposite. Kia ora tātou.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m proud to stand on this side of the House as part of a Government which is totally committed to reducing the cost of living and reducing inflation. The commitment to beating inflation starts with ensuring the Reserve Bank is returning to a single mandate of keeping down inflation.

At the moment, hard-working New Zealanders can’t get ahead because everything costs more. The weekly grocery bill, the weekly petrol, the weekly rent—it’s a struggle for so many families. High inflation is prolonging the cost of living. As the MP for Tukituki, I represent a rural electorate. Hawke’s Bay is a food producing region. Hastings is the fruit bowl of New Zealand. Our economy is driven by agriculture and horticulture, but our farmers are dealing with the highest level of on-farm inflation in 40 years. Farming confidence is low. Our growers are facing tough times. We need to restore confidence back into our primary sector. At the moment, it’s costing so much more to grow and export a box of apples—the costs of the trees, the cost of the fertiliser, the cost of the petrol, the labour costs, the shipping costs, the logistics costs; they’ve all gone up because inflation is so high, but growers aren’t getting more for that box of apples in the market. Our Hawke’s Bay growers are losing our competitive advantage as other countries can produce the same box of apples for less because their inflation is less.

On top of this, our region is having to rebuild after a cyclone. But everything costs more—billions of dollars. High inflation is taking its toll on these costs and our rebuild. The rising cost of building means the roads, the bridges, the houses, they’re all costing more. For some growers and farmers it’s become unsustainable. This has a huge knock-on effect to the wider economy as everyone is tightening their belts and provincial New Zealand is going backwards. We need to get the wheels moving on our economy once again by getting inflation under control.

This bill is a solid start to tackling inflation and reducing the cost of living for everyday Kiwis and businesses and strengthening our economy. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): One would think that when a Government comes into power and declares that it has a 100-day plan to take steps that are urgent and that are needed, that every single step they take would have an immediate impact. One would think that the first piece of legislation that a Government put into the House—the very first piece of legislation—would make a tangible difference right from the start. But this bill will not put a single cent more in people’s pockets by Christmas. It simply won’t happen.

The Minister of Finance said that it was a highly symbolic piece of legislation. I put it that if it is a symbolic piece of legislation, it is full of empty symbolism that achieves nothing. And let me tell you—let me tell the speakers on the other side of the House exactly why this is a largely empty bill and why it’s pointless.

First of all, inflation is heading down. The Treasury’s forecast predicts that it will be back within the 1 to 3 percent range—which has been our range for a long time now—in a few months, within a few months in 2024. The need for lower inflation has already been met. That particular target is being met and it will be achieved. So this bill is not needed for that purpose, and that is because inflation worldwide is trending down. Inflation was never ever a problem only in New Zealand; it was a worldwide problem in the wake of the global pandemic and like everywhere else it is now heading down.

So there is no need for this particular measure. But then if we look at the substance of the bill, if we look at the action—this is our first look in this House at what is actually in the bill. Now, the clauses in the bill that do the work are clause 4, which amends section 9 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, and it takes out the objective of achieving maximum sustainable employment. That’s the first clause that does some work. But there is a second clause that does some work in this bill, and that’s clause 11 of this bill. I’m going to ask the members on the opposite side of the House to actually read that clause and, more importantly, to read the section of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act which it amends, because it amends section 125 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. And the interesting thing about section 125 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act is it enables the Governor-General, by Order in Council, to direct the monetary policy committee to formulate and implement monetary policy for one or more economic objectives for a period not exceeding 12 months.

In other words, on the advice of the Minister of Finance, the monetary policy committee could set aside one or more of its economic goals for a short period of time in order to achieve a short-term objective. This objective of saying that maximum sustainable employment should rank differently from price stability could have been achieved through section 125 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. That is the second reason why this bill is mere empty symbolism—there was no need to repeal this objective.

The third reason as to why this bill is mere empty symbolism is something that my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick has already referred to. If we look at the regulatory impact statement, because at least this bill has one, it says that Treasury itself, while it could support this approach, would prefer to do it through the monetary policy remit, through the Reserve Bank remit. There was another mechanism available to do this, but that Government, banking on symbolism and on empty symbolism at that, has chosen to put this ridiculous bill into the House. It’s its first piece of legislation and it achieves absolutely nothing.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and can I also congratulate you on your appointment to Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure for me to stand for the first time in this House to talk to a bill.

What does inflation mean to you? I ask that question because it touches every single one of us, whether it’s through the daily cost of buying groceries or when you fill your car up, pay the power bill, pay for insurance—increases, by the way, in recent times—or what really is hurtful for many is actually paying our mortgages each and every week or fortnightly. Everybody is suffering. Everybody. Not just Māori; everybody.

There are thousands of hard-working individuals across our country who simply have to find hundreds of dollars extra every week just to pay their mortgages. High inflation is the tyranny of any country. Milton Friedman said inflation is one of the forms of taxation that can be imposed without legislation. So it should not come as a surprise that a reasonable Government such as this National-led coalition Government has this bill as the first piece of legislation being introduced to the House in this term. It is a high priority to get the Reserve Bank’s focus back solely on getting inflation under control, but also maintaining it under control once you’re in the desired bandwidth.

Inflation has been out of control for far too long. The second requirement of the Reserve Bank was introduced back in 2019, right before the country was about to hit its highest level of inflation in decades. The Reserve Bank has been struggling ever since to get it under control.

Labour’s experiment of including an additional focus for the Reserve Bank has failed and we’re all paying for it—literally. Cost of living is out of control, everybody knows that. And to help, this bill will amend the very important economic objectives of the Reserve Bank. They will no longer have to answer to two key performance indicators, two masters, two objectives.

The bill removes the Labour Party’s introduced target of maximum sustainable employment. It’s an applaudable target, but clearly trying to deliver it via the Reserve Bank is the wrong place and it needs to be corrected. “Inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber, and as deadly as a hit man”—that was quoted by Ronald Reagan, a very wise man, back in the day. So I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. When a new administration comes down to the House with its first flush of a legislative package, it tells you something about them. The first three pieces of legislation we’re seeing in this period of urgency are about removing a focus on jobs and wages for ordinary New Zealanders and rolling back action on climate change. This speaks to the priorities of this Government and what it sees as its focus.

I can only but feel for members on the Government benches—that they’re coming down with the excitement of being in Government to pass legislation, and all it is to do is to repeal; to undo. Not to put forward a vision, not to put forward a positive change that they want to see for New Zealand, but to say what they’re going to undo and not what they’re going to do. I will put that against our first package of legislation where we brought in a healthy homes guarantee, a winter energy payment, a Best Start payment, and paid parental leave—all before Christmas in 2017. That is what a Government of action and what a Government with a vision looks like.

I would, before I get on to the substance of the bill, like to take a moment to acknowledge the work of my friend and colleague, the Hon Grant Robertson, as his time as finance Minister of New Zealand. Not only did he want to modernise our monetary policy and not drag it back to 1989 like our current Government wants to do but he was a finance Minister that saw New Zealand through its darkest days of a global pandemic in better shape than most countries. Not only did our economy do well but also did our people.

But one of the things that we know is that this is symbolic. So this is a Government that has chosen its first act of symbolism to be something it’s not going to do rather than what it is going to do, and telling us what we are going to see from a Government that is intent on dragging New Zealand backwards—as my colleague said, “Back to the Future”.

It is a Government that says it’s going to be evidence based. Well, all of the evidence, the one regulatory impact statement that slipped through to the keeper under this Government and probably caused the end of them for the package of legislation that we’re about to see, states incredibly clearly that this is not the optimum way to do it. In fact, we have never seen price stability as something that we didn’t want to achieve through the monetary policy of the Reserve Bank. But for us, in our core Labour DNA, ensuring that we are also making sure that is in lock step with people having jobs and a decent wage is something that we are incredibly proud of. There is no evidence that these two things do not work in alignment. There is simply no evidence, and the regulatory impact statement that the Minister saw made that incredibly clear.

Dan Bidois: The election!

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I will take a moment as we’re hearing a chorus from the backbench of the Government benches that we don’t need regulatory impact statements because we had an election. Well, newsflash: elections don’t give you ultimate power. There still are requirements for you to do policy work, and our Government did all the way through. This is a Government that has said it will not do the analysis; it will not put itself through the scrutiny required by a regulatory impact statement.

This is a non-problem; this is a symbolic act. But what it does is it shows that this Government is removing that focus on jobs and wages for New Zealanders. I will finish with a quote from an opinion piece from a former Reserve Bank board member who says: “Just what the benefits of acting on a ‘non-problem’ ”—the non-problem being what we’re doing here tonight—“are [is] a matter for speculation. Perhaps if you crave a muscular reputation in the face of weakness elsewhere in your programme, then making much of a ‘non-problem’ may be beneficial.”

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 11 to Minister

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to correct an answer I gave in response to oral question No. 11 today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: In response to the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s supplementary to oral question 11 in regard to repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, I stated I wouldn’t expect to receive advice on this. I meant to say I would expect to receive advice on this.

Bills

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I speak in support of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill.

While the members opposite might be out of touch with what people around New Zealand are dealing with, this Government will be laser-focused on getting the cost of living under control and inflation under control, and we cannot do that by having a dual mandate. We cannot let another day go by where we do not focus everything we’ve got on getting inflation under control.

I met a family months ago that said that despite everything they are doing—working harder than they’ve ever worked—despite the odd wage increase, they are going backwards. That is because inflation is out of control. No matter what we do to focus on jobs, if people earn more but inflation is getting higher, that wage increase means nothing. We need to help these people, and we cannot keep going like we are, where people cannot afford to meet their mortgage payments. We have to do this first because Christmas is coming and people cannot afford to pay their bills. We need to do whatever we can, and if the members opposite think that this is a waste of time, what is a bigger waste of time is the fact that we have to change this back to a single mandate when, according to members opposite, a dual mandate didn’t make a difference. The thing that I will say in finishing is that I commend this to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading immediately.

Second Reading

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Well, members opposite need to make up their minds; is the bill bad or does it do nothing? Because it can’t be both and the confusion apparent on the opposite benches is, I think, indicative of the kind of Government we had over the past six years—it couldn’t really decide if it was coming or going or what it was doing from one day to the next.

So some questions have been asked and I am prepared to educate the members opposite. So the first is this: are we a Government that cares deeply about jobs and well-paying jobs? Yes, we are. But are we also a Government that understands that the foundation for good jobs is a strong economy? Yes, we are. And are we also a Government that is economically literate enough to know that price stability is the essential foundation on which maximum and sustainable employment can be built? Yes, we are.

And so members opposite have asked, “Why do this Act? Why make these changes to the Act?” Well, let me spell it out clearly: without amending the Act, the monetary policy committee would still be required to have regard to two separate objectives. As well as price stability they would also be having to weigh maximum sustainable employment. And as the regulatory impact statement notes, there is value in amending the Act to signal a greater focus on price stability than that which could be achieved through mere tweaks to the remit alone. We are a Government that is making our intentions crystal clear. We know that without low inflation, without price stability, we will not achieve the economic objectives that New Zealanders share with us.

So then we’ve had this second set of questions about whether or not there is any benefit in doing it this way. Well, actually, it provides benefits in clarifying how the monetary policy committee is expected to operate, because there are potentially rare circumstances in which the two objectives could be misaligned, and we wish it to be clear that price stability is the objective. We had a comment from the member Chlöe Swarbrick that the remit would still have reference to having regard to employment, and I want to clarify for that member that that is incorrect. We will have one operational objective in the remit, and, as has been the case in previous remits, it will be in pursuing that objective that will have regard to financial stability and other matters.

There have been questions about the timing. Well, actually, I thought this was most amusingly digressed on by the member Grant Robertson—the Hon Grant Robertson—because actually we want to make this simple, clear change as soon as possible so as not to create more confusion in the market about what we are doing or what our intentions are. And as my colleagues have so eloquently expressed, we have been making it clear for several months our intentions in relation to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. And actually quite a few New Zealanders voted not only just in the knowledge but in the expectation that we would be making this change, and we are going to be a Government that delivers on those commitments and meets the expectations of our voters.

Finally, I do want to make the point with reference to the regulatory impact statement that members opposite are wrong to dismiss perception when it comes to the way we manage inflation. Perception does matter. And as the regulatory impact statement acknowledges, the dual mandate has impacted the perceptions of the effectiveness of monetary policy. And I read for the members point No. 7 in the regulatory impact statement: “Expectations can have a significant impact on inflation outcomes. When the dual mandate was introduced”—the failed dual mandate was introduced—“the 2018 Regulatory Impact Statement noted that ‘the risk that market participants … interpret the Reserve Bank’s new employment objective as weakening its focus on inflation.’ ” And I point to the data and the data shows that it was on the watch of the members opposite with their new experiment that we have had 2½ years of inflation outside the band. And I would put to you that the market has priced in its expectation that inflation would remain out of control.

So, onward, we have further advice here that clearly explaining and justifying monetary policy decisions is imperative in retaining credibility. We also note that there has always been this issue that there is a real question about how you measure full employment, and policy errors from measurement issues associated with targeting less well measured objectives can be problematic.

Which is all to say, we had a lot of hot air over here about their sudden new-found concern with regulatory impacts statements and their concern with process and urgency and a whole bunch of arguments, but actually the official advice here that we have shared with the House is clear: there are benefits to being crystal clear in your objectives when it comes to monetary policy. The regime of the former Government has failed and I know it hurts for them but this is the change New Zealanders voted for. And inflation, we’re coming after you and the Reserve Bank’s on our side.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): It might be helpful for the House to go back to where the provision that’s being repealed tonight came from. It really began for me in 2014 when the then Governor of the Reserve Bank, Graeme Wheeler, began hiking the official cash rate (OCR) even though at that point in time inflation was actually only running at 1.5 percent and unemployment was 5.6 percent. And I remember sitting on the Finance and Expenditure Committee and trying to understand why Graeme Wheeler would actually do that. He ended up increasing over that period of time the OCR from 2.5 to 3.5 percent and in doing so, given how low inflation was, all he actually achieved was unemployment going up. And, actually, we almost got to deflation towards the end of 2015.

So if members opposite want to know where this conversation came from, it’s that actually, yes, of course, we must keep inflation under control and of course that is an important role for the Reserve Bank, but if we leave that completely unfettered, we then run the risk that we end up going in completely the opposite direction. And so the process began from then to say, “Well, is there another way to do this?” It’s not as if New Zealand was some kind of outlier in picking this up. The United States Federal Reserve has had a dual mandate for many, many years. The Reserve Bank of Australia has had a mandate that includes employment, and, in fact, the Australian Government just last week updated that—

Nicola Willis: Tell the full story, now. They had to water it down, you know that. They had to water it down—

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —to reaffirm employment as part of their mandate. Now, the member opposite says, “They had to water it down.” The member opposite needs to remember: she’s getting rid of it. She’s getting rid of it completely. The Reserve Bank of Australia, the Federal Reserve are both completely able to manage these two things together. So that is the reason why we began this process. Of course, we want inflation to be kept under control, but we also think that the Reserve Bank has a role in the real economy of making sure that we do keep New Zealanders in work.

Now, I’ve heard from members opposite that this is a particularly dangerous thing to have these two objectives, that somehow or other, the perfectly capable people that we employ at Reserve Bank and on the monetary policy committee couldn’t possibly handle two thoughts in their head at one time. Consistently, over the period of time since this dual mandate has been in place, the Governor of the Reserve Bank and those involved in the Reserve Bank making these decisions have said that it did not alter one iota their focus on inflation.

Now, I’ve given the House an example of a time where I think the dual mandate would have come in handy to make some different decisions. But in the period of time we’re talking about, the Reserve Bank have been absolutely clear: they knew that their focus needed to be on inflation as it spiralled out of control around the world. When we look at the countries that have a single mandate, they all saw inflation go up. So the member opposite cannot have it both ways. Inflation was rising in those single-mandate countries well beyond the bands and the target bands that they have, because that was a global trend. Rightly, the Reserve Bank said our job has got to be to make sure we bring inflation down. You know what? It is not inconsistent with also making sure that we look after Kiwis and keep them in jobs. So this bill that the Government has bought to the House is a solution in search of a problem. It is not evidence based. There is no relationship between the speed at which central banks have responded to rising inflation and their monetary policy mandate.

Also, long-term inflation expectations, which the member opposite, Nicola Willis, mentioned just before she sat down, haven’t actually changed significantly since the dual mandate came in. Five- and 10-year inflation expectations are in fact almost exactly where they were before we went into the dual mandate process. That’s because people understand that it is possible to keep these two thoughts in our head at the same time. What might trigger concern, if I quote the regulatory impact statement, is that changes to the statutory framework “may trigger market concern”. Stability is important in the way that we go about monetary policy. That’s why at this point in a normal process of a bill, we would be talking about what had happened at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We would be talking about the submissions that had come forward. I think when we come to later stages of the debate, we will be bearing in mind the fact that we haven’t had the chance for New Zealanders to come forward and say why this mattered. When we made the change, we heard from representatives from working people in particular, just how important it was that there was now a conversation about employment and keeping people in jobs, alongside the important conversation we have about making sure that we keep inflation under control and we keep price stability.

As we went through COVID, one of the things that I am the most proud of is that we kept New Zealanders in work; that when we were faced with forecasts of unemployment up into the double digits, we worked hard across Government, across all the parts of Government, in making sure we did the things we needed to to keep them in work—the fiscal measures like the wage subsidy scheme and so on—but also what was done in terms of the monetary policy response.

That, actually, has now served us well as we’ve entered into a time of higher inflation and pressures on the cost of living. Because, and I think Liam Dann wrote about this in the New Zealand Herald recently, if you really wanted to see what would go wrong in a period of high inflation and high interest rates, it would be if people didn’t have jobs. Because if they didn’t have jobs, you’d be seeing those mortgagee sales more and more and more. And so when we’re talking about what we want from the economy, we want all the parts of the economic apparatus working towards the overall wellbeing of New Zealanders. That’s why, when we made this change, we also changed the purposes of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Act 2018 to make sure it was actually about the overall economic wellbeing of New Zealanders. I notice that’s not being changed, and I don’t actually think the objectives of the Act now fit the purposes that we’ve changed them to, but we recognise that there was an important role for monetary policy in making sure that we did look after New Zealanders and their overall wellbeing.

We need to remember: jobs and stable prices are two of the essential elements of making sure that people can live their lives well. As I said before, this Act passed in 1989—the original Reserve Bank Act. In communities across New Zealand in the 1980s it was the twin evils of high inflation and high unemployment that really drove New Zealand—

Nicola Willis: He’s living in the past.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —and in the 1990s—I’m living in the past? She’s the one taking us back to 1989. We modernised this legislation to put it right up there with what was going on around the rest of the world in modern monetary policy, and this is the Government that wants to take it backwards.

There is another possibility that occurs here, and that is actually now returning to the single mandate—and Lord forbid if the National Party actually take up the ACT Party’s idea of getting rid of the concept of the medium term, because I can tell you what will happen then: you will see interest rates rise rapidly and often. That actually will be the consequence of this legislation. It’ll all be about making sure that we respond instantly to a change in prices, and then you’ll see interest rates rise, and they’ll rise often and they’ll rise regularly. So members opposite might want to think very, very carefully about what they’re actually doing today. Because what they’re actually doing today is taking away the focus on jobs—on one of the critical things that we often hear from the Government about what they think is important—and putting us back in the position as we were back in 2013 and 2014, when Graeme Wheeler decided that it was a good idea to ratchet up the official cash rate even though inflation was down around that 1.5 percent. This is about getting a balance right. It’s about making sure we give a focus to all parts of the economic apparatus on looking after people, looking after their jobs, and keeping them in work.

The Minister of Finance said that we needed to make up our mind about what the bill was. I can tell her this: it’s wrong, and it also won’t do what they say it will do. The last speaker in the first reading from the Government, Katie Nimon, said this needs to be passed before Christmas so it can make a difference to the cost of living for people. It won’t do a thing before Christmas, and actually, the main thing it is likely to do is cause damage over the long run in terms of how monetary policy operates. This bill is wrong, and we will be opposing it at all stages.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Madam Speaker, just wanted to say I’m grateful to the Minister for tabling that letter from the Reserve Bank and the Reserve Bank Governor. It has largely just referred us back to the monetary policy remit review from June 2023, which spoke to the kind of thoughts from the Reserve Bank after a number of public submissions in a process which then ended up in a memorandum to the former Minister.

I just want to quote here from paragraph 22, because I think it’s a really important and salient point. Ultimately, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) recommended to the Minister that there was some form of hierarchical nature in which the Minister through the remit could say that the monetary policy committee (MPC) was to take account of maximum sustainable employment, but to do that subsequent to a focus on price stability. And here they say at paragraph 22, “The Reserve Bank views that introducing a hierarchical ordering of objectives is unlikely to materially affect monetary policy strategy – it clarifies the strategy that the MPC would most likely undertake when the dual mandate objectives come into conflict, particularly for when inflation expectations are at risk of becoming unanchored. Furthermore, the Reserve Bank has undertaken considerable work in better understanding labour market dynamics, and [the] MSE”—that being the maximum sustainable employment—“will remain an important concept in the future whether the Remit has a hierarchical ordering or not.”

Once again, we have there in black and white—as myself and the Minister, when she was previously a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, heard elucidated time and time again from the Reserve Bank Governor—that, ultimately, there was not all too much difference that was coming out of the monetary policy committee as a result of the dual mandate. It largely was a means by which they interrogated and reflected on the decisions that they were making, but it did not materially affect them.

So look, all of us in here can pontificate about what inflation is and what inflation does, but, frankly, this bill does not do anything to tame that issue of inflation. But I do think it’s worthwhile spending some time reflecting on the point from the Minister about why perceptions do matter, because I think that’s a really important and salient point, and, actually, it goes some way to some broader reflections that some members may like to make on the fact that so much of this stuff that we do inside of the economy is largely driven by perception and, therefore, is kind of made up, and that maybe talking down our economy or certain industries has real-world impacts.

To that effect, we also heard from the Minister the question to members of the Opposition about whether this is bad or whether it is unnecessary. So to answer that question—is it bad?—what I’d say to the Minister in response is: is a focus on employment, a focus on maximum sustainable employment, bad? I don’t think that it is, and what I heard from the Minister whilst saying that it’s not going to be within the remit was that it may be one of the considerations in the formulation of monetary policy. So, again, I don’t think that anybody here is saying that a focus on maximum sustainable employment is a bad thing, but what we are hearing is that it largely, to this point, has not impacted the way that the monetary policy committee has come up with monetary policy.

Then there was the question of whether it is necessary. Well, again, as we’ve heard and as is laid out in the regulatory impact statement, this bill is not necessary. These means are not necessary to achieve the ends as stated—that is, for the hierarchical consideration of financial stability and of maximum sustainable employment—whether that is achieved by virtue of the remit change or consideration or otherwise. The other point of whether it is necessary or not is about the fact that this simply has not changed the Reserve Bank’s approach. Again, we have this in hearing after hearing but also in black and white from the remit review from the RBNZ, which, again, is tabled and out there in the public arena.

Just given that we’ve got a little bit more time here in this second reading and before we get to the committee of the whole House stage, where I’m looking forward to putting some questions to the Minister, it might be worthwhile to reflect on what it is that the Reserve Bank actually does, because we have been through an unprecedented period of time, and I wanted to acknowledge members from the Finance and Expenditure Committee in the last term, who really did our best to hold the RBNZ and Treasury and the Minister to account on that. So monetary policy is the stuff that the Reserve Bank does, and, as we’ve all been talking about, at present that is largely mandated through the dual mandate of a focus on price stability but also on maximum sustainable employment. The main ways that they have to achieve those outcomes are through, largely, the official cash rate, which then has flow-on effects to mortgages.

Outside of that, it can engage in what is typically known as unconventional monetary policy, and throughout the period of COVID-19 we saw that in full effect, with large-scale asset purchases and otherwise. We knew, because we ended up with an Official Information Act request back from the Government with advice both from the RBNZ and Treasury, that if those unconventional monetary policy means were pursued, we would end up with what they called distributional impacts—that is, an increase in or an exacerbation of inequality. And they advised that the way to mitigate against those distributional impacts—i.e., that increase in inequality—was through the utilisation of something called fiscal policy. That’s the stuff that the Government does.

The stuff that the Government does is tax and spend. Spending—as we all should, hopefully, know in this place—does have inflationary impacts, but when it comes to taxation, this is a point that I think that we largely diverge on, because we’ve heard a lot in this House today and over the last week or so about the notion of productivity, and we’ve also heard about how inflation is the thief, and all of those different things. But we also know that taxation is a deflationary measure that Governments can undertake. We also know that right now, we are the only country in the OECD that does not have a capital gains tax, a stamp duty, an inheritance tax, a ghost house tax, or any other form of taxation which is explicitly focused on addressing those inequities. But also, as a result, we end up by virtue of multiple reports from the likes of the Productivity Commission and from the likes of Treasury and the RBNZ with ramifications which rob us of our productivity, which rob us of that capital and that investment in the productive market, and end up with a disproportionate influence on capital and inflation, particularly house price inflation.

So if the Government actually wants to do something meaningful on inflation, particularly house price inflation and those drivers of Consumers Price Index inflation, then it could fix the tax system—I don’t know. That’s an idea you can take for free from the Greens as we all sit in here to midnight tomorrow and till 10 p.m. tonight.

But, again, the point remains—three key points here from the Greens—that this makes no difference and we’re wasting all of our time in debating it; secondarily, it is unnecessary to do this in law; and, thirdly, the Government is still saying that they want the RBNZ to have some kind of mind paid to the impacts on employment. So they still believe that this is somehow important. With all of that information, I just think we’ve got better things to do, and if the Government wants to introduce a bill focusing on taxation and betters ways to equitably achieve outcomes and get a more productive economy, we’re on board.

Todd Stephenson: Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Todd Stephenson—if you seek the call, then I’ll call you.

Todd Stephenson: Oh, thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): So that’s right.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in favour of this bill, which ACT will be supporting. We do need to return the single economic objective to the Reserve Bank’s mandate.

While it’s existed since 1934, it was the passing of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act in 1989 which actually made this primary objective of price stability, and it was great to hear Mr Robertson actually talking about a bit of history, because there’s actually nothing wrong with going back to 1989, when this was put in place and it worked. This same Act also established the operational independence of the Reserve Bank.

You’re right: it was in the 1988 Budget that the then Minister of Finance and ACT co-founder, Sir Roger Douglas, announced his intentions to reform the Reserve Bank in a way that would actually set this single mandate. When that Act came into force in 1989—in fact, in February of 1990—New Zealand was the first country to have this formally adopted inflation target as we know it, and it worked. Providing the Reserve Bank with a single objective rather than a laundry list, which was actually discussed at the time in the 1980s, actually meant that the bank could achieve its mandate by contributing and focusing on one thing and getting that objective right.

At the time, it was clear that the primary function of the Reserve Bank was to formulate and implement monetary policy directed to the economic objective of maintaining price stability, and that’s what we want to see returned. It was acknowledged that general price stability was the greatest contribution that monetary policy could make to New Zealand’s economic wellbeing, and that is what this Government is focused on. It recognises the limitation of monetary policy over the medium term and, by having a clear objective on price stability, we want to make sure that the Reserve Bank continues to focus on that single objective. It’s part of this Government’s economic plan.

I would note, actually, that when the first policy targets agreement was signed by the Government in 1990, inflation was running at 7 percent. That’s not too dissimilar to the circumstances we find ourselves in today, and that target did actually deliver the reduction in inflation that we’re looking for.

The previous Government has muddied the waters by providing the Reserve Bank with a dual mandate, and we want to stop that. Now, if that wasn’t bad enough, by muddying the waters, the previous Government also went on to grow the size of Government, spending over 70 percent more, and this large increase in Government spending has had consequences.

Let’s have another famous Milton Friedman quote tonight—you can never get enough of Milton Friedman on this side of the House. Milton Friedman said, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.” The last Government’s output certainly didn’t match the amount it was spending. We had hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on unproductive projects. What we’ve seen is a huge increase in inflation and—as the honourable member on this side talked about—that’s affecting households with increases in mortgages and petrol prices and grocery prices. So ordinary Kiwis like the people of Southland are worse off in real terms.

This new Government, which ACT is a part of, is determined to get inflation under control as quickly as possible, and what we are doing here tonight, in moving this amendment, is to do that. We’re also going to tackle Government spending and ensure that the Reserve Bank once again has a sole focus. By returning to the sole focus, we can make sure that the Reserve Bank continues to be a world-leading institution and to play its part appropriately in turning around this economy. That’s why ACT will be supporting this, and we commend it to the House.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and may I commend you on retaining your seat in the Chair; very good stuff.

I think we’ve heard some fine contributions on the theory of inflation and Milton Friedman and the like. But essentially what we’re dealing with here is a real-world issue that, as Mr Stephenson just pointed out, families are hurting, cost of living is hurting, our business community and our farmers are hurting with record-high interest rates that’s driven as a result of the record-high inflation. So we do need to get our arms around this. We as a Government have decided to cut out the fluff and the nonsense to get down to tin tacks.

We have been convinced by a very persuasive argument from the Minister of Finance to support this bill. So we commend it to the House. Thank you.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What we know—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, this is a split call shared with the Greens. Rawiri Waititi—five minutes.

RAWIRI WAITITI: What we know is that this Government is rushing through legislation before Christmas that will see people lose their jobs. It will cut people’s wages and working conditions. This is all being done to further enrich their already rich mates. It’s heartless, it’s disgraceful, and a Merry Christmas to you all! Shame on you—shame on you—and closing monetary policy should be making holistic decisions that consider everything that is relevant and not so easily sacrifice human lives at the altar of economic orthodoxy. Creating stable monetary policy conditions that balance inflationary pressures with employment is in the best interests of current and future generations.

Monetary policy, I heard from the finance Minister, needs mates. It needs compassion. It needs heart. By removing the dual mandate, will this Government push the official cash rate to an unachievable rate that the Governor can’t achieve, creating a forced recession? That’s a question that should be asked. Is this setting the Governor up to fail? Is this the Government’s way of getting rid of him? Will the removal of the dual mandates harm tangata whenua, and I ask that of the Minister for Māori Development, and what will he do to protect his people? Will it harm Pasifika finance? Because they are the people—we are the people who work in precarious, temporary, and seasonal work. This government is prioritising capitalism over workers. And like the great quotes of Morgan Freeman, “These walls are funny. First you hate them, then you get used to them. Enough time passes; you get so dependent on them. That’s institutionalisation.”

Te Pāti Māori oppose this bill and we call on the Government to rethink their priorities. Now is the time for compassionate economic policies that support our people through tough times. Kia ora tātou.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. As my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick laid out, the Green Party will not be supporting this bill and we have serious questions about the relevance of the bill to the situation we find ourselves in.

Now, I know it is a common habit of the National Party and your colleagues in the ACT Party—I haven’t really heard from New Zealand First on this—to blame decisions that were made in the last two terms on the global economic circumstances that affected New Zealand following the global pandemic. So I do think it’s important to inject some facts. I like a little visual aid. I’m going to hold it up so members can see. [Holds up graph] So Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation comparisons right across the world—you can’t really make out the New Zealand line, because it follows the shape of the United States, Denmark, Ireland, Australia. Now, if it were the case that the economic circumstances and CPI inflation that we experienced here in Aotearoa was entirely down to the fact that there was a dual mandate, how does that explain all of these other countries experiencing the same CPI inflation? If the inflation we experienced here in Aotearoa was a result only of Government spending as a result of the last Labour Government, why is it that the United States, Denmark, Australia, and virtually every other economy in the world experienced the same shape of inflation? Why is that? Do members opposite have any curiosity about what it is that is causing the situation? Or do you blindly repeat the talking points handed down to you from the party elite? Ask yourselves that question, because we’ve got the data right here that shows us New Zealand’s inflation did not go as high as many other countries in the world. Here it is under many other countries, and it didn’t fall as fast as in some places.

Another consideration is whether or not the Reserve Bank’s decision to engage in funding for lending in December 2020 was a good idea, and I would say it was a terrible idea. It was a mistake. Was it the result of the dual mandate? We have zero evidence that it was, but most central banks in most countries made similar mistakes because they overestimated the impacts of the COVID pandemic, particularly here in New Zealand, where we had a lockdown which meant that we lived without COVID for 18 months longer than most parts of the world, and our economy immediately bounced back. Why is that? Because the economy is not a machine. The economy is not something that is separate to us. What we call the economy just describes some of human activities, just some of them, just the ones where we trade goods and services for money. There’s a whole lot of other things we do in the world that are the foundation for our wellbeing and how it is that we’re able to succeed, how it is that we’re able to thrive. And all of that depends upon a healthy environment. Without water, without healthy air, without sunshine, without soil, we’ve got nothing.

So the Green Party will continue to stand here and offer a constructive critique of the Government’s approach to economic and fiscal policy. And I would say that we have a much better understanding of the economic context and the factors that are driving inflation here in Aotearoa. Now, it is the case that many prices are starting to drop. A lot of the inflation we experienced here in New Zealand was a result of global inflation and global oil prices. Oil prices are starting to drop back down. But if we truly want to support people to achieve their aspirations, which for most people is to have enough healthy kai; to have a warm, healthy home; to have some secure activity, whether that is a job in paid work or an unpaid job that is equally important, like raising children or looking after sick relatives or volunteering in the community—if we want to achieve all of that for our people, we cannot go back to the 1980s, as the ACT Party would love us to.

I think we all know that the economic reforms of the 1980s did not lead to a giant increase in productivity. They did enrich a tiny number of people, many of whom donate now to the ACT Party and to the National Party. But if we want a truly equitable society that gives people equality of opportunity, then we need a much more holistic approach to the economy, one that respects our people—that looks after the dignity of people, and supports people and the essential need that we have for a healthy planet.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I speak in support of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill. It’s time to focus on strengthening our economy. It’s time we focus on hard-working New Zealanders and reducing the cost of living. This will be achieved through getting on top of inflation. Kiwis are struggling because the economy is damaged. The price of food, rents, and mortgages are at record highs, while wages have struggled to keep up, creating a cost of living crisis. Homeowners are scrambling to find the extra hundreds of dollars they need to pay their mortgage payment each fortnight. Across New Zealand, families are feeling hardship in a way they have never experienced before. Christmas is just around the corner, and we need to bring some light and cheer for people this Christmas, and that is reducing the cost of living crisis, getting on top of inflation, and giving New Zealanders a brighter future. Interest rates have risen so fast that hard-working Kiwis can’t keep up, businesses can’t keep up. Our economy has been going backwards; we need to drive it forward.

The other side of the House might keep blaming COVID and international circumstances, but on this side of the House, we aren’t blaming; we are acting. We are all about action—all about action, getting things back on track. On this side of the House, we aren’t wasting any time in our fight to put the lid on inflation. We need price stability and low inflation. This is what will drive our economy forward. This will help improve the lives of New Zealanders who are currently wondering how they’re going to pay their bills. This will help improve business, farmer, and grower confidence, helping grow our economy.

The member on the other side of the House spoke about productivity and creating jobs. The way to drive productivity is to support our businesses and our growers and our farmers by lowering inflation. Farm inflation is at all-time highs. Confidence is low. We need to enable businesses to get ahead, enable businesses to create jobs, enable families to get ahead. Inflation is eroding profitability. Businesses are tightening their belts. We need to get the wheels moving in the right direction now. The commitment to beating inflation starts with ensuring the Reserve Bank is returning to a single mandate of keeping down inflation. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I thought that we should give a Māori perspective on this. That’s why it was good hearing Rawiri Waititi having a bit of a kōrero about it, because I think it brings it back to where a lot of people saw things. I think what we did as a Government is we normalised things for people on the street, you see. National doesn’t do that; they make it all complicated. [Interruption] No, no, they make it all complicated, and that’s where we had a visionary finance Minister, Grant Robertson, who just didn’t see things in one sort of box or one perspective. The dual mandate gave us that opportunity for all New Zealanders to understand what the Reserve Bank was about, because they didn’t understand that before because it was all National Party speak. So I want to compliment the former Minister of Finance in terms of what he did in terms of this dual mandate, because he brought kōrero like wellbeing into play. He brought kaupapa like wellbeing into play, and he got Māori to understand that the Reserve Bank could be more than just this little box that these useless National Party and ACT people want to focus on because their whole world is just tied up in one pathetic area.

As we all know, you know, the National Party’s economic record is in tatters, trashed by Nicola Willis, as the whole world knows, repealing our beautiful smoke-free legislation. We’re as embarrassed as the world is shocked to fund their dirty, rotten, filthy tax cuts—disgraceful. Nicola Willis is risking people’s lives because Winston made her look silly. Let’s be clear on that. So whether it’s repealing smoke-free rules to fund tax cuts, that tragic backtrack on the flawed tax plan, I mean, it’s just shot.

Hon Chris Bishop: Come back to the bill, Willie.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, what it’s got to do with—it just shows you how mean the finance Minister is. It shows how mean the finance—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Mr Jackson, you’ve had four minutes now—the bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, I have seven minutes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, you’ve had four; you haven’t mentioned the bill, so about time you did.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, I am mentioning the bill, Mr Speaker, because this bill—we’re shocked that they would repeal what we did to focus just on the material side of things for people in this country. If they’re really concerned about the cost of living, then they would follow what Grant Robertson has done.

Can I just say I was just giving a Māori perspective because we had one of our kaumātua who died this morning, Bill Kaua, and he was a big follower of this, and he never would’ve supported this sort of kaupapa. His only flaw was I think he was a big supporter of the Māori Party, but that aside, he was certainly a supporter of what we were doing, and what we were doing was creating jobs.

I want to just come back to this bill, the bill that they’re getting rid of. Grant Robertson’s focus meant that we had record-low unemployment in this country in 2018—3.9 percent we’re talking about, in terms of unemployment in 2018, 3.9 percent. I’m just looking at my figures here, and we had a record employment rate in November of 2018 of 68.3 percent. That’s what these types of strategies of broadening the mandate in terms of the Reserve Bank did for New Zealanders—broadened the mandate so we saw firsthand the benefits of Labour’s Government strategy. And now we’re seeing firsthand what this bill will do to New Zealanders.

So I’m just so proud of the economic management that Labour was able to roll out and that was confirmed in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update and Stats New Zealand June quarter figures: the economy had begun to turn the corner then, and so this Government is inheriting so much of our great work—the economy’s growing again, wages were ahead of inflation while people were in work, and inflation was expected to return to the 1 to 3 percent target band in 2024. Why? Because of the wonderful work done by the former Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson—the former Minister who had a plan and a strategy that was about being inclusive and keeping communities in check. As a former employment Minister, I saw firsthand with programmes like Mana in Mahi, Poutama Rangatahi, Māori Trade training—these were all the type of benefits that our communities got out of this brilliant strategy that our Government was running.

But I just want to read something—I was looking at the third reading of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill, and a very learned man that everyone respects—well, sometimes. You know, I was looking at what he was saying about this very kōrero, and he talked about monetary policy, and he said this: “The changes that this Labour Government are bringing in are not to be feared. They bring us into an international best-practice area.” This is not a journey into the unknown; this is to link up a progressive, far-sighted Government passing legislation—that was us—that shows a great similarity to other reserve banks and their mandates, and, as we know, around the world it’s very, very common to have a broad mandate. What he was saying was, “Similarity in data of Reserve Banks and their mandates, which have moved away from this bare, sparse, barren approach reflective of Don Brash”—and I’ll just add Nicola Willis, even though she wasn’t the Minister of Finance at the time—and that is what we have introduced, and we would be most certainly voting for a dual mandate. And that’s to ensure that when decisions are made, the impact on the employment labour market is equally as important as the interests of the money-lenders—fiscal temporals that pass for corporate New Zealand. We campaigned to change it and we’re now at the final hurdles. He’s a man that we should all listen to, really. This was in the third reading speeches, and he says right before some changes come to pass, he said “I’ll make a prediction. The other side of the House, despite all their lamenting”—this is now National—“will not change it back because they won’t have the opportunity in the foreseeable future.

But look, I don’t want to get petty about this: this is a great opportunity. It would spoil the occasion as we prepare for one of our members to move into life outside of politics, which is an improvement in terms of qualities of the House that I currently enjoy. So, he said, “I’ll be voting for this”—this was our bill. “Wonderful bill”, he says. “There will be the ability for Treasury to have a non-voting member on the committee despite the fearmongering and pretty tedious speeches from the dirty, rotten National Party”—I might’ve added a little bit there, all right! “But our party has not a sliver of doubt that that is the way forward.” And that was former Minister Shane Jones. So where’s Mark Patterson—he’s gone, has he?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, no. We don’t comment on members not being here, do we, Mr Jackson?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: But here’s the question. Shane Jones—and I’ve got something from Winston, but I don’t have three minutes to read it out—but, Winston, also, hugely supportive—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): We also use full names, don’t we?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Winston Raymond Peters. I remembered his middle name! But it just shows you that this is what the Minister of Finance has to deal with—Winston Raymond Peters and Shane “Sell-out-the-Māoris” Jones. You reckon Jonesey’s listening? I hope so. And that’s what this lot has to deal with. They loved what we did. And how are they going to get all this past Winston? That’s the big question. I’d like to carry on, but my time’s run out. Kia ora tātou.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): I sit here trying to listen to wisdom from all through the House here. And when the member across the aisle there, the Hon Willie Jackson, talks about a Māori’s perspective, boy oh boy I’m pleased he’s on that side of the House and not this side of the House.

Because no wonder it’s such a mess, and I tell you: I hear a number of members on the other side of the House talk about the problems that they believe this bill is going to present with employment, particularly for Māori in there. Well, it’s exactly the opposite. This is exactly what’s needed to actually get a great employment, great economy going throughout our country. This is exactly what is needed. It’s exactly the opposite of what they’ve been talking about.

When inflation increases significantly, a sensible Government would look at how its own spending would actually have an effect on it. But what we saw in the last term was a Government that had an increase of 83 percent over its two terms in Government—83 percent. That went from just north of $76 billion in 2017—ended up being at $139 billion. That had a significant effect on the inflation as well. We saw a Government that didn’t understand what its purpose was in endeavouring to control inflation with what strings it could actually pull.

So inflation is not only unnecessary for economic growth; as long as it exists, it is the enemy of economic growth. So we need to make sure that we get everything, pull all the levers that we can with regards to getting inflation under control. The—sorry—[member refers to notes]

Hon Willie Jackson: Speak from the heart.

DAVID MacLEOD: I’m learning, Willie—sorry, Willie Jackson. I believe that’s Willie Jackson. If I’m speaking from the heart, I would suggest: don’t listen to that side of the House, especially from that seat over there. It’s a muddled mess, as it is when the Reserve Bank is trying to serve two masters with the fact that they had these two objectives to serve. We need to get it back to one. I believe that the Reserve Bank can’t wait for this to actually occur so it can get things under control. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This is a split call—Helen White.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t think it is a split call.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): It is a split call.

HELEN WHITE: Thank you, sir. I want to talk first to New Zealand about what the maximum sustainable employment phrase actually means. What it means is the highest utilisation of labour resource that can be maintained without generating or accelerating inflation. So it’s not something that competes with a policy of prioritising taking down inflation, and it does not compete with a stability goal. It sits alongside it, and it’s been thought out.

Now, why is that important? I was an employment lawyer for a long time and I know the value of work in people’s lives. It’s an incredibly important stability in itself. It’s also really important to the economy, and we saw that in the COVID disaster, because when COVID happened, I had clients ringing. They were employers, and they didn’t know whether they were going to be able to sustain the situations that they were in. They were looking at widespread redundancies and fiscal policy came alongside them and so did monetary policy, and the maximisation of people being employed without tipping inflation up—that’s an important objective. It sits alongside and it works absolutely collaboratively with price stability.

So these things are not in competition. What we have here is a logic that is myth. We have a logic that doesn’t stand up in the evidence, and you’ve heard Grant Robertson talk about that today. He’s talked about how you can take systems where there are dual mandates and you can take systems where there are single mandates, and you can see that the inflation’s been going up at the same rate or if not more than the ones with a single mandate—there is no correlation here.

What we have is a myth that if we prioritise people’s work, if we think that it’s truly valuable, what we are going to do is we’re going to overheat by wage growth because there’ll be pressure, because there’ll be full employment. And that is the worry, isn’t it? Really, that’s the worry at the heart of the National Party dream and myth machine. Because what it is effectively saying is the way to get inflation down is to make sure that we have as much unemployment as we damn well can, and the wages will plummet as people compete for lower paid work. I never want to see that future in this country. And so I am sorry that we’re in Opposition at the moment, because I know that people will be harmed because of that myth.

This policy, this change, is actually frittering. I agree with my friend Chlöe Swarbrick. This is actually virtue signalling, because this policy won’t make a difference, but the actual value set that it betrays, that’s going to make a difference in this country. What the National Party is still thinking is relevant is trickle-down economics: that if we just max out the amount of people on low-wage work in this place, everything will come right because it will trickle down—and it never did. It never did. We are stuck in the 80s, which is why we’re hearing anecdotes from it, because there is half the House stuck in the 80s and the 70s, and it’s time to move on.

We need a modern economy. This is the same Government that is—and I keep on banging on about it—about to get rid of the Productivity Commission, people. I mean, how ridiculous. You’re talking about productivity, you’re talking about making this economy work, and you’re getting rid of the very independent tools that would be best to do it. Because they support a high-wage economy, that’s why. Because it’s something that the National Party is underpinning in this legislation, its commitment to low wages for New Zealanders, and that is a tragedy because we can have inflation come down and we can maximise sustainable employment. Those concepts have been thought out; they are actually already in balance in the very heart of the phrase—maximum sustainable employment means employment that does not harm price stability and does not cause inflation. Please, please take that on board.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I am pleased to speak on this second reading of the amendment bill for the Reserve Bank objectives. I just want to talk about what happens when you try and do two things and don’t do either well. The interesting thing I will speak on is public transport. We want to try and reduce inflation. We are not going to do it by also focusing on the jobs. We need to reduce inflation first. Now, when you try to reduce emissions, you don’t do it by running a bus all around town trying to pick up every single person. You need to go somewhere faster so people actually get out of their cars. You’ve got to do one thing well, and this is what we are here to do. We are here to do it quickly, because we cannot go one more day without it, but we need to do one thing well, and that is our focus. We need to give the Reserve Bank one single mandate, not two things that they can’t do well. We need to do one thing well. So we are here to move this right before Christmas so that people can get to the new year with the best control over inflation that we have not seen for the last six years. It is time, and I will say it again, to do one thing well, and that is what we are here to do as a Government first up: we are going to do one thing well—and I will say it again. So I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Hon Deborah Russell.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Doctor. Ordinarily in the second reading of a bill, we would be coming to this House having gone through a select committee process where we would’ve heard submissions from all sorts of actors in the community, where we would’ve teased out some of the nuance of the bill, where we would’ve understood the implications, and, having been so informed, we would’ve come back to this debating chamber to present a variety of views. And, ordinarily, there would have been some amendments to the bill. That’s a pretty standard practice as a bill comes back from a select committee.

However, we haven’t had a select committee process on this bill—not even a truncated select committee process, not even maybe a week to hear from people who could’ve been invited in to talk to us about this bill. As has been pointed out by other speakers in this debate, the bill itself is not complicated or long. There are only a few clauses which actually perform something, that actually make something happen. So we could have perhaps managed a truncated process on this and at least gotten some feedback from other players in the economy, and that would’ve introduced some nuance into this debate—and I think it needs nuance. As it turns out, I have contacted a number of people who I know are concerned about this bill, and I will be bringing their views to the committee of the whole House in an effort to at least get some nuance into it.

But I do want to talk about some of the nuance that is found in the material that has been placed in front of us already. I’m going to start with the letter that the Minister of Finance has already spoken about, the letter that she received from the chair of the Reserve Bank and the Governor of the Reserve Bank, which she has quoted and tabled in the House. Now, I have a copy of it here. It’s a bit hard: my eyes are getting a bit older; I have to expand the text to see it properly, but one of the words that is put in there is the word “priority”—not “exclusive”, not “sole”, not “only”, but the word “priority”.

So the chair of the Reserve Bank and the Governor of the Reserve Bank have quite a nuanced view in this letter. They don’t say the intended focus is exactly what we recommend; instead, they say the intended focus of this bill is consistent with the views we expressed. Now, that’s not an out and out endorsement; it’s saying it’s consistent—it can sit alongside; it can work with. So it’s consistent with their recent monetary policy committee remit review, which was published in June 2023.

So, they said—and they did say—that giving the inflation objective priority will assist with the credibility of the inflation target and so on. And they said it will simplify bits of the remit context, etc., etc., and so on. But I do want to draw attention to that word “priority”. It means that several things can be done at once, even if you put priority on one of them.

I want to turn to that other piece of nuanced advice that has been given to us, and this time it comes to us from the Treasury and it’s sitting in the regulatory impact statement. And, again, it talks about ensuring a primary focus on price stability and then offers options as to what the Government could do. So the Government could introduce legislation to amend the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, to remove the economic objective of supporting maximum sustainable employment, or it could issue a new monetary policy committee remit only, which would require the monetary policy committee to place greater weight on price stability relative to maximum sustainable employment. But that would have left the Act unchanged—so, going to the remit, the letter that sets out what the Reserve Bank monetary policy committee should focus on. So that was the other thing it could do, or it could have used section 125 of the Act to give the Reserve Bank a temporary focus on one priority only, on one objective only.

So, sitting in that regulatory impact statement is a lot of nuance about what the Government could have chosen to do, and all along what is very clear in this nuance is that it is entirely possible to retain an objective of maximum sustainable employment. Perhaps the Government could have said, “Actually, let’s keep that. We’ll just prioritise price stability.”, but, no, the Government has got rid of the objective of having maximum sustainable employment altogether, and that is a great shame. I think that is the kind of nuance we could have heard through the select committee process, and, more to the point, it is the kind of nuance that might have resulted in a better bill.

I want to talk about something here that the Minister of Finance said. She said in her speech at the start of the second reading, in talking about why the National Party have opted to go for a single objective, “Perception does matter.”—perception does matter. Well, how’s this for a perception: that Government is saying that people in employment don’t matter. That Government is saying that jobs don’t matter. That Government is saying that people getting a decent wage in their back pocket doesn’t matter.

Now, here on this side of the House, as a proud Labour Party, we know that jobs matter, that for ordinary people the dignity of having a job that earns a decent wage matters, that the dignity of knowing that your labour is valued matters, that the dignity of knowing that employers can’t just toss you out on the street matters. You see, the wonderful thing about full maximum sustainable employment is it means that employers need to compete a bit for labour. They need to offer a decent wage so that the working person gets up in the morning and knows that as she or he goes to work, it is not a matter of desperation but of a decent wage for decent day’s work because there is maximum sustainable employment.

So when we say that perception does matter, I put it to the committee that the perception that this Government is creating is that employment doesn’t matter. But it especially matters for Māori, for Pacific people, for rural people, and for young people. Employment makes a huge difference in those communities. So when the Minister of Finance says perception does matter, I suggest that she might like to take those words to heart and think about the perception that is out there that this National Party does not care about employment.

On this side of the House, we know that in the past few years we have managed an economy with very low unemployment, the lowest unemployment in 30 years. We know that when he was the Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson managed to produce this even though we were dealing with a global pandemic. In the hardest time that has hit New Zealand since, I guess, the world wars or before, we nevertheless had the lowest unemployment for 30 years. And at the same time, yes, inflation went up as part of a whole worldwide phenomenon, but it is coming down. Why? Because both those objectives could be managed.

As I said, this is the sort of nuance that would have come through. The National Party has chosen to avoid nuance. The Government doesn’t care about employment. That’s what this bill is telling us. This House should reject this ridiculous bill.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise with great pride to speak on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill. The National Party and the ACT Party campaigned on removing the dual mandate and getting the Reserve Bank focused back on achieving and maintaining stability in the general level of prices over the medium term, and that is exactly what this bill does. We are keeping our commitment with our coalition with the New Zealand First Party to deliver on this, and I’m proud to do that.

Let me just say I am child of the 1980s in New Zealand and I know what inflation does to people at the bottom end who don’t have a lot of money. I know what inflation does to employment. I know what inflation does to the price of food. It means that people don’t buy it—they don’t have the money to buy it. We need to fix inflation in this country to fix this economy to make sure people can have good jobs, can build good businesses, and put food on the table. That is exactly what this bill is about.

Some of the things we have heard from the other side tonight have just blown me away. They’re saying that the National Party or the coalition doesn’t care about employment, doesn’t care about people, etc. It’s complete and utter nonsense. In fact, those members might want to just have a look at some interesting comments made by, let’s say, the International Labour Organization. There’s someone you’d think the left would probably pay attention to, but in the speeches I’ve heard tonight I don’t think so. But let me just, for the interest of the House, read out a few things that they’ve said about price stability. They said, “Severe inflation is reducing the purchasing power of the middle classes and hitting low-income households particularly hard. Income inequality and poverty will rise if the purchasing power of the lowest paid is not maintained. Rising inflation has a greater cost of living impact on low-income workers. This is because they spend most of their disposable income on essential goods and services which generally experience greater price increases than non-essential items. Inflation is also biting into the purchasing power of minimum wages. Accelerating price inflation is quickly eroding the real value of minimum wages in many countries for which data is available.”

You’d think this is something the left would pay attention to. Inflation affects those who have the least the most, and that’s what this bill is about. It is about addressing the thief in the pocket of all New Zealanders, particularly poor New Zealanders. We are here to solve that. We are here to help the poor; to help the workers. We are here to get this country back on track and create opportunity for them and help them and help their children. That’s what this is about.

The regulatory impact statements, as has been noted by a couple, said that perceptions of the effectiveness of monetary policy matter. So perceptions of the effectiveness of monetary policy matter. They said: “Expectations can have a significant impact on inflation outcomes.” I’ll say it again: “Expectations can have a significant impact on inflation outcomes.” That’s why getting rid of this dual mandate, getting us back to a single mandate, is so important. We are fixing any misperception that there may be out there; any expectations that are not set properly that this is what this Government is out to do. We are here to fix inflation; to fix this economy; to make sure people can build good businesses here, create good opportunities for employment, create good opportunities for people who can develop a mana that they get from jobs, put food on the table for their children. And we will not have a return of the 1980s.

Can I say, a big reason I came to this House back in 2020—I put my hand up to come into this House and to give up my previous life—was because of that experience in the 80s, that experience of being a kid who did not have food on my table. This is why we are doing this tonight. We are here to fix the inflation—that will mean the kids of today and tomorrow do not have to experience that. So this is incredibly important. I’m very proud to be a part of a Government that’s delivering on what we went to the people of New Zealand to say. We are here to fix the economy. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Part 1 Amendment to Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s objectives

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill. I would start by reminding members that the wording of the closure motion has changed in this Parliament. The new wording is “That debate on this question now close.” I refer members to Standing Order 137(1). Members, we come first to Part 1.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. So this is the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clause 4, “Amendment to Reserve Bank of New Zealand objectives”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just checking to see if the Minister wanted to take the opportunity to introduce this particular part to the House. I’ve got a number of questions for the Minister around why this particular part has come in front of us. The first of those I want to deal with is the question of whether or not there have been, in the time that the dual mandate has been in place, any times at which the Reserve Bank’s focus on reducing inflation has in any way been impacted by the fact that there is a dual mandate. Because consistently, in the time that I was the Minister of Finance and the time in which the Governor of the Reserve Bank has been in place, he has stated repeatedly that the Reserve Bank has focused squarely on inflation and that they don’t feel that at any point they have been compromised in that focus.

The member is bringing a bill to the House. It’s a serious matter. It’s a matter of changing a law, a law that is a significant part of our economic framework, that is arguably part of our constitutional framework—hasn’t gone off to a select committee, hasn’t had the ability to be scrutinised. And here we are because the Minister believes that somehow or other the Reserve Bank’s focus on inflation has been diluted by the fact that we were asking them to also have a focus on supporting maximum sustainable employment.

So my first question for the Minister is: what advice, if any, has she received that there was less of a focus on inflation because of the dual mandate in the time that it has been in place?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I have said that I’ve been very much looking forward to this committee of the whole House stage to put a few questions to the Minister. So I’d just like to back up those sentiments from the former Minister because, as we’ve well canvassed—and, actually, as is reflected in the monetary policy remit review from June 2023—it’s pretty clear in black and white from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand that there hadn’t been any meaningful impact or other decisions that would have been made had they not had that dual mandate and solely the focus on price stability. So I just really wanted to reiterate that call for the Minister to put forward any evidence that she may have seen that this did, in fact, impact their decision making in a way that they undertook different decisions than those that they did take if they did not have that dual mandate in the first place.

Secondarily, or a second question to put forward to the Minister, because as is canvassed in the regulatory impact statement, there are a number of different options before her—I believe three that her officials considered—and there are a number of pluses and minuses on page 7, for those who may be following along at home. I wanted to ask the Minister if she meaningfully explored any of those other options, particularly on the monetary policy committee (MPC) remit only, or the Order in Council, but particularly on the remit, given that that seemed to be the advice of officials in the consensus that they all came to.

So the first question was on the impact on decision making of that dual mandate. The second is on whether the Minister considered meaningfully any of the other alternative routes so that we wouldn’t have to spend a few hours in the House tonight going through this legislative amendment.

The third is what all of this actually means for the remit in general for the MPC. Throughout the last term in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, we spent a lot of time on particularly the remit and the remit’s focus on sustainable house prices and the kind of ambiguity of that. So I just wanted to ask the Minister whether she had any consideration of—given the kind of sole focus that she seems to have on price stability alone—whether she intends to also drop that focus on sustainable house prices or insert any other variables. Because I’ve at least heard it alluded to that there’s the intention to still have some form of consideration to maximum sustainable employment, but it’s not yet clear how that would take form.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): As I’ve alluded to before, we haven’t had a select committee stage in this bill, but I have heard from a number of people, so I do want to bring some of those letters to the House so that they at least inform the discussions as we go through this part of the bill.

The first one is from Clare Hargrave, and she writes to me: “I understand the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill is going through all stages in the House today, which is unfortunate because such an important move must be discussed widely and carefully.” I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister says about this. She says, “I strongly oppose the bill to remove maximum sustainable employment as an essential consideration for the Reserve Bank when setting monetary policy. It may be considered that high unemployment is useful to keep inflation down, but it is self-defeating in that high unemployment is bound to lead to increased expenditure on jobseeker benefits, greater inequality and poverty, with all its attendant damage, particularly to children’s development as productive members of society. The short-term objective of higher unemployment may have an economic effect, but the long-term damage to society must result in a weaker economy, particularly in reduced productivity.”

She goes on to say, “Inter-generational benefit dependence is damaging as it reduces access to education at tertiary level. An educated population is a public good in every respect, and anything that reduces that is damaging to society.” She finishes off by saying, “New Zealand is not a business aiming to sustain high profits to the owners and shareholders but a society whose aim should be to sustain a high standard of public benefit to all its members while retaining a healthy economy.”

Just for context, this is someone I know in West Auckland. We were talking about this, and I invited her to write to me about it, and I did want to share this with the committee, and I will share some other letters in due course. But because we didn’t have a select committee process, I think it is important to discuss some of these views from ordinary New Zealanders who are concerned about this bill. Thank you.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well, look, I’d say to the member’s constituent that I share her desire to see high employment, and have received advice that the pre-condition for that to occur is price stability, which is the objective of this bill. Not only do I share that objective from the member’s constituent but I too abhor unnecessary dependence, and I would point to the fact that the previous Government managed the singular achievement of increasing dramatically the number of people on a jobseeker benefit even while unemployment fell. I would invite the member herself to explain that phenomenon to her constituents.

The member prior to her asked why it is that we are amending the Act and whether we gave consideration to a change to the remit only. I would note that without amending the Act, the monetary policy committee (MPC) would still be required to have regard to maximum sustainable employment. So that would not achieve the objectives that we have, which is a single focus on price stability. And as I’ve noted to the House previously, we have received advice that there is value in amending the Act to signal a greater focus on price stability than that which could be achieved through a new remit alone. I’d also note the Reserve Bank’s findings in its review last year, in which it said that a prioritisation of objectives was preferable. We believe that by having this single objective, we achieve that prioritisation in the clearest way possible, and that we provide benefits in clarifying not only how the MPC operates but we signal a greater focus on price stability for the future, because circumstances could arise in which the objectives conflict, and we wish to be clear about our priority on price stability.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Point of order. Well, Mr Chair, I’ll take it as a call, but I also will come back to this matter. I asked very clearly to the member Nicola Willis whether she had received any advice that at any point while the dual mandate has been in place, this compromised the Reserve Bank’s focus on inflation. I asked that question in my first call and I ask that question again now of the Minister. It’s an important point, because the Minister has spent a significant amount of time in this debate telling us that we need to be crystal clear and laser-focused on inflation, and what we’ve heard consistently from the Reserve Bank Governor over the time that the dual mandate has been in place is that it has not caused him, or the monetary policy committee, or the Reserve Bank in general to take their eye off the ball of inflation.

So I ask the Minister again, directly: has she had any advice that the dual mandate has caused the Reserve Bank to compromise its focus on inflation? I will sit down now, and I would like to hear an answer.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. One of the issues that I would like some information and some answers from the Minister in the chair on is what advice she’s had around international best practice. The Minister has talked about price stability being the pre-condition for high employment, but she hasn’t addressed those questions that colleagues in the Chamber have been asking about the advice she’d got around that.

So I’d like to extend that to what advice she took around which other countries are doing it. There’s a small number of central banks that have price stability as their sole mandate and focus and their sole economic objective. But a larger number have a dual mandate that equally weights price stability and employment objectives. Of course, this includes the US Federal Reserve. My colleague the Hon Grant Robertson talked about the way in which they’re seeing very much those things that need to go together in that way.

But the other thing that I’d like to ask the Minister is: if she didn’t look at the dual mandate, did she ask for any advice around having employment as a secondary objective within the legislation so that it wouldn’t be that we’re just giving up on a focus on jobs and wages for ordinary New Zealanders and retreating and being a bit of an outlier of the economies that we’d usually compare ourselves with? So did she seek that advice on international best practice, and, specifically, whether she sought advice on having the secondary objective—if she was intent in this ceremonial act of repealing this piece of legislation solely because it had been enacted by a previous Government, whether she’d sought advice around the secondary objective?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. Appreciate the Minister’s answer to one of the three questions that I put just there before, but I would really appreciate her responses to those other two questions. Because I totally appreciate—as she herself alluded to—that the remit review in June 2023 spoke to the need for prioritisation of explicitly that dual mandate and particularly the foreshadowing or the primacy of the price stability focus. But again, my point was that that could be achieved through a change to the remit, as again was recommended by her officials.

I also am left with the question of if the factual mandate is to be removed from the legislation, how then is she to put forward the mandate to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ)? Is she going to include some form of consideration for maximum sustainable employment or employment in general? Is she going to retain that remit which currently has a focus also on house price sustainability? Is there going to be a hierarchy therein? Because these are all still questions that are yet to be answered because we haven’t had the opportunity to go through a robust select committee process on this.

So I appreciate that the Minister alluded to an answer around whether she considered the monetary policy committee remit avenue as was recommended by officials, but we’re still left really wanting for answers to those two questions of what the remit in general she intends to have contained, whether there will be any reference there to maximum sustainable employment or employment in general, whether there will be other variables in there, such as, for example, sustainable house prices presently in there.

Hon David Seymour: Why is the member asking this?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: You’ll have your turn, David. And also whether there will be any consideration of or any further outlining of the evidence that she has on whether there has been any meaningful impact on decision making by the RBNZ and the monetary policy committee.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): In answer to the member’s question: yes, I did receive advice that the dual mandate could affect monetary policy decisions, and in particular—as I have stressed—this is not just about the decisions the Reserve Bank makes but also the interpretation of those decisions. The Reserve Bank itself has supported the intention of clarifying its focus on inflation. And a further note that it is possible that some market participants will see the return to a single mandate as strengthening the Reserve Bank’s focus on price stability that, in turn, will lead to an adjustment in their inflation expectations, which have a direct impact on actual rates of inflation.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Point of order first, Mr Chair. I’m very well aware, having sat in the chair that the Minister is now in, that one of the issues in the debates on the committee of the whole House is the question of new material and non-repetition. When a Minister fails to answer a direct question twice—in the case that’s just occurred—

Hon Nicola Willis: How many times you did that to me!

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The point of order will be heard in silence.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I want to be assured that coming back to material that the Minister has failed to answer is not considered by you as a presiding officer as repetition, because the changes that were made to the Standing Orders to change this whole process of the committee of the whole House—our Government worked extremely hard on actually answering questions, and I’d like some assurance that that is going to occur now.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Thank you. I’ll treat that as a point of order; however, that is something for the Chair to decide. If the Minister in the chair does choose not to direct or respond to the questions, that may well be something that we take into account were we to receive a closure motion.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Having asked the Minister twice now whether or not she received advice that, when the dual mandate was actually in place, that took the Reserve Bank focus away from inflation, and her not to have answered that question twice, it is clear that what we all know in this House is what the Reserve Bank Governor has said publicly, which is that it didn’t. They knew that their job right now, with inflation spiking all over the world, was to bring it down, and it did not impact on them.

When the Minister spoke before, she used the words “could” and “would be possible that it might happen”. That’s not, Mr Chair, with respect, what I asked. What I asked was whether or not the Minister had been advised that there had been some kind of impact, and the answer is no. And that’s the fallacy that this part of the bill is built upon. I’ll give the Minister a chance now to answer another question, and that is whether or not she believes the Reserve Bank, in doing their job on monetary policy, should give consideration to the impact of monetary policy on employment.

Earlier in the debate, Chlöe Swarbrick said that she thought that the Minister had said that she thought employment should be part of the consideration; I’m not sure I actually heard that, so I would like a clarification from the Minister as to whether or not she believes that there should be any consideration whatsoever of employment. We get the fact that the Minister doesn’t want maximum sustainable employment to be one of the objectives. She’s provided no evidence as to why that’s a problem. In fact, she’s refused to answer the question twice now of whether or not there is any evidence that it was a problem. So we can take from that that there is no evidence to back it up.

So, then, let’s move to the next stage of this, which is whether or not employment should be considered at all. Now, I have to say that it would be a radical departure from monetary policy pretty much anywhere in the world to not consider employment at all. I get it; some people have this within their objective, like the Federal Reserve, like the Reserve Bank of Australia. Others have to refer to it: the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England. They don’t have it directly in there, but they still think about employment, and we are moving into very, very dangerous territory if the position of the Minister is that employment, and the consideration of employment, has no role whatsoever, because that then will take us to the example that I gave in the second reading debate of when, in 2013 and 2014, we had a Reserve Bank Governor with the single mandate who simply believed that it was time for him to start lifting the official cash rate even though unemployment was up over 5 percent at the time.

So I invite the Minister again, in light of the ruling the from the Chair, to answer the question of whether or not there is any actual evidence to back this bill up. It’s not a “could”, it’s not a “possible”; it’s whether or not it did do anything to way the Reserve Bank worked on inflation.

Then, secondly, I’d like to know whether the Minister believes the Reserve Bank should be taking account of matters to do with employment, unemployment, or maximum sustainable employment when it is making its decisions.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2023

(continued on Wednesday, 13 December 2023)

Bills

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Amendment to Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s objectives (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the committee is resumed on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill. When we suspended overnight, we were considering Part 1. Once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.

Members, before we begin, I will inform the committee that we have received a number of tabled amendments on this part of the bill. Some are in order and will be voted on. A number of amendments are contrary to the objectives and principles of the bill. The bill has a specific intention that is to narrow the Reserve Bank’s economic objectives to a single focus on price stability. I have considered some amendments in the name of the Hon Grant Robertson that would expand the Reserve Bank’s economic objectives and are therefore out of order.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in this debate. This is my first contribution to the debate; I have not had an opportunity to speak in the first or second reading, so I’m very enthusiastic to speak with the Minister today. Now, I have one specific question that is really important for me to have some answers on before I speak to the House about my proposed amendments. There are a number of amendments proposed in my name which I think will help the House to improve the intentions of the bill. However, I need some answers on these specifically. Just to flag for the Minister, the specific question is about the November 2021 Monetary Policy Statement of the Reserve Bank, but before I ask my question, I’ll give a bit of context.

So, recently, New Zealand’s economy has been through a period of quite extreme fluctuation that, you know, fluctuated to a degree that we haven’t seen in a very long time. Late 2020 through to early 2021 saw widespread concerns about rising unemployment. This was a period where the country’s focus was on the immediate effects of COVID-19. We were in a period where both our fiscal and monetary policy had to respond to the concern that there would be widespread job losses in New Zealand, and that was focused, you know, in this global context of this happening all over the world. So we needed to act together as Government and as the Reserve Bank to guard against that. Then, continued weak economic activity in the wake of the initial shock from COVID-19 furthered that need to keep people connected with their jobs and their employers.

But some months later, the nature of what was worrying commentators actually changed. Policy makers had undergone this sort of whiplash shift between these extreme concerns looking overseas at job losses to then being worried about an economy with too much slack and that might have been in danger of overheating. It’s quite unusual in the economic history of New Zealand, and very unusual around the world, where not only are we shifting policy priorities over, you know, say a year or two but, actually, that same concern is playing out within six months. So you have this challenge of inflation over the past few years in all advanced economies dealing with those ranges of shocks, but then we get to this problem of whether repealing the dual mandate might have had some stabilising effect on that, and my contention would be that it did not. Returning the Reserve Bank to a single objective here, I would say, wouldn’t have had any effect on, you know, the way that the Reserve Bank was acting during that time period, and certainly not within the sort of 10 years preceding that. Had the Reserve Bank been operating under a straight inflation-targeting objective in recent years, it would not have had a different outcome.

But my question to the Minister is about whether she herself agrees with that contention, or whether, in her speeches to the House when she said that the change that she is proposing would have improved the situation with inflation, that’s the case, because if the Minister is correct in her assertion that the Reserve Bank would have been able to do something different about inflation, then there might be something else going on which would be really useful for the House to know.

So I come, then, to my question about the 2021 Monetary Policy Statement from the Reserve Bank that employment was above its maximum sustainable level. In more general terms, that means that unemployment was lower than it could be sustained. So my question to the Minister is: does she agree with that statement, and, if so, did she believe that the Reserve Bank was also acting in that way, because if the Reserve Bank was saying one thing and doing another, if they were in fact not acting to—you know, if they were continuing on a project of trying to bring unemployment down, then perhaps she’s right. She’s told the House that this change will have an impact on inflation. Is that because she believes that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) was telling us in 2021 that maximum unemployment had been reached, but does she think that the RBNZ was not actually following what it was saying? This is important to my Amendment Paper that I’ve proposed to clause 4, which provides a more flexible approach to monetary policy. If the idea is that the RBNZ says one thing and does another, then that won’t work, and I want to hear from the Minister if that’s what she’s contending.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Senior Whip—National): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. There are many members on this side of the Chamber keen to contribute on Part 1 of this bill. I want to do two things in this call. I want to recap on two questions I asked the Minister last night that I have not had an answer to. The first of those is a very specific question on whether or not the Minister has had advice that there was anything in the dual mandate that caused the Reserve Bank to take its focus off reducing inflation. I asked that question twice last night and I haven’t had an answer. It’s a very important question because it goes to the heart of the Government’s argument for why they are putting this bill, and clause 4 in particular, in front of the House.

The argument being advanced by the Minister is that the Reserve Bank took its eye off the ball when it came to inflation. In fact, what we heard from the Reserve Bank Governor himself on multiple occasions is that that is not the case and that the dual mandate did not affect the focus on inflation. So I would like to know, again, whether or not the Minister has had advice to the contrary on that, because it is in fact the heart of what has been asked.

The second question that I asked last night and haven’t had an answer to was whether or not the Minister believes that the Reserve Bank should take into account matters to do with the impact of monetary policy on employment at all. We’ve established by the nature of the bill that’s in front of us that the Minister doesn’t believe it should be one of the two objectives of the bank. Having established that, then the question we want to know the answer to is: does employment have any role whatsoever?

Now, as I noted last night, it would be a radical departure by the Minister to not believe that employment had any merit for consideration, and in order to help shape this discussion, since the Minister declined to answer that question as well last night, I refer the Minister and indeed the committee to amendments in my name to clause 4 that would try to meet the Government halfway. It says to the Government, “OK, you no longer want two objectives in that clause that, arguably”—and I don’t agree with this, but the Minister has argued this—“cause confusion.” I think the people who work at the Reserve Bank are capable of dealing with two issues at once. But if we want to meet halfway, I have an Amendment Paper that would make the maximum sustainable employment objective subservient or subordinate to the inflation control objective. Because that seems to be the issue that the Minister has raised in the House—that somehow or other there’s this confusion.

So if the Minister does believe that employment is a factor the Reserve Bank should take into account, which, as I say, every Reserve Bank in the world does, so if she doesn’t believe that, we’ve got a bigger problem and she should tell us that. But if that is what she does believe, then here is the opportunity for the Minister to agree to the Amendment Paper that I have put up, which would make the economic objective to achieve and maintain stability in the general level of prices over the medium term and, subject to that subsection, supporting maximum sustainable employment.

So it does the thing that the Minister last night said she wanted, which is a hierarchy of objectives. And this is a point too, because the Minister relied a number of times last night on the letter that she has received from the Reserve Bank indicating their support for—and I believe this is the exact phrase—prioritisation.

Now, that’s actually quite different from what the Minister’s proposing, because she’s not proposing prioritisation; she’s proposing getting rid completely of the maximum sustainable employment objective. So if she is so keen on the letter that the Reserve Bank Governor and the chair of the board sent to her, here’s an opportunity to fulfil that by taking on board my amendment which would create the prioritised list that the Reserve Bank are looking for.

So just to recap on my contribution, I’m still after an answer to the question of whether or not the Minister has any advice or indeed any evidence of whether the Reserve Bank’s dual mandate meant that they didn’t take decisions on inflation control that they should have, and then, secondly, whether or not the Minister believes that employment should have a role in the decision making of the Reserve Bank when it comes to the official cash rate and its monetary policy. And if that is the case and she does think that, then there is now an opportunity here for her to adopt my Amendment Paper. But I would appreciate an answer to those questions.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next call, can I just remind the member that if this is the third time he’s asked that question, it is leaning towards being repetitive.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Point of order, Madam Chair. With respect, last night I raised a point of order on this exact subject with the person who was the presiding officer in the Chair. I agree, and I raised it because I was concerned that a presiding officer would rule exactly the way that you just have. The new system that was brought in in last Parliament for the committee of the whole House relies on elements of cooperation around answering questions, and I sought a ruling from the presiding officer that if a question was not answered, referring again to the fact that it had not been answered, would not be repetition. The presiding officer said that would be a factor that he would take into account. I’d be very concerned if the failure of a Minister to answer a question led to the closure of a debate.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and a pleasure to be back debating this, this morning, after a late one last night. I still have a few points that I’d like the Minister to address, and I think that they are really salient points, because while it may seem as though we’re kind of splitting hairs here with this debate, the devil really actually is in the detail, because what this bill does is remove the dual mandate of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand—the focus on price stability and on maximum sustainable employment. As the former Minister was just elucidating, we have quite a strong reliance on a report on the remit and the mandate from June 2023 from the monetary policy committee, which spoke about the need to have a potential hierarchical ordering of that dual mandate. That is, I think, what is largely reflected in the letter which the Minister has now tabled.

So, to that effect, I just really think it’s important to drill into and to get some real clarity from the Minister on whether she thinks that employment, or maximum sustainable employment, or any iteration of that should be included within the considerations of the Reserve Bank when setting monetary policy. I heard from her very clearly in her answer last night that she does not believe that it should be, obviously, put in this legislative dual mandate, but the question still remains as to whether she thinks it should be within the broader monetary policy committee’s remit, the likes of which house price sustainability has also currently been considered within.

I also have a further and important and interesting point on whether house price sustainability should continue to be considered within that remit too. Secondly, and it may feel like we are labouring this point, but this is a really, really important one, because it goes to the heart of the question of the purpose of this legislation. Again, we have had this over-reliance on this letter from the Reserve Bank Governor on the fact that there needed to be some hierarchical ordering of that dual mandate or a prioritisation of the mandate, and that financial stability should always take that primacy.

But, again, I do ask the Minister if she has seen any evidence as to whether that dual mandate has changed the focus or has meant that there has been a deprioritisation of price stability. Because if that is the case, then the words we have heard from the Reserve Bank Governor, Adrian Orr, in the Finance and Expenditure Committee hearings over the last three years are to be taken as untrue, and that’s a pretty serious allegation which underlines the proposal herein.

The third thing is about that point of perception, and I think this is an important point that the Minister raised last night, and, obviously, it’s reflected in the regulatory impact statement and also in a number of contributions from members of the Government. It’s about how perceptions of the Reserve Bank’s focus on inflation and price stability in turn impacts the behaviour of market participants and that those market participants then may behave in ways that result in more inflation or less thereof or otherwise.

So I was just wondering if the Minister could elaborate on that point. I’m not here seeking to be obtuse but I think that it is a really relevant point. When we’re talking about the economy, which, as we all know, is just all of us and the things we create and what we trade and the value that we produce and the earth that we live on—and, you know, we have quite different ideological standpoints on how and where we should go and how we should create those rules and regulations. But none the less, who are those market participants and what kind of behaviour are we scared of them participating in which then results in that greater potential or inflation? What is the evidence that this decision is being made on? I think that is a valuable piece of information that the general public should be able to take from this that’s currently being debated, because, once again, it’s a fundamental premise of this legislation—that perception is really, really important to the behaviour of those market participants. So who are they and how differently are they behaving as a result of this dual mandate?

And just to potentially help move things along here with regard to getting more evidence on the table and therefore having a more thoroughly informed debate in lieu of not having a select committee process, the Minister has referred to the letter from the Reserve Bank Governor—and I thank her for tabling it—but may I ask her to table the letter that she wrote to the Reserve Bank Governor, because it feels as though there were a few options laid on the table therein, which means that potentially we could have a more informed debate if we were to understand what options she was seeking advice on and got a response upon.

So just to be really clear on those points I’m asking about. They are: what is the place for employment within the consideration of the Reserve Bank and the monetary policy committee when it comes to setting monetary policy? Is it to exist within the remit, and, as an addendum to that, where does house price sustainability sit within that if the general broader thrust is that there needs to be a laser-like focus on price stability solely?

The second is this outlying question—a question that still remains on the table—as to what evidence she has seen on whether the dual mandate impacted or meant that there was a lesser prioritisation of the price stability point of the mandate. Because, again, if that is the case, then are we to take it that Adrian Orr was not being forthright, upfront, or honest with the select committee? That is quite a serious underlying allegation.

The third thing is: who are those market participants and what is this perception that we’re scared about?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Madam Chair, I’m going to take this opportunity to spell out once again—and repetition that I hope the House will indulge me in—the answers to the repeated questions that clearly the former member for Wellington Central has failed to grasp the answers to.

So he has asked about when might price stability in employment objectives be in conflict and have they been in conflict, and as I’ve said in my contributions to the House previously, often the objectives of price stability and maximum sustainable employment will align. However, the objectives could move in opposite directions and one of the challenges that we have—

Hon Grant Robertson: Not the question I asked.

NICOLA WILLIS: —and if the member would listen, he’ll understand the answer—having a dual mandate can present challenges to decision makers where objectives are in tension. In turn, this makes it—and listen carefully here, Mr Robertson—difficult to assess monetary policy committee performance, monetary policy committee performance, and to ensure accountability for decision making. Which is to say it is challenging to understand the decision-making processes that have been undertaken where we have—this is, as I have been clear about providing clarity to everyone involved in the monetary policy regime, those assessing the decision-making processes of the monetary policy committee, the general public, and the members of that committee. And a single mandate makes clear what the objective of the monetary policy committee is, which is price stability—putting a lid on inflation. It also makes clear that other matters such as supporting New Zealanders with the cost of unemployment—that is the purview of fiscal policy, not monetary policy, because we don’t think it makes sense to ask the Reserve Bank to try to solve a problem which is actually the presiding role of the Government and its policy.

There’s also the issue that there are real challenges to including maximum sustainable employment that arise from measurement issues, because it is more or less impossible to measure maximum sustainable employment. And I’d note that some market participants, like Business New Zealand, have noted that with so many balls in the year, the bank can no longer concentrate on monetary policy’s prime purpose of ensuring relatively stable price levels over time. And that, unfortunately, could reduce New Zealanders’ confidence in the independence and predictability of the bank’s monetary policy settings.

I’d also note, and Minister Robertson—the former Minister Robertson may remember this, that when he introduced the maximum sustainable employment objective, it was recognised that at that time that if the bank put more weight on employment stabilisation at certain points in the cycle, that could lead to higher volatility in inflation. And I think everyone in this House knows that recent years have demonstrated the high costs of inflation and the impact that has had on New Zealanders.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: But have they? That’s the question you’re not answering. Why don’t you answer the question—have they?

NICOLA WILLIS: So reducing the possibility of volatility—Mrs Woods—in future rates of inflation is actually a priority for this Government.

I just want to move, second, to the question of the content of the remit and the charter. I want to assure the member Chlöe Swarbrick that we will retain the flexible inflation targeting regime under which the response of the Reserve Bank to inflation is tempered by considering the impact on other factors in the real economy. I will publish an updated remit and charter upon passage of this Act.

Finally, I want to note that there are a number of amendments that have been tabled and suggested by the member Hon Grant Robertson, who can’t seem to make up his mind what the purpose of the Reserve Bank Act has been, because I can count several different ideas he has, which is rather symptomatic of the member—that he couldn’t just land on one thing. Well, on this side of the House we can land on one thing, which is: we’re going to beat inflation, and this Act is going to help us do it.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask you, Minister, about what I heard last night from many of the speakers on the Government side of the House. They talked about helping hard-working New Zealanders and I wondered how that was possible if the mechanism used puts such New Zealanders out of work, and that is my concern. I come from a background of employment law and I know how important it is that people work for their wellbeing and the wellbeing of their families, but I also know how important it is to the economy that people keep working. My understanding of the Reserve Bank is that, ultimately, it’s there for the public good, so it’s incredibly important that what it’s achieving is done mindful of the full employment of people, if at all possible.

My understanding of the term “maximum sustainable employment” is that it’s a particular term used, because the “sustainable” part of that is that if there is any tension between full employment and price stability, price stability wins out. There is, in fact, a hierarchy built into the term itself. I wondered, when you talked about the objectives being intention, whether you’d taken that into account or had any advice, because my understanding is that there is no tension, and that is why the Reserve Bank Governor has always been clear that there has been no problem.

Now, I do take on board that there is an issue raised about the perception of others, but I wondered and I wanted to ask you: isn’t it our job as a Government and as a Parliament to lead, not to sap up the way that people misconceive things? We need to bust myths, not assist them.

So I ask you this: do you agree that it is our job to make sure that people understand that the maximum sustainable employment part of this commitment is for the public good and is, in fact, a nod to the fact that they are incredibly important to the economy and that we run institutions like the Reserve Bank and, in fact, the Parliament for the wellbeing of people? Aren’t we actually in a situation that will lead to the alienation of the very people that we seek to support if, in fact, they lose their jobs in great numbers because the Reserve Bank is untethered from any concern about their wellbeing through work—and isn’t that what we’re all here to do, Minister? Aren’t we here to make sure that hard-working New Zealanders stay engaged and stay empowered by the fact that they can earn a decent living, and isn’t that absolutely critical to whether they survive the economic ups and downs and the tides of inflation that we’ve seen around the world?

I want to know what is it that you think the Reserve Bank is really about: why is it there, and why do we have any measures at all in this? I heard the Hon Grant Robertson talk yesterday about an earlier, historical occasion which really concerned me. It concerned me because a Reserve Bank Governor actually paid—people paid the price in their work because the mechanisms of the Reserve Bank were being used to drive down inflation at the total expense of workers. That’s the last thing that I want to see, and I wondered whether it is the last thing that you want to see, Minister. Do you want to see more unemployment if, in fact, that means that there will be a lower inflation rate, and at what point is that unacceptable to you? That’s my concern—where is the commitment?

So I wondered whether you would consider that, and why you would reject the amendments that have been put up that focus on a compromise here which makes it very clear that the Government and the Reserve Bank remain committed to full and stable employment. That seems incredibly important to me, and it really matters to people out there. It’s all very well to talk about helping hard-working New Zealanders—and I heard your colleagues say that over and over again—and it’s all very well to talk about how there is this scourge of theft through inflation, but the greatest theft is actually the capacity, isn’t it, Minister—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want, first of all, to pick up on some of the reflections that the previous speaker, Helen White, just spoke about. Last night, I wasn’t able to be in the House for a number of reasons and one of them was because I was attending the graduation of one of my children. As the member of Parliament for Mana, I’ve been to a number of prize-givings over the last few weeks and there’ve been some very strong messages that are coming out through both families who are attending these prize-givings—in some of the lowest socio-economic areas in this country—and through a number of the principals and the teachers I was speaking to.

In one particular message last night, the actual principal of that school said, “Can someone please tell the three Prime Ministers that, you know, learning through play, learning through camp, is the equivalent of learning literacy and writing—there are other ways to be able to learn it, because they’re already teaching the basics of learning and writing.” But this links back to why I’m standing in the Chamber and wanting to ask the Minister a question; it’s around perceptions. And so there is a perception, sometimes—by this Government, who has only just started—that there are a couple of failings in the rest of society. And yet when you go out into a community and you talk to these people within this society—both teachers and principals and families, and again, in some of the lowest socio-economic areas of the country—the perception that they might hold might actually be very different to the truth that is being held by those within that community.

And the reason why I focus on the word “perception” is because in the regulatory impact statement that has been put together by—I think it’s Treasury—

Hon Grant Robertson: Yes.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Treasury. And first of all, thank you very much for the Treasury officials for putting that together. I know it’s going to be a bit of a rarity over the next 100 days, but it clearly shows that you can put together a regulatory impact statement very quickly. Why I wanted to be able to focus on the word “perception” is because in paragraph 7 of that regulatory impact statement, it says: “Nonetheless, the dual mandate affects not only the policy decisions made by the monetary policy committee, but also perceptions of the effectiveness of monetary policy.” Perceptions. And again, I found it quite unusual that quite a subjective type of word was used in a regulatory impact statement, and what I wanted to understand was: the perceptions—when do they become evidence-based?

And I want to reference the speech by the Minister when she stood up and she had a long speech, trying to address the question that the Hon Grant Robertson asked her around “evidence-based”, but she didn’t actually address the question, and so I want to go back to the regulatory impact statement that references perceptions. In relation to that—perceptions—it’s actually talking about some of the Reserve Bank reports that have been done. But then if I go back to the evidence base, we need to go back to objectivity. So where does the evidence base come into this, and what advice has the Minister, again, received in relation to that evidence base? Because if you look at the relationship between our country’s inflation trajectory and our central bank—or Reserve Bank’s—mandate over the last two years, the evidence clearly shows a couple of things: that there is no such relationship that exists. Because if you look at other Governments which have higher inflation in countries with a dual mandate, but inflation is higher in those countries; and lower in countries with a single-mandate central bank.

So, unfortunately for the new Government, the perception that this dual mandate therefore makes it more difficult to focus on inflation seems null and void. Because again, in practice—and you’ve seen it through the Reserve Bank, the number of their documents, the Monetary Policy Statement. And I want to echo the sentiments of Chlöe Swarbrick, the MP for Auckland Central, who said, “What was that letter that their Minister actually sent the Reserve Bank Governor? I think it’s important that that gets tabled because that will be the context in which the response by the Reserve Bank Governor is received.” But when you look at New Zealand and Australia—both of which have central banks with dual mandates—inflation peaked at 7.2 percent and 7.8 percent respectively. But in Sweden—which has a central bank with a primary price stability mandate—it peaked at 12.3 percent. One mandate, higher inflation. Two countries: New Zealand and Australia, side by side in so many ways—and lot of Kiwis who are going overseas who want to chase that Australian dream instead of the New Zealand dream. Basically, we have the same settings, and I know the Australian federal bank also had its review quite recently actually, in the last few weeks.

So my question again to the Minister: what advice, what evidence-based advice—not around perceptions—as set out in the regulatory impact statement has she received?

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move that the debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that debate on this question ends.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Point of order, Madam Chair. Two points. The first is that the member incorrectly stated the motion to close debate, so therefore it was not in order. Secondly, Madam Chair, you’ll be very well aware, with the bill not going to select committee and a large number of my colleagues wanting to take a call about the concern we would have. But my primary point is the member did not close the debate correctly.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate I was unable to be in the House last night, but I do have an amendment, which I would like to speak to, so I appreciate the opportunity.

The amendment goes to the heart of what we object to in this bill. If I was to be really cynical, I’d say that the Government doesn’t care about people who don’t work, but they say they care about people who do work. The amendment restores the purpose of this monetary policy, and it would be to take out, remove in clause 7, the word “objective” and replace it with “welfare of working people”. It goes to the heart of what we are here for in Parliament. There might be some on that side of the House who say, “We’re just here for the economy, because the economy will deliver to all of the people of New Zealand.” Well, I’d like to think we could go a bit further and say, “We’re here for all the people of New Zealand.” A well-run economy, an efficient economy, indeed enables us to deliver benefits. But the purpose is for people, not for the economy. And if you get that back to front, you end up with monetary policy that is pure but not delivering for the purposes for which this Parliament is in existence. We’re here for the people of New Zealand—we would say for all New Zealanders.

Now, if we were to move in the direction of the current coalition Government, who say that we want everyone working, and those who don’t work we’d like to encourage them through incentives to get into work—well, if indeed that is the true objective of the coalition Government, then I would suggest that they vote for the amendment that we have tabled in clause 7 and reinsert the purpose of the monetary policy, yes—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Excuse me, I’ll just interrupt the member. We are still focused on Part 1 of the bill.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: My apologies, Madam Chair—Madam Speaker—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Chair.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Madam Chair—sorry, I’ve elevated you already, such is the honour of being the West Coast - Tasman MP. A very important honour, indeed; that’s right.

I go back to the point that I made first, and it relates to Part 1 and Part 2, the purpose of this piece of legislation—monetary policy in this country is actually for the people of the country. If we are to indeed have a dual purpose, which we should, then it must incorporate some reference to the people of New Zealand, not just to price stability. If we are to indeed look at price stability and ask the question as to why inflation has been so high, the reality is that we’ve had a Ukraine war; we’ve had closed COVID environments. Why have some prices gone up? Well, it has been import costs in some ways, but also the reason some have put up their prices is because they can. So I suggest that if the Government is as determined to bring down inflation, then it provides as much focus on commerce law and ensuring that there’s indeed true competition across all parts of our economy.

I’m sure that this side of the House will support any attempt to expose opportunism, because I know opportunism—maybe people on that side do know of businesses that have put up their prices because they can, which, actually, from a business perspective is not a bad strategy. But what we try to have in this economy is a competitive environment that keeps the lid on inflation, that doesn’t allow people to exploit opportunities unfairly, and, indeed, I welcome that Minister’s input to ensure that those areas of the economy where profits have been very, very healthy, where some might say that there have been drivers upward of prices and inflation, that maybe an attempt to focus on those areas might help keep the lid on inflation.

But in terms of this piece of legislation, removing the dual purpose that we inserted into it is a backward step for a country that has prided itself on social justice, prided itself on ensuring that benefits flow to all New Zealanders, prided itself on being a leader in the world, and, at a time when other reserve banks have more than one purpose with monetary policy, we’re taking a backward step, which seems to be part and parcel of the direction of this Government.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): It would be useful if members, in making contributions at this committee stage, had read the bills. The purpose of the bill already promotes the prosperity and wellbeing of New Zealanders and contributes to a sustainable and productive economy, so that is made clear.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on the question now close.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Grant Robertson’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to include in section 9(1)(a) the words “supporting the economic policy of the New Zealand Government, including its objectives for growth and employment” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Grant Robertson’s remaining tabled amendments to clause 4 are out of order as being inconsistent with the objects and principles of the bill. The Hon Grant Robertson’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 4 to amend the purposes of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 2021 is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Related amendments

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 5 to 13, “Related amendments”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you very much. Part 2 of the bill makes a large number of consequential changes as a result of Part 1 and the narrowing of the economic objective down. What it means is that a large number of sections in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act where there has been reference to the dual mandate will now become null and void.

I want to begin my questioning of the Minister in this part by asking her the question as to whether or not she believes that there is anywhere in the other parts of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act that the concept of maximum sustainable employment could be incorporated. The reason I ask this, Madam Chair, is because in Part 1, as you know, we didn’t get an answer to the question from the Minister as to whether or not she believed that the Reserve Bank should take into account concepts—be it maximum sustainable employment or any other concept—of employment as being a relevant consideration in monetary policy. As we know, this is, in fact, the view that the Reserve Bank stated to the Minister in the letter that she tabled to the House last night. It’s a question of prioritisation, not a question of exclusion.

So my question to the Minister here is that there are a large number of sections of the Act being amended in Part 2, and would the Minister consider that within those sections, there is scope to at least give the opportunity for the Reserve Bank to be able to speak more about employment, or consider employment more in the work that they do?

I mentioned earlier on in contributions on this matter that other central banks around the world certainly do do this. Now, they do it in a number of different ways. So a further question for the member is what consideration she gave to international examples of the way in which employment considerations are reflective. This is relevant to Part 2, because it is in these clauses that this becomes effectively operative, as noted by the repeal of a number of words by the Government in these clauses.

I will shortly table a number of amendments that would give an opportunity for the Government to be able to express that the Reserve Bank does in fact have a role when it comes to employment. There would be, for example, the ability to amend section 130 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, which would require a report on monetary policy to look at the impacts of the monetary policy committee’s approach on economic development and employment. That amendment, I believe, will be tabled in the name of Deborah Russell, when the time comes. It’s an example of the point I’m making here and the question I’m asking the Minister, as that would give an opportunity for, at the very least, a report to be made by the monetary policy committee to talk about employment.

Because we come back to the very beginning of this discussion: the Minister has presented no evidence to the committee that there is any conflict between the two. We’ve now gone through Part 1 and the objective has been narrowed. Here’s the opportunity for the Minister to actually acknowledge that people’s jobs, the wages that they earn, are important, to take the point that both Damien O’Connor and Chlöe Swarbrick made in Part 1: the economy is more than just the numbers on the page. It’s all of the things that people do in their day-to-day lives, and most importantly, in this case, the work that they do.

So here is an opportunity for the Minister to take up the idea that the Reserve Bank, like all other central banks around the world, should at least consider employment, and the clauses being amended in Part 2 are the place where the Minister can insert that. So I invite her to answer the question: is she prepared to take on the idea that employment is important and significant for a bank and use these clauses in Part 2 to be able to add in references to employment and ways in which the Reserve Bank could take them into account? If she doesn’t, that signals a very radical departure from what has been monetary policy over many years.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of questions pertaining to Part 2 of this bill. As the previous speaker, my colleague the Hon Grant Robertson, has indicated, the objective now has been changed through the passing of Part 1 of the bill, but in Part 2 there are a number of amendments, and given that now it is being narrowed down to that sole objective of the Reserve Bank, in Part 2 we have the opportunity—what measures are we going to put in place to ensure that employment is something that is still on the radar of the Reserve Bank? I have two amendments in my name to Part 2 of this bill; I’d like to speak to one of them in this call, and I’ll speak to another in a subsequent call that I have and some questions for the Minister of Finance around that.

The first amendment that I will be tabling is that we extend the membership of the monetary policy committee to contain no fewer than one trade union or worker representative. The purpose of this amendment is providing that consideration to employment matters when the monetary policy committee does come to consider these matters, that they do not lose sight of that incredibly important factor that needs to be considered—accepting there is the sole mandate that the objective has been narrowed to, but there is not a central bank in the world, even those with sole mandates, that doesn’t have some ability to keep sight of employment as an objective. So this would be a mechanism by which we could ensure that when monetary policy settings are being considered, there is that ability to keep that line of sight into things and that when those decisions are being made, those perspectives are being brought to bear. My colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds, in a contribution she made on Part 1 of this bill, tied back what was happening in this bill to her community at a prize-giving that she was at last night in Porirua, and how it is that those voices, when it comes to considering the decisions of monetary policies, which are about people’s jobs and wages and employment, how it is that we can ensure there are mechanisms for those considerations to be taken into account.

So my question for the Minister in the chair is: given that there is going to be the sole mandate, what mechanisms is the Minister going to put in place to ensure that we do not lose sight of those perspectives around employment when decisions are being taken by the monetary policy committee? If she isn’t willing to accept the amendment that there be no fewer than one trade union or worker representative that sits on that committee so they can bring those perspectives to bear, what alternative measures is she going to put forward, if any, to ensure that we do not lose sight of that?

One of the questions that I put to the Minister in Part 1 of the bill that wasn’t answered was about advice she had received around international best practice, particularly around secondary objectives. Now, I recognise we’ve moved beyond Part 1 of the bill and it’s not about that, but what I’d like to know from the Minister: has she received advice about international best practice when it comes to a central bank with a single objective—how it is that they can ensure that that line of sight is kept into employment? Obviously, you’ve heard in a number of speeches that the economy exists about people, that this is what the real economy is about. It’s about the people that Barbara Edmonds talked about in her speech. It’s about the members of my community in Wigram, that want to know that their jobs and their security are being taken into account when decisions are made when it comes to monetary policy.

So if not this amendment, then what, and what advice has the Minister received, either around options that she may have received from officials around that or what advice has she received on international best practice around mechanisms that can ensure that that line of sight is not lost when our central bank is narrowed to a single objective?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Returning the Reserve Bank to a single mandate is by no means out of step with international best practice, so long as a flexible approach to inflation targeting is maintained—which is allowed for by this Act—which means that the monetary policy committee can still have regard to the impact on the real economy in determining how quickly to achieve their primary goal of sorting out inflation. I would note that members are asking a number of questions that relate to the monetary policy committee remit, which the sooner we get this debate done, the sooner I can publish.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. Given what the Minister has just said about the importance of stabilising the real economy, I’m proposing an amendment to set that out clearly in the primary legislation. If the committee will turn its attention to the amendment in my name to clause 6. It’s to replace clause 6, section 10(1)(a)(i) with “Formulating through the MPC and implementing a monetary policy directed to the economic objective of stabilising the real economy.”

Madam Chair, if you’ll just let me bring the committee back to my contribution in the first part of this debate, I gave some context around the recent economic fluctuations that New Zealand’s economy has seen. This relates directly to the economic situation we find ourselves in now and my questions to the Minister about whether or not it is true that this bill would have an effect on our inflation now. So the contention on this side of the House is that had the dual mandate actually caused the Reserve Bank to stay its hand and counteract inflation in a half-hearted way, then we would expect to see notable differences in the approach of our Reserve Bank as compared with those economies that have a Reserve Bank with a single mandate. That’s not actually the case. The Reserve Bank’s approach has not only been in line with international counterparts with a single mandate but they actually chose to tighten their approach to the availability of cash in the economy faster than some of their international counterparts with a single mandate.

And so why that’s relevant to this amendment that I’m proposing—and I hope the House will take into consideration when voting on it later—is that this is a measure of meeting the Government halfway. It’s saying that in our primary legislation we all around this House acknowledge that the Reserve Bank has a role in stabilising not only the effect of price changes on consumers and on working people but also on their ability to get work and, if they are laid off from their jobs, to be able to find a new job. Having employment—especially for those people on the margins of employment, people who are Māori, people who are women, people who live in regions where unemployment climbs faster than those in the cities—is an important goal of the monetary policy committee and will always be a consideration. We’ve heard that from the Minister, and that is helpful for this debate to advance in that way.

So, if that is the case, if we all agree that our monetary policy should be focused on inflation and should also take into account the effect it has on the real economy, and that stabilising the economy is not only stabilising prices, it’s also stabilising people’s experience of the real economy, then it is useful for us as a House to say that in the primary legislation. It’s useful for us to set out that goal really clearly. You’ll have heard my colleague the Hon Grant Robertson talk about the need for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) monetary policy committee to do two things at once to be able to consider those things. The Minister needs to tell us if she does not have confidence in the monetary policy committee to also take into account the effect of their decisions on employment and people’s enjoyment of a stable economy, because that would be a radical departure of the Government’s approach to what it is telling the RBNZ. And because we haven’t had a select committee stage here in this legislation it’s also really important that we have a sense of where the Minister is tracking in her intentions with the RBNZ and how things will go forward.

Madam Chair, if you’ll allow me to just comment briefly on the lack of a select committee stage on this. It is a shame, I think, because the role of monetary policy within our economy is something of the constitutional framework of New Zealand. The RBNZ’s role should be independent from Government, and this section that I am seeking to amend actually makes that really clear. It says, “Formulating through the MPC and implementing monetary policy directed to the economic objective while recognising the Crown’s right to determine economic policy.” Those are balancing two considerations at once as well; we’re recognising that the RBNZ was designed in the 1980s when the Government did not have an independent approach to monetary policy in the same way, and that the RBNZ’s independent role is really important in establishing consumers’ and market participants’ faith in our economy and expectations that things will remain stable over time.

If we have a Minister who’s proposing that the RBNZ was saying one thing and doing another in its 2021 monetary statement then we do need to know that. We need to establish that, and that there will be a departure from the way that the Hon Grant Robertson has dealt with the RBNZ. I don’t think that that’s the case and that’s why we should make my amendment.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I just want to respond to a question put by the Hon Megan Woods which I think illustrates just how far the Labour Party is now prepared to stray from economic orthodoxy, because what she asked is whether a union rep could be appointed to the monetary policy committee. Now, this represents a significant departure from the Reserve Bank as it was presided over by the former Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, in which he oversaw the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 2021, that in Schedule 3, clause 20, says that, “A person [may] not be appointed on the basis that the person represents a particular industry sector.”

In fact, when Grant Robertson, back in the days when he used to do the make-believe that he believed in economic orthodoxy and he was responsible, he presided over an Act in which Schedule 3, clause 20 specifically required the Minister to appoint only “a person who, in the Minister’s opinion, [had] the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience”—the appropriate knowledge, skills, and experience—“to assist the monetary policy committee [in] its functions”. So I think what we can see, members, is that just as they strayed away from economic orthodoxy and threw new objectives at the bank and threw it at the wall and failed to actually achieve anything, so they will continue for the next couple of years straying from the orthodox path, being prepared to put the economy at risk. And what a concern that is.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I call Dr—sorry, the Hon Dr—

Hon Members: Deborah.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Deborah Russell. Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): We got there in the end. I have been seeking the call all morning, so I thank you for giving me an opportunity now. I have been seeking it because we did not have a select committee stage on this bill and so if we don’t have a select committee stage, for new members, the usual practice is to have a pretty extensive debate in the Chamber, and certainly more debate than has been allowed until now. So we do want to canvass some pretty serious issues in the Chamber, given that we were not able to do it in the select committee. Because we weren’t able to do it in the select committee, we weren’t able to hear submissions from people who had a real concern about the bill but I have sought opinions from people who have views on this bill and I want to bring one of those. To me, it’s written here; I’ve received it the last couple of days. It speaks particularly to a new clause that I have suggested for this part of the bill. I have an Amendment Paper there inserting a new clause which suggests that there should be compensation for workers adversely affected by monetary policy.

So, in support of this particular amendment—here’s what a westie, a west Auckland person, Michael Bain, wrote to me about this bill. He started because he was concerned, too. He said, “I have heard that the Government is attempting to rush through the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill which is of concern for me as any changes to this must and need to go through the select committee process as a bare minimum.” So, in lieu of that bare minimum, I’m going to read some of his submission which goes directly to this amendment that I have proposed. He points out that only focusing on inflation means that unemployment is used to keep inflation artificially low—used to artificially keep inflation low. He says “artificially” because although low inflation rates look good on paper, it does not take into consideration the impact and harm done on people, whānau, and communities where people have lost their jobs. It goes on to say high unemployment is damaging to our country, and having economists say that we need higher unemployment for a stronger economy is a morally reprehensible and irresponsible stance. It is also the stance of someone who has never had to line up at Work and Income to ask for help to cover the costs of schooling for a child, or to explain why childcare costs are more this month than they were last month.

Then Michael goes on to say, “I remember the economic policies of the 1990s under Jim Bolger’s and Jenny Shipley’s Government, where high unemployment was used as a tool to keep inflation rates down. I had just graduated from university and it was really hard to find a job at the time. I ended up spending a number of months on the unemployment benefit, now called jobseeker support. Every week, I had to go to a Work and Income office and explain what I had been doing in seeking work. It was embarrassing and degrading to have to go in every week. It felt like I was being interrogated and I was being judged for not having a job—

Hon Nicola Willis: What does this have to do with Part 2?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —or for not trying hard enough”—it goes to my amendment— “despite doing everything I could. I heard from a number of my fellow university graduates who were going through the same thing and were struggling with the same feelings of being judged and not being considered worthy enough.” No one should be forced into that scenario.

So employment purpose, it gives people motivation, it gives people hope, and it gives people inspiration. Unemployment is the opposite; it sucks hope out of life, it steals purpose, it drains motivation, and it kills inspiration. Knowing that the Government and the Reserve Bank are using unemployment as a tactic to make the economy appear better than it actually is is dehumanising. Then he asked me to really push this in the House and here’s the line that really got to me: he said, “We cannot see a return to 1990s ideology where people’s jobs and livelihoods are sacrificed on the altar of a low inflation figure.” That is why I have proposed this amendment. If we are going to sacrifice workers, if we are going to force people into unemployment in order to adjust around inflation then, he says, there should be compensation for those workers who are used as a tool in the economy. That is why we actually need to retain both maximum sustainable employment and price stability in the objectives for the Reserve Bank. So this goes to the heart of this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very pleased to follow on from my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, the previous speaker, who pointed to the past and the direction of travel for this not “back on track” but backtrack Government. The Minister spoke of economic orthodoxy or monetary orthodoxy, and on the same day that we’ve been in lockstep with the Canadians and the Australians on a humanitarian crisis, we seem to be moving apart when it comes to monetary policy. Because if we have a look at what Australia had proposed, of course, it had talked about a triple mandate. The recommendations that had come back on that review said no, it should go back to a dual mandate that included a secondary objective, which was, of course, employment. If we have a look at Canada, the Bank of Canada is now required to actively seek a level of maximum sustainable employment.

It’s simply sensible, logical, and progressive to include more than a single mandate for monetary policy. That was the doctrine of the 1990s that did result in the kinds of manipulation of employment rates to keep inflation down, and we do not want to go back to that.

The points I made—and I appreciate I got ahead of myself a little bit on Part 1, but Part 2 is around ensuring that we have more than a single objective. Because people are in this House, in Parliament, and should be in Government, even in a coalition Government that might be a muddle—they should be here for people, for the multiple purposes that people exist and work in New Zealand, not for the purpose of a low-inflation economy that is supposed to automatically deliver benefits for each and every New Zealander.

Because the reality is if the Reserve Bank is to manipulate things to ensure that unemployment rises to stop any labour inflationary pressures—and that’s an economic, logical argument. That’s the reality, of course. And there’ll be people who say that, you know, if we have full employment—and the coalition Government is saying that: if employment is part of this, then in fact we may have pressure from the labour market upward that flows through to inflation. That indeed is a reality, but so too is the opportunity to increase profits if you’re in a part of the economy that has a monopolistic position where they can push up prices just because of the benefit of scale or lack of competition.

Nothing is referenced in this piece of legislation to address some of the other pressures on inflation. All this coalition Government is attempting to do is to take away the focus of full employment as an objective for monetary policy.

Well, I would like to—and I heard on the hustings from many people across the other side of the House that we want as many people working as possible, and 100,000 people who should be working, who are not working, should get off their backsides and go and work. That’s what I heard. And yet this Government has come in and one of the first pieces of legislation—in fact, the first piece of legislation—is to remove the objective in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act to try and get that to happen. That is to make sure that monetary policy, a core framework for our country, has, as part of its objective, employment as well as low inflation.

This is a backtrack piece of legislation, and I am horrified that we’re running counter to economic orthodoxy, not buying into it, when countries like even the US, but in particular Canada and Australia, have more than a single mandate, because they understand that monetary policy must work for their people. And it should work for the people of New Zealand, not just work for the economy. What is the economy? What’s it here for? It’s for the people, the people, the people.

This piece of legislation is a backtrack one, and I wish to see my amendment supported by members on the other side of the House.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve spoken to one of the amendments that I’ve put up to Part 2, and I’d like now to take the opportunity to speak to the second part—although I am still waiting for an answer from the Minister on the first amendment I put up, around the mechanism that is going to be put in place to make sure that we can still have sight. And also, additional to that, the question I asked was about advice she received about what options there were, or what international best practice there was for that.

The only answer we’ve had from the Minister has been to say, “Well, we’re not having a union member, because under your Government and under Grant Robertson, you wouldn’t have one either.” But the mere fact of the matter that we had a dual mandate made that not as necessary. So the question for this Minister to answer—

Hon Nicola Willis: Oh so that’s why you had the dual mandate—for your union mates!

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —not just point to what happened under the previous Government, is that given she is narrowing—

Arena Williams: Point of order, Madam Chair. I hope you can give the committee some guidance on Speakers’ ruling 66/2. There’s a convention that, in committee, members in charge of legislation should not take interjections, given that the mike is in front of them and that they have an unfair advantage. I know the Minister is passionate about this topic, but she had interrupted one of my honourable colleagues.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you to the member for that point of order. I think the message has been directed to the new Minister. Now that she’s aware of it, it won’t happen again.

Hon Grant Robertson: Further point of order, Madam Chair—it’s a technical one. The clock kept counting down through that. I think it was at 3 minutes 56 when my colleague took the point of order, so I’d hope that would be added back into my colleague’s time.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m sure we can add that back in, yes.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No matter what, we’re still waiting for those answers from the Minister—given the legislation is to have a single and narrow purpose around that mandate, what will she do to ensure that the bank and the monetary policy committee does not lose sight of employment, or maximum sustainable employment, or whatever she wants to call it, when it comes to making those decisions. Merely to stand up and say that Grant Robertson did or didn’t do it, now the Minister actually holds a warrant isn’t actually an answer. So the committee is still waiting for some clarity on that from the Minister in the chair.

I’ll take the remainder of this time to talk to the second amendment that I’m putting up in Part 2 of the bill, and that is around a new clause 14, to insert the following new section, which is a review of the Act: “The impact of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill 2023 on inflation, employment, and economic output will be reviewed by an independent expert panel after three years of entry into force.” The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that there can be that independent and expert review into the efficacy of the bill in improving outcomes for all New Zealanders. This does support the purpose of the bill that the Minister is saying she wants to have, which is that clarity to the Reserve Bank—she’s making it crystal clear that people’s jobs and employment aren’t a focus that she wants her Government or the Reserve Bank to have in their sights—but it is also about how the financial markets and the public can see how monetary policy decisions should and will be formulated. That three-year independent review will also give an opportunity to check in about whether there has been a loss of sight around having a secondary and subordinate line of sight into matters of employment and making sure that people’s jobs are something that are taken into account and the ability of people to work.

My question for the Minister, if she is not going to support this amendment, is: what mechanisms will be in place to ensure that there can be scrutiny and that there can be monitoring to ensure that we are not getting into situations that we have seen in the past, when the legislation did have a single and narrow focus, where we saw the interest rate being raised when there was high unemployment? Members and my colleagues on this side of the Chamber have talked about and read out—and the Hon Deborah Russell read out a contribution from someone in her electorate—where the public has a fear that their jobs and their security are being sacrificed. How are we going to give the public confidence? What is the scrutiny? What is the ability of people to have that monitoring, so that there is not a loss of sight of the fact that people’s jobs and employment will be given some weight when it comes to decision making?

So I’d like to hear from the Minister not only on what she’s going to put in place but on what options and what advice she received around what we could do to ensure those mechanisms were in place, and what it was she gave weighting to in decision making around this, and what the criteria for the decision making were.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The irony of that contribution is not lost on me—as a member of a Government that repeatedly denied the Finance and Expenditure Committee the opportunity to review the economic decision-making by her Government in the period after COVID, where mass levels of fiscal and monetary stimulus led not only to massive asset price inflation, widening the gap between those in assets and those without, but also led to extraordinary inflation.

In specific reference to member Woods’ proposal to review the Act, there is already a post-implementation review of the Act due by 2027.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a further call on this part and ask a couple more questions of the Minister. Firstly, just before I do that, I want to go back and refer to the Minister’s comments that she made around Dr Woods’ amendment in terms of finding a place for the voice of workers. It is very clear to members on this side of the House that having removed the dual mandate, Part 2 of this bill offers the opportunity for the Minister—for the Government—to be able to actually give some evidence to the fact that they still think that the Reserve Bank should have the opportunity to consider matters of employment, or the labour market generally when it comes to setting monetary policy. The Minister, in an earlier contribution, mentioned the flexible approach being maintained—well, that’s actually not the same thing. What we’re talking about here is how do we compensate now for not having the dual mandate in question? So that was the purpose of Dr Woods’ amendment, to find a way of doing that.

We have in fact offered a number of opportunities for the Minister to take up ways in which Part 2 could be used to ensure that, actually, employment and other economic objectives could be taken into account, be it in the remit, or be it in the reporting arrangements, or the review arrangements—there are amendments on the Table in colleagues’ names on all of those matters. This is the opportunity and, as Minister Dr Woods—former Minister Dr Woods just said, if not these amendments, then what? Because if we are left in a position where the Reserve Bank is now being told by the Government it shouldn’t be considering employment or labour market matters at all, we are in a very difficult and dangerous position.

The second point in question I wanted to put to the Minister in this particular call is around the amendment in clause 11 of the bill to section 125, which is the section of the Act as it currently stands that allows for a different economic objective or objectives. Now, this clause exists in the Act as it stands today in order to give flexibility to the Reserve Bank should a set of circumstances occur in which they require to do more than the objectives as they currently stand. So just one objective now, after the decisions in Part 1 on the bill.

I want to ask the Minister what her intention is, if, for example, we come to a period where there is for some reason or other a massive spike in unemployment? And in the old days, this used to be called the “foot and mouth clause”, which is that if there was a massive outbreak of something like foot and mouth—which would be an absolute disaster for New Zealand—it would of course have a massive effect on employment in the rural sector in New Zealand and resulting in our rural communities. So the question I’m really asking the Minister here is: does she believe that the power should still exist to add objectives? I think she does. I think that’s what this means, and, if so, wouldn’t it be better to take up one of the amendments of the Government that would make clear that employment and labour market matters are still the ones that we would primarily be concerned about? Should we be needing to use section 125 as contained in clause 11?

So just to recap for the Minister, I’m continuing to want her to answer the earlier questions that have been asked about whether or not she believes that the bank should continue to have regard to employment and labour market matters and monetary policy, and then, if that is the case, what would she propose to ensure that that happens, if it is not adopting the amendments that have been put forward by my colleagues?

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take the committee through my tabled amendments. There are eight of them, so I will turn to them in a second. I’m considering an amendment to the amendment moved in the name of the Hon Megan Woods that would be an amendment to the amendment, but I’m seeking some clarification from the Minister before I do that.

So you’ll know that the Hon Megan Woods has proposed an amendment which would, effectively, allow someone with a focus on unemployment and the effect that would have on working people to contribute to monetary policy. And I think it’s relevant since this bill has not had a stage in select committee to turn to some of the submissions by people who would fit that bill—who have expertise and the experience of working people.

So I’ll turn the committee’s attention to the submission of the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) made on 7 September 2018 to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. This submission was on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill at the time, but the comments made in that submission are directly relevant, particularly in this part which deals with the Minister’s contention that, you know, it might be contrary to what the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) is trying to do—to have a representative with this expertise contributing to monetary policy. The comments of Sam Huggard, the secretary, are: “We also wish to make it clear that unions and workers recognise the damage that can be caused by high inflation.” That points to an imperative that the CTU recognises where the RBNZ should be focused on inflation. “The purchasing power of wages is easily eroded by rapidly rising consumer prices. Our criticism in the past of the application of monetary policy due to the adverse effects of employment, output, and the exchange rate does not imply that we disagree with price stability. The issue is more that at low levels of inflation the costs of extracting the last bit of inflation out of the economy can outweigh the benefits.”

This is an important view because it really nicely captures the tension that we always ask the RBNZ to manage. It points, as well, to where you don’t have a dual mandate, you’re constantly asking the RBNZ to also have in the back of its mind the impact on working people’s experience of the economy, low-wage earners’ experience of the economy, and stabilising that for them.

He goes on to say, “Also, the rigid application of a target over too tight a time frame can damage employment prospects for workers.” And here we get to the nut of the issue that the CTU was submitting on where they were criticising the previous approach of the RBNZ as being too focused on inflation during the period prior to 2018.

If I bring the committee back to my comments on Part 1 of this bill, that is not the situation that we are in now. In fact, there is no evidence that has been presented to this committee by the Minister or any of the contributors from the Government side that the dual mandate actually had an effect in the last three years on inflation. The RBNZ was never asked to choose between its focus on unemployment and on curbing inflation.

I’ll also turn the committee’s attention to a letter to the Finance and Expenditure Committee dated 7 December 2018, from the secretary of FIRST Union, Robert Reid. This is another expert within the field of the experience of working people and the economy. He said, “The employment of our members has been particularly affected in periods where the Reserve Bank has run high interest rate policies in order to keep within a relatively low inflation window.” What he’s pointing to there is the effect on unemployment when you have an RBNZ that has set out to, essentially, extract the cost of a period where the economy is hot from working people rather than from those people with savings. He goes on to say, “We have seen these policies choke off growth”, and there he’s talking about the effect on the productive economy. Not only working people, but our hard working exporters—people within the rural sector who rely on the official cash rate to export their goods at a price that is competitive overseas. He says, “directly and also indirectly through increasing the exchange rate which has made our exports dearer and caused employment loss in New Zealand.”

So what Robert Reid from FIRST Union was saying there is that those workers in the rural sector, who he represents, were negatively affected by RBNZ’s single-minded focus on inflation in the period before 2018 in a way that affected not only those workers but those rural towns—those regions that rely on New Zealand’s competitiveness overseas. He was pointing to the need for someone with expertise of representing those people within those sectors to have a mind to those monetary policy issues, and to be able to contribute to the monetary policy committee’s decisions around where we should be pitching this.

Madam Chair, I only have four more seconds. I wonder if you would give me another five minutes to go through my Amendment Papers?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I want to acknowledge the Hon Grant Robertson for being one of the few members who’s had the courtesy to actually refer to Part 2 in any way during this stage of the debate. And I want to answer his question about the foot and mouth clause and to confirm that section 125 of the principal Act continues to provide for an Order in Council to set a different economic objective or objectives for the Reserve Bank. It remains the Government’s intention that the Act remain laser focused on inflation, and that other matters be set out in the remit.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just before I take the next call, I’m just going to refer to Speaker’s Ruling 125/8. Because we are in urgency and this has not gone through a select committee, I am allowing detailed questions about the provisions of the bill, to the extent that it’s relevant to the bill, and they become debating points within the whole debate on this bill. It’s up to the Minister, you know, whether she addresses what is relevant or not, but I also want to just make people aware at this stage that there are a number of amendments and some of them are contrary to the objects and provisions—the principles of the bill. So we just want to be careful when we are moving amendments to amendments that it might not all happen at the end of the day.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for that clarification as well.

I want to refer to a specific amendment, which I believe is in the name of the Hon Deborah Russell, and that is the amendment that would require a report to be written by the Reserve Bank outlining a number of matters that they consider to be important when it comes to reporting on monetary policies. This is section 131 of the original Act. At the moment—and this also applies to the point that the Minister made about the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ suggestion about reviews—while the Act currently contains both provisions for reviews and provisions for reports, what we’re endeavouring to do through the amendments that we have tabled is ensure that both the review and the report contain reference to issues around the labour market, unemployment, and wider economic impacts.

Because at the moment, while the Minister is technically correct that there might be a clause to review the overall Act, that clause does not necessarily cover off the issues of employment. So that’s the reason for the amendments that we’re making: to make clear that we want both the review and, in this case, the amendment I’m talking about here to section 131 to actually have a report that does cover that.

So what this proposal proposes is that we have a new subsection to 131(2) to insert that the report must consider the observed impacts of monetary policies of the bank over the review period, including the impacts on price stability, employment, and economic development; and structural economic factors that influence monetary policy decisions; and any trade-offs involved in meeting the economic objectives of the bank; and the actions required to mitigate any identified trade-offs.

This is the very reason for us, in Part 2, asking, having dispensed with the dual mandate in Part 1, can we please have something that allows and prescribes for the Reserve Bank some attention to matters that are beyond just price stability? Price stability is important—always has been; always a core objective of the bank. But price stability and a focus on it will have impacts in other parts of the economy, and that’s what this amendment does—it says, “Well, if you’re going to do this, there’ll be trade-offs and there will be other impacts and we need to understand those.”

In the debate on Part 1—actually, no, it wasn’t; it was in the second reading debate—I brought up the example of the former Reserve Bank Governor Graeme Wheeler, who did launch on a monetary policy tightening programme when unemployment was still very high—it was over 5 percent. Now, he did that for his reasons and he had those reasons, but that ultimately did start to see, potentially, unemployment rise from that point. That kind of trade-off is enormously significant for people’s lives, for jobs, and for wages.

So, for us, proposing these changes here in Part 2 is because we are concerned that the bank will now take its eye off the ball of the consequences of its single mandate. One of the issues that we have is that monetary policy is a long game. And, actually, what we’ve established through the debate thus far is in the period that there was a dual mandate; actually, the Reserve Bank wasn’t compromised in its focus on inflation and that situation could go on for a very, very, very long time. But there will come a time when the focus—and I’m giving the example from 2013-14 with the former Reserve Bank Governor Graeme Wheeler as an example of when I had a concern about a single mandate meaning that we didn’t focus on those other issues.

So we know the dual mandate didn’t have the impact that has been suggested it might possibly or could have, but some time in the future it might. So, therefore, we are asking for these amendments that we have tabled to Part 2 to be taken up so at least the Reserve Bank will be asked regularly to make sure it’s talking about the trade-offs that are inherent in monetary policy. If we don’t pass these amendments, we then run the risk that monetary policy goes off in a direction that New Zealanders are not comfortable with and that will have an effect on their jobs and their employment.

So I ask the Minister again: if not these amendments, then what will she be doing to ensure that the Reserve Bank reports and reviews regularly the trade-offs that it’s now going to have to make?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The member asking those questions should know that the Reserve Bank charter can already set out reporting requirements, and it will. Also, the member should know that the remit will allow that under section 117 of the Act, the Reserve Bank, acting through the monetary policy committee (MPC), is required to formulate monetary policy in accordance with the economic objectives in the Act, which has historically allowed—which will ensure that the MPC can be seeking to avoid unnecessary financial instability and instability in output in the economy. As I’ve said, the member seems very interested in the remit and the charter, and I look forward to publishing them shortly.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to take the committee through some of my proposed amendments. I’ll begin with clause 8, which is the first clause within Part 2 that I seek to amend. My proposal is to amend new section 117(1). After the words “over the medium term”, I would propose to insert “and continue to take a flexible approach to monetary policy that improves welfare by ensuring that monetary policy does not exacerbate periods of economic decline”, and, given what the Minister has said on this topic, I think that will be well-received in this committee.

Let me then turn to the regulatory impact statement that was prepared by Treasury, because Treasury have also advised on the usefulness of the flexible monetary approach that is concerned not only with stabilising the change in prices at any given time but also stabilising people’s experience of the real economy. So Treasury’s advice around this issue was that there would be an alternative to the approach that the Government is taking here to elevate that through primary legislation to just propose in the monetary policy committee (MPC) remit that there should be a more hierarchical focus on inflation, but they also recommended in the third paragraph of the regulatory impact statement that “The view of Treasury is that issuing a new MPC Remit without amending the Act would be sufficient to ensure monetary policy decision makers focus primarily on achieving and maintaining price stability”. So what this advice is doing is recognising that the monetary policy committee has a role in creating a more stable economy, and so therefore it would be useful for us to say this clearly.

My second amendment there to clause 9 is that in clause 9, I’m proposing that in the new amendment to section 118—it will be a really simple amendment. It’s replacing the words “economic objectives” with “objective economic measure”, and what I’m hoping to achieve with that amendment is to make sure that the monetary policy committee itself can determine what an objective economic measure of success is, given what their role in setting monetary policy in New Zealand would be. It belongs in clause 9 there because that is a clause that’s subsequent to clause 4. It would take into account the Government’s objectives with this bill to elevate the role of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) to focus on inflation, but by doing this in clause 9, it would mean that the monetary policy committee had some room to interpret what a flexible approach in monetary policy in any given circumstance would be. That’s important, because if I take the committee back to my contribution in the first part of this debate, where we’ve been for a period—which was really unusual in New Zealand’s economy—in the last three to six years with fluctuations at whiplash speed between the need for a focus on employment to then a focus on taking the heat out of the economy, that would provide the monetary policy committee with the tools it needed to determine what at any given time was the appropriate approach.

My proposal to amend clause 10 would see in the new amendment to section 123 the replacing of the words “economic objective” with the words “an economic objective suitable for the prevailing economic conditions of the time”. What’s different about this amendment to my proposal to amend clause 9 is that this isn’t a section which directs the monetary policy committee to use its powers in a way which it sees fit, so in adding this, the House would be saying in primary legislation that the prevailing economic conditions of the time are something that’s useful for the monetary policy committee to consider.

Just building on the contribution of the Hon Grant Robertson, when he pointed to the example of the RBNZ chair Graeme Wheeler making those decisions to tighten monetary policy in such a way that it would have arguably exacerbated unemployment when it was already high, this would focus the monetary policy committee’s attention to when unemployment is high. When there are tens of thousands of New Zealanders who will be affected by even a one basis point change in the official cash rate—because they will bear the costs of inflation because there will be higher unemployment in the economy—then they should take that into account specifically, and it would be elevated to primary legislation.

My amendment to clause 11 is a little bit different from that. It would replace new section 125(2) with the words: “The economic objective or objectives may be: (a) the objectives specified by the Government, taking into account the Government’s role in setting monetary policy;”, and then a new paragraph (b), which is different from the previous Government’s approach, but it would be in line with the new Government’s approach, which would subordinate the Government’s priority for supporting maximum sustainable employment to that new paragraph (a).

So what this would do, essentially, is recognise that this Government’s priority, though this side of the House disagrees with it, is a single-minded focus on inflation, regardless of the effect on the employment of those New Zealanders who will bear it otherwise—accepting that that is this Government’s approach, which is wrong-headed, then there would be a subordinate concern for the monetary policy committee to take into account of supporting maximum sustainable employment in addition to or instead of that objective. So where there were prevailing economic conditions that require the RBNZ to take an approach to unemployment which did not see more New Zealanders out of work or those New Zealanders who lost their work not able to find it again, they would take that into account.

Clause 12 is also a bit different from that, and I’d like to hear the Minister’s willingness to take this on, because it is a more simple change. It’s not as substantive. It would be a new amendment to section 136(1) to replace the words “economic objectives” with “economic objective which stabilises the real economy, for example, in helping reduce fluctuations in unemployment”, so this one points back to the actual Act as amended. This would be in a subsequent amendment to it. It’s still subordinate to that clause 4, but it would bring in this need for the RBNZ monetary policy committee to have in their minds the fluctuations of unemployment at any given time within the economy.

It’s useful when paired alongside the amendment of the Hon Dr Megan Woods—sorry, I’m not considering an amendment to that amendment; I would consider another amendment that would be a substantive amendment, which would be in order. It is that if we had further representation on the monetary policy committee of someone with expertise in the experience of working people within the economy, then this amendment to clause 12 would guide that person within the monetary policy committee’s ability to make decisions which stabilised the fluctuations of unemployment in the economy.

To give you an example of what that would mean, in Manurewa, after the global financial crisis, people who looked like me—Māori women who are between the ages of 20 and 30—experienced unemployment that was up to 15 and 16 percent. The unemployment of men who are Pākehā in any given city, but particularly in somewhere like South Auckland, was only up around 3.5 percent. When we talk about unemployment increasing, it’s not felt evenly. That is an effect that is borne primarily by those people who are already on the margins of employment.

When you have a Government working in tandem with an RBNZ to bring unemployment to a low rate, you see people who have never had the opportunity to work because they would have otherwise been locked out of the employment market. Perhaps they didn’t have the requisite skills, as our economics textbooks would teach us, but perhaps for some other reason they were locked out of employment. Then those people are able to seek work, and I think in this House, but especially between the two parties who are best represented in this House now, we agree that working is important to people’s lives.

If you are able to seek employment, if you are able to contribute to a job where you find respect from not only your colleagues but your peers and your family, you live a better life, and so by making this amendment to clause 12, we would give the RBNZ the tools that it needs to be able to constantly prioritise making sure that there was not a trade-off between young Māori women’s employment prospects—because that was the trade-off after the global financial crisis; those were the people who bore the cost of high inflation, and the policy of the governor of the time to tighten monetary policy at a time that unemployment was high—and doing two things at once, by making sure that those women in South Auckland who look and sound like me can continue to be able to work in the jobs that they have now, that if they lose their job, they will be able to get a new one, and that their wages will continue to go up.

That’s the other thing that we haven’t really dwelt on in this debate. It’s that when the RBNZ pursues a single-minded policy of reducing inflation at the cost of working people, wages are also driven down. We end up with an economy in New Zealand where we’re in a constant race to the bottom, where people’s wages do not progress and, therefore, their purchasing power goes down. So even though inflation might be under control, the purchasing power of working people continues to decline under that sort of policy.

Clause 13 is also an important one, and I hope I can have more time to discuss that. It’s a change to section 138(1), which would replace—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The member’s time has expired.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll pick up, actually, where I think the member from Manurewa was continuing, and it was really around the disproportionate impact of the economic tightening and austerity on our lower socio-economic areas and in particular on Māori, Pacific, women, and those as well who are disabled and generally are younger, because I’m pretty sure that the stats in parts of Porirua were very much the same as the stats in Manurewa.

That is why I think we need to again just remind the committee of the history in relation to why we moved from one mandate to a dual mandate. A number of members in the House have brought up the history around the Governor, Graeme Wheeler, in 2014 when again he started to hike the official cash rate (OCR), even though inflation was only running at 1.5 percent; it basically increased the unemployment rate. And again, even though inflation’s at 1.5 percent and the unemployment rate was at 5.6, you saw the disproportionate impacts again on lower socio-economic areas on those particular groups like Māori, Pacific, and disabled people, who were heavily impacted. That’s why I wanted to be able to take a call and then also to ask the Minister some procedural questions in relation to this, but also a call to support a couple of the amendments that have been proposed by members on this side of the Chamber.

If I turn to the amendment by Arena Williams in relation to new section 117(1), inserted by clause 8, after the words—she is suggesting that the House look at “continue to take a flexible approach to monetary policy that improves welfare by ensuring that monetary policy does not exacerbate periods of economic decline.” And also, specifically to clause 12, an amendment that the member is proposing to replace “economic objective” with “economic objective which stabilises the real economy, for example, in helping to reduce fluctuations in unemployment.” Again, I take the committee back to 2014 when that Reserve Bank Governor, under the one mandate, decided to still increase the OCR despite the high record numbers of unemployment.

I want to also rise to speak in support of another amendment that has been brought forward by the member the Hon Dr Megan Woods. I’m just trying to find that amendment, but nevertheless I always support what the honourable member Megan Woods proposes in amendments.

But probably a tip that I want to—and, again, I recognise our Treasury officials who wrote a regulatory impact statement even though they didn’t need to write one. To the new members of Opposition who are here in the Chamber, probably the reason why—you know, you could speculate as to why the Prime Minister and members of Cabinet didn’t want to have a regulatory impact statement. But if you actually have a look at the analysis in the regulatory impact statement, the advice from Treasury was despite what the Government wants to do through legislation, which they clearly made through their coalition agreement, they still recommended that the Government just change the remit, not the legislation, which is why we have got back here into the House, where we’re having to suggest a number of amendments to the second part of this bill because our concern on this side of the House is we’re going to fall back into that 2014 period, where, again, the disproportional impacts of increasing the OCR will impact on those more vulnerable members of our community in Porirua and in Manurewa.

So to the members, I looked again at the regulatory impact statement—this objective advice that’s been provided by Treasury. And again, just saying—I think it’s paragraph 16; it says “the Treasury’s recommendation is to issue a new monetary policy committee remit only. In making this recommendation the Treasury has weighed more heavily the need to achieve the Government’s policy intention to restore focus on price stability”, which the Minister confirmed in a previous contribution, “and the importance of an enduring and consistent legislative regime.” I think that second part of that first sentence in paragraph 16 of the regulatory impact statement is incredibly important, because what you don’t want to do is to have Governments come in and have such huge swings and changes in such important policy. Because what that indicates to the market—and we’ve already seen, actually, a number of examples worldwide of what their views are on this Government. What that indicates to our international partners is that we’re going to be swinging heavily—so what that indicates is that Treasury is saying to the Government: keep the legislation as it is, but you have these tools in the monetary policy remit to change it.

However, this Government has chosen to change the legislation, the primary legislation, and you can acknowledge that, yes, it was part of the part of their coalition agreement. However, the uncertainty that they could provide to the markets is something that I don’t think this committee has paid enough attention to. But that’s why we have regulatory impact assessments. It’s to be able to make sure that we can debate it in the committee. Because unfortunately we don’t have a select committee process as part of this, which is why you’ll see a number of members on this side of the Chamber trying to understand the policy intent. And the policy intent that I heard from the Minister was around—was it “laser sharp focus” on inflation, price stability? But again, your own officials are saying, “Don’t do it through the primary legislation; use the remit.”

So as you keep going through the regulatory impact statement, they also say that “The Treasury puts significant weight on the value of a stable and enduring legislative regime for the Reserve Bank, which supports public and market confidence in the independence of the institution”—the independence of the institution. And, unfortunately, what we have here is a bill which, because it removes that dual mandate, we on this side of the Chamber are having to put amendment after amendment after amendment after amendment and amendments to amendments just in case one amendment fails or if one amendment passes. That’s what happens when you don’t have the ability to take it through a select committee to be able to have those submissions from the public, from, actually, a number of experts.

I was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee with the Minister—actually, I haven’t actually said congratulations to the Minister for your new role. We had time and time again the Reserve Bank Governor come to us, and the Minister was very forthright in her questioning of the Governor at the time, particularly around these mandates. For me to be able to not have that ability to do that scrutiny through a bill and instead to be passing it through urgency means I’m on my feet having to ask questions and having to support amendments in relation to this.

So my question really for the Minister—and I want to absolutely acknowledge that these amendments have just been tabled, but, again, we’re in a position where we don’t have the ability to be able to scrutinise it further. My question is: given that the Treasury advice was around changing the remit rather than the legislation, and now we’re in a position where members now are having to do amendments to the bill through the different clauses, what are the other ways in which the Minister, other than the remit, because I know the Minister has said that the remit will come after this legislation—but, actually, I want the Minister to provide some assurances now to the New Zealand public around how will the Minister continue to take that flexible approach if we go back to 2014, where Governor Graeme Wheeler had one mandate, there wasn’t the flexibility. How do we have that flexibility? How is that flexibility in relation to this monetary policy?

Because, again, that’s why I stand in support of Part 2, clause 8 amendments put toward by the member from Manurewa.

Arena Williams: They’re good ones.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Very good ones. And, again, as well, her amendments to clause 12. Because if you don’t have the flexibility, because you’re going back to the one mandate—and, yes, the remits do follow. There are mechanisms within the Reserve Bank Act to ensure that there are reviews. I understand there was meant to be one for five years as well, for the remit review, but I think there was one just done in 2023 that started in 2021. What is the flexibility, if you look back to 2014 when you had a Reserve Bank Governor who only had one mandate? What assurances can this Minister provide that there will be some flexibility and that, if not now but in the future, we won’t get to the position where a Reserve Bank Governor will keep increasing interest rates increase, keep increasing the OCR, even though it’s just outside the 1 to 3 percent? It was 3.5 under the Reserve Bank Governor Graeme Wheeler, but yet unemployment was rising and rising above 5 percent. Those are the types of assurance, in the absence of a select committee, that I would like to seek from the Minister.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Can I, first, reassure the member that there will continue to be opportunities for her to question the Reserve Bank Governor through the Finance and Expenditure Committee process, which is an incredibly important part of our monetary policy framework and the accountability of the Reserve Bank under the Act.

Look, members have tabled a number of amendments and are having an ongoing, rather circular discussion about all of the things that the Reserve Bank will consider. Let me say, again: the purpose of this Act is to give crystal clarity of the objective of the monetary policy committee (MPC), which is to ensure price stability. None of that precludes the matters that are set out in section 123 and section 125 whereby the remit may specify the matters the monetary policy committee has regard to in pursuing that one clear objective. So there are other matters that they can have regard to, but they must pursue the one clear objective. I will be publishing the remit upon passage of this Act.

I’d also note that section 119 is very specific that the MPC must have regard to the importance of stability in the financial system.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to take up the debate about the concern that we haven’t really fleshed out the ideas behind the decisions that have been made, and that there is a rejection—as I understand it—of the amendments which try to do that and try to lock in some of the value systems.

I recall the Minister talking about “orthodoxy”, and I wanted to ask some questions around that; what she meant by “orthodoxy”. Because orthodoxy can mean many things. My understanding is that economic policy is a social science in some ways: it’s a strong belief system that sits behind economic views and so there is more than one economic pathway that is rightly called part of the science of an economist. One of those would reject the idea that employment is important at all, and it would go with austerity, for example. And I can see the tail of Graeme Wheeler fitting into that, where the tool was used crudely and caused a lot of harm.

And I also am reading at the moment Mariana Mazzucato’s works, and I’ve just read The Value of Everything. And it’s incredibly powerful because it’s important to consider new ways of thinking in economics. If this was being discussed in select committee, those economists and those economic views would probably have come forward and they would have been part of this debate—and we would have talked about the pros and cons of each. But I’m concerned that that debate hasn’t been had, and in fact, words like “orthodoxy” tend to cover words like “austerity”, which actually do terrible harm in our society and, in fact, increase the gap between rich and poor and devastate groups of our society which are already alienated; already under pressure.

So I want to know, really, what the Minister thinks—and I’d like to say, I’ve been remiss in not congratulating the Minister publicly on her position either, and I congratulate you for it. But it’s a great responsibility, the role of Minister of Finance, and it’s really important that we know what the Minister thinks when she says something like “We are just adopting orthodoxy.” What does she mean by that—and is that inconsistent with new economic thinking which is, after all, based on the lessons that we have learnt in economics since the 1980s? These are thoughts that are not right-wing or left-wing in particular—they’re based on the experience that we’ve had and the greater economic divide, which is of concern to us all, I think. It’s based on the commitment to representing those hard-working people we’ve all said we care about so much; so there’s a very, very important link between work and economic wellbeing. I believe very strongly in that link, and I would love for the Minister to talk about what she means when she talks about orthodoxy—but also why she seems to be rejecting these very important amendments which seek to commit to something which I think is a value we should universally hold: the balance of making sure that when we make these big monetary moves in the Reserve Bank, we’re not forgetting the harm that they can cause.

I also was interested in a comment that the Minister made about what the role of monetary policy was versus the role of fiscal policy. I reject what she’s suggesting there: that monetary policy somehow is divorced from affecting the plight of working people. In fact, the whole point of it is that it is for making sure that there is a wellbeing of working people—and employment is a large part of that, so it must clearly be an important factor, and so I want to know where it fits. Fiscal policy certainly has been very effective as a contributor, but monetary policy cannot be rejected as a major contributor. So I would ask the Minister to answer that question.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I want to speak to two amendments in the names of my colleagues that are on the Table to Part 2. The first of those is Deborah Russell’s amendment for a new clause 10. This is amending section 119 of the principal Act, and it specifically focuses on what the monetary policy committee must have regard to in formulating monetary policy. It adds, after section 119(1)(a) of the current Act, a new section 119(1)(b) to say “the importance of protecting and promoting strong and stable employment in the New Zealand economy”. Now, the phrase “strong and stable” is one that colleagues opposite might quite like. You know, it’s something that they’re aspiring towards in other matters. But here it is about strong and stable employment in the New Zealand economy.

Really, this is simply an example of the Opposition attempting to fulfil the very thing that the Minister has said she supports. That is the idea that there should be flexibility in what the Reserve Bank does when it’s considering the setting of monetary policy. But we are adding to that some specificity about the kinds of things they can consider.

This really comes to the crux of the entire debate that we have been having—or the argument that we’ve been given by the Government, anyway—which is that they were told by the Reserve Bank Governor in a letter and the chair of the Reserve Bank board that the Reserve Bank favoured prioritisation of inflation targeting over the maximum sustainable employment goal. Fine. Not what this side of the Chamber happens to believe, but it is what the Reserve Bank Governor and the board chair wrote to the Minister, and indeed the Minister appeared to tell us she supported that.

This amendment in Deborah Russell’s name actually allows what the Minister seems to be saying to now be put into the law, and that is that we now have that consideration of strong and stable employment when the Reserve Bank is formulating its monetary policy and pursuing its economic objectives.

We’ve had, a number of times, the Minister tell us that clarity is what matters. We need certainty and clarity. Well, that’s what this amendment does. It provides clarity to the bank and indeed financial markets and indeed the wider public that this is what should be considered when monetary policy decisions are being formulated. So I think it is an amendment well worth the committee’s consideration to support. It actually backstops during the debate what we have heard from the Minister that she believes should be happening.

The second amendment that I want to draw the committee’s attention to is the amendment to clause 10 in the name of the Hon Megan Woods, which is to amend clause 10 to, after section 123(2)(b), insert a new (c) that says “an additional economic objective”. Again, this is about backing up what we’ve heard from the Minister she believes should happen, which is that there should be flexibility in the way that the Government responds to unexpected circumstances.

This is really quite critical, because having now reduced the Reserve Bank’s objectives down to one objective, I think there is a serious issue now with the Act, which is that the objectives no longer fulfil the purposes of the Act. So the purposes were changed in 2019, and we wanted to make sure that the wellbeing and the overall economic position of New Zealanders was the purpose of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. We’re now down to just one objective to fulfil quite a complex purpose there. So this amendment by the Hon Megan Woods to clause 10 actually specifically says you can have an additional economic objective. That at least in some ways continues to safeguard the connection between the objectives of the Act and the purpose of the Act.

So these are two serious amendments proposed by my colleagues that I believe should be considered strongly by the Minister. Again, I repeat: if not, what else? We haven’t had an answer to that question, so therefore it still lies on the Table as a live consideration. But I believe the two amendments that have been put forward by my colleagues will at least mean that the flexibility is there alongside some clarity about what New Zealanders should expect the Reserve Bank to be considering when it sets monetary policy.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): As I have now repeatedly said, what this bill does is it makes clear the key operational objective we wish the Reserve Bank monetary policy committee to pursue. We believe that clarity has a number of benefits, which I have canvassed extensively. We believe that that is consistent with the purpose of the Act, in that, without price stability, all of the other good things that the Opposition seeks cannot be achieved. Price stability is the foundation on which employment and good economic conditions sits.

Finally, all of the discussion about all of the things that could be added to the Act to require the Minister to do, actually there is nothing to preclude these matters from being in the remit as things that the monetary policy committee should have regard to in pursuing the clarity of objective that the Act provides.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chair. It is a pleasure to take another call on this bill. There’s still an outstanding question. I thank the Minister in the chair, Nicola Willis, for answering some questions and giving some clarity. But one of the things that I still am not clear on, from the answers that the Minister has given—and I’d welcome her, given that we’re not having a select committee process for this bill, to provide this committee of the whole House with some clarity on the need to have changed reporting requirements on the Act.

Part 1 of the bill is narrowing it down to that single purpose, so what advice did she receive around how it is that we need to change the reporting requirements to ensure that we’re not having adverse outcomes on employment, given that the dual mandate is being received? I welcome the Minister informing the committee of what advice she received and, if she’s not going to support that amendment, then what provisions and mechanisms is she going to put in place to ensure that we do have active monitoring? It’s not enough to say that the principal Act has a review requirement and leave it at that, because the Minister is changing the Act. So what is she going to do to change the reporting requirements and what are we going to see there?

The other thing that I’d just like to ask the Minister some questions around is my further amendment, the amendment to clause 10, which my colleague the Hon Grant Robertson just spoke about, after section 123(2)(b), to insert new paragraph (c), providing for an additional economic objective. The Hon Grant Robertson highlighted that, actually, in making these changes to the legislation, we might be doing something quite serious in terms of reducing the scope of the banks down to such a narrow purpose—so what do we do in those exceptional circumstances? I think previous colleagues have talked about the foot and mouth provisions—what mechanisms do we have where there are extraordinary circumstances where the scope and mandate of the bank needs to be changed within the legislation? I’m anticipating that the Minister may say that she’ll put it in the remit, but what about the legislation? What are the legislative provisions in this Act that could be put in place to ensure that we do have those protections and that we do have that other word the Minister likes—that sufficient flexibility—to ensure that we do have those provisions there?

Given that we’re not going through a select committee process and we don’t get to hear from officials, what is the advice that she received on this? What are the options that were put forward? I’d like to understand some of her reasoning for what options she either accepted or discounted and what the pros and cons of those various options were. When we’re putting a bill through this mechanism under urgency, it is the role of the House to understand the reasoning behind a Minister’s decision-making and to have some transparency about some of the options and advice that were offered to that Minister, and if the committee can go through and debate it.

So I would very much like to know whether or not she will support my amendments to add that amendment to clause 10, to add an additional economic objective; if not, why not, and what is the advice that sits behind her decision and the options that sit behind her decisions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): It would not be appropriate to add a new economic objective in the remit. This is not secondary legislation. Legislation is the proper place to set out the objectives, which this bill does. There was one objective: price stability.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Katie Nimon.

Catherine Wedd: Catherine Wedd.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, have I got the wrong one?

Catherine Wedd: Yes! Ha, ha!

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Could you just identify—I will struggle, like the Speaker himself, at this stage. Catherine Wedd.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I move, That debate on this question now close.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Point of order, Mr Chair. Thank you, Mr Chair. We’ve come to some trouble, Mr Chair. I’ll take you to Standing Order 137(1), which is the closure motion clause. I’ll just read it for your benefit—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I think you’ve been very quick off the mark, Ms Williams. Just please allow the Chair to ensure—at this stage, look, the debate has been going for an hour and a half on this part. I will remind those seeking closure motions that the wording must be correct, so I’ll invite them to ensure that the correct wording is used. So, to that extent, was that a call? Arena Williams.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Oh, thank you, Mr Chair, for the call. I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to the trouble that the committee finds itself in now. We’ve usefully had from the Minister of Finance a contribution around the amendments that this side of the Chamber has put up to Part 2, which seek to clarify the role of the monetary policy committee in its view towards the effect of unemployment. However, the Minister has indicated that she will not be accepting those amendments, and I think that’s a problem, because we still have a purpose clause which was introduced in the 2019 amendment to the principal Act.

So if you’ll allow me to take the committee through why that’s a problem that we now find ourselves in, should the Minister not accept the clarifying amendments that have been put up by myself and my colleagues, the problem with that is that the purpose of the 2019 amendment, which still remains in the primary Act, and the purpose of the original 1989 Act are at odds. So, now, if the amendments that are being proposed by the Minister in this bill that we’re debating today go ahead, we’re still left with the purpose clause, which is in the 2019 amendment.

If you’ll allow me to take my colleagues through the context of this, which is in the explanatory note of the amendment that was put forward in 2019—if you’ll bear with me, that explanatory note clarifies that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill had two main objectives, and those were amending the objectives of the monetary policy committee to require consideration of maximum sustainable employment alongside price stability in monetary policy decision-making and institute a monetary policy committee to make decisions on monetary policy. We’ve got these two objectives of the 2019 bill. One is still something which the Minister herself seems to be supportive of; one is not. However, that went alongside a new purpose clause in the Act that is not being amended, and that’s why we have a problem.

I would ask the Minister: is she proposing to amend the purpose clause today? I would love to hear her amendment. Perhaps her amendment will say, “I’m the inflation-fighting Minister; let unemployment rip.”, or perhaps it will say, “Unemployment is not a concern of the Reserve Bank.” Now, we need to have that explained, because there is some confusion here, and though the Minister has said that this is a circular discussion, the committee now finds itself in a bit of confusion because of the Minister’s answers on this topic. At one stage, the committee is asking the monetary policy committee to have in its mind the impact of its decision making on working people, on unemployment, and on the stability of the real economy and on fluctuations within it, and people’s experience of the economy, but at the same time, it’s talking out the other side of its mouth and saying that there will only be one focus.

We’ve heard from the Minister that this is clarifying that, so what we really need here is a proposal from the Minister to change the purpose clause. If she wants clarity in this bill, she must amend it now. There is only one opportunity to get this legislation right, because we are not going to select committee on this bill, and so I want to hear the Minister’s proposal to amend the purpose clause. I would like her officials to consider what their amendment will be, because it does not make sense, and this House will be passing legislation which says one thing and does another. This Minister is prioritising inflation over the concerns of working people. She needs to be clear with New Zealanders that she does not care if they can get a job, she does not care that if they lose their job they will not be able to get another one.

When the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) is single-mindedly focused on inflation, like Graeme Wheeler was in the tale of the global financial crisis, which this Government presided over, we saw people in New Zealand losing their job and not be able to get another job. These were working people who had had experience in jobs. They had the skills that they needed to get employment in our rural sectors, in our towns, in our manufacturing sectors. The only reason why they could not get a job is because unemployment was at a level which was unsustainable in our economy. But the RBNZ at that time was not focused on unemployment. They did not see it as their role to make sure that people’s experience of the economy was stabilised in some way.

We need to have it clarified in this bill how the RBNZ is going to focus on those things, and if we don’t, if our clauses that we have put up as Amendment Papers on this side of the Chamber are not accepted, then the Minister will have to explain that to New Zealanders.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Tim Costa.

Hon Members: Costley.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Costley—that’s not bad; I got the Christian name right.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on the question now close.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendments to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Dr Megan Woods’ tabled amendment to Part 2 amending clause 6 is out of order as being out of scope of the bill.

The Hon Dr Megan Woods’ tabled amendment to Part 2 amending clause 10 is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.

The Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to Part 2 inserting new clause 10 is out of order as being contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.

The Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s tabled amendment to Part 2 inserting new clause 12 is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that Part 2 stand part.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3: “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Thank you very much. I am going to speak to a couple of amendments that I have on the commencement clause, and this comes to a very important point that has been underlying the entire debate in the committee of the whole House stage, and that is the question of whether there is any evidence to support the contention of the Minister that underpins the entire bill: that somehow or other the Reserve Bank of New Zealand having a dual mandate meant that it took its eye off the ball of inflation.

Now, to recap matters that the Minister didn’t respond to, over the course of this debate we have heard that there was the potential or the possibility of a conflict between the two objectives. However, we were not presented with any evidence that that was true. In fact, the only evidence we have is to the contrary, which is the statements of the Reserve Bank Governor that, in fact, they did focus on inflation during that period and were not impacted. Therefore, that is why I am proposing to amend the commencement date, for the Act to come into force upon the conclusion of an independent expert review on the impacts of the Reserve Bank’s maximum sustainable objective on inflation, employment, and growth outcomes in New Zealand, and the establishment of evidence that the maximum sustainable employment objective has had undesirable consequences for the New Zealand economy.

This Act should not come into force until such time as we have evidence that it is actually needed. So we’ve reached this point in the debate—we’ve been through Part 1; we’ve been through Part 2. We have not been able to convince the Government, in those two parts, that they should take on board amendments that acknowledge the question that was being raised in this amendment, so now we come to the commencement clause as the only opportunity left for us to say, “Let’s not go down a path we don’t need to and that is not good for the New Zealand economy if we don’t have to. Let’s actually have independent experts come in and review it.” That’s actually a very important notion because we never got to hear from independent experts during the process of this piece of legislation. That stands, I might say, in stark contrast to when the dual mandate provision was put in, when we did an independent expert review, with public consultation, and then a piece of legislation that went to select committee and was open for further public submissions. We haven’t had any of that, and that’s why I believe the commencement clause—clause 2—needs to change so that the Act will come into force only upon that particular day.

So I would like to hear from the member in charge of the bill whether or not she believes that this is something that would be sensible. I have for her an alternative, which is a further amendment to clause 2, which would say that it comes into force, rather than on the day after Royal assent, actually on 1 December 2026, provided evidence is found that the maximum sustainable employment objective has had undesirable consequences for the New Zealand economy. Now, I offer up this alternative for a commencement date in the interests of providing clarity and certainty, which appear to be two concepts close to the heart of the Minister. I know that we were criticised in an earlier part of the bill for providing options—well, in this case, we’re providing options, and that is either “1 December 2026” or “at the conclusion of an independent expert review”. I’m not sure that the Government is that keen on the views of experts, but this is an opportunity for them to take it up.

In all seriousness, when we are passing legislation in this House, we should have evidence presented to us. This is a Government that has told us they believe in evidence-based policy. Well, here’s the chance to make that real. Support these amendments in my name so that actually we hear from the experts before we let this bill come into force; otherwise, it really does show what has been suggested earlier in this debate: that this is all symbolism; it’s not substance; it actually isn’t going to do the things that the Government has said it’s going to do; and they’re merely filling up the fact that they don’t have any actual positive legislation.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): To save members their time, we will not be changing the commencement date. This is a Government that is getting on with it. After six years of dithering, delay, working groups, task forces, hot air, talk, good intentions, and no delivery, New Zealanders have elected a Government with a mandate to get the cost of living under control, to put price stability back as the core objective for the Reserve Bank. This bill does it, and we’re getting on with it.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m disappointed to hear from the Minister that she won’t be considering the amendments in the name of Grant Robertson to the commencement date. However, I have proposed in my name an amendment to the commencement date for a completely different reason, and I hope she’ll consider it. Sorry, it’s not in my name; it’s in the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor, and his thinking there, with the suggestion that 18 months should be the appropriate time for this, is that there is a lag between the decisions of the monetary policy committee (MPC) and the effect of those on the real economy. I know the Minister is very serious about the effect of monetary policy on our real economy. So that would allow time for the decisions that the monetary policy has made in the last year to be felt within the economy and to test whether there is in fact a need for a further focus on fighting inflation, as the Minister has contended.

We heard some contributions from the ACT members last night, and I see he’s here. He referred to the work of Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman also suggested that the effect of monetary policy decisions from a central reserve bank might take anywhere from four to 29 months to take into account, so I would also gladly hear from the Minister if she would consider a commencement date of 29 months for this bill, so that we can be sure that we are making policy with an evidence basis, testing those decisions as a reserve bank, and testing their effect on the real economy and on the fluctuations of unemployment particularly.

I’d also like to speak, because I really fear that I’m not going to get another call in this debate, but I would like one, on my amendments in my name. It’s clause 1 and clause 4. I’ll just speak to the one amending the name of the Act, and that’s clause 1. I propose to replace the “Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Act”—that’s on page 2—with the words “The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Elevation of the MPC Remit to Primary Legislation) Amendment Act”.

Now, we usefully had the Minister make a contribution prompted by one of her advisers on the ability of primary legislation and secondary legislation to promote the Government’s intention to set economic policy. That’s something we all agree is the role of Government, to direct the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) in some way to take a position on what it should be focusing on at any given time. That is not something I’m contending with. What I am interested in, in changing the name of this Act, is to be really clear about what it is doing, because we’ve heard in the regulatory impact statement that it was Treasury’s advice that the MPC remit may be issued by the Minister of Finance already within the powers of the existing Act, and that would be the preferred method of making the sort of change that the Minister has been speaking about doing today.

What they’ve said in the regulatory impact statement is that the view of Treasury is that ensuring a new MPC remit without amending the Act would be sufficient to ensure monetary policy decision makers focus primarily on achieving and maintaining price stability—i.e., by setting out a hierarchy for dual economic objectives. None the less, they say, they’re amending the Act to signal a greater focus on price stability. But what this would do is allow a very clear signal, as Treasury has proposed, that the Monetary Policy Statement, which would usually be used by the Minister of Finance to direct the RBNZ to focus on one of the economic objectives which is in the previous Act, should be elevated to this stage. I should be really clear for anyone who is observing the passage of this Act that this was about elevating what the Minister wants right now to be the focus. So that Monetary Policy Statement was not the primary mechanism—because that is, in effect, what it is doing—because the Minister could use the Monetary Policy Statement, which is a tool within the legislation provided for already. Instead, she is choosing to amend the primary legislation and to use the House’s time on that.

So we should be really clear that this House today will pass something that could have been done by the Minister using a regulatory tool that has been available to finance Ministers since the beginning of this regime in 1989, but, instead, she is using the tool of using the House’s entire time in urgency, without a select committee process, to do so. That is a use of executive power which is unusual in our constitutional framework between the RBNZ and the Government.

So that’s why we should be really clear in this House that the Act says what it does on the tin—that this is a new tool that we are making out here, that we are setting a new precedent where finance Ministers will come to the House and order the RBNZ around with primary legislation, despite the Opposition’s calls for a select committee process, despite the Opposition’s calls for pause within the committee stage to debate those clauses which are important.

And I come back to clause 4, which was not fully debated in this Chamber, which makes those objective changes that were not fully debated. [Bell rung] Mr Chair? Thank you. I seek further time to be able to elucidate for the House why that change to clause 4 actually needs to be really made clear that this name change, which I am talking about now, is simply what it’s doing. I’m sorry.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Clause 4 you’re talking about?

ARENA WILLIAMS: Yes, I’m talking about why clause 4 should have been amended, even though it wasn’t. We’re now in the situation where the name of the bill doesn’t do what it says it will do.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, ensure that when you’re straying off the parts of the bill we’re discussing that you actually do relate them.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Thanks, Mr Chair; I’m just learning.

It brings us back to the name of the bill here because if the Minister’s intention is not to use the tools that were provided for in the previous regime but to come to the House and set everything out in primary legislation, then we get into the trouble of not being able to allow experts who have been appointed to the monetary policy committee or experts within the broader range of economic commentators and people with an interest in the way that the fluctuations of the real economy affect New Zealanders being able to contribute at all. So that’s why it would be useful to change the name of this amendment to make it really clear that finance Ministers of all colours over time may come to this House and elevate those usual tools that they would use in secondary legislation and in regulation and, indeed, communicating with the chair of the RBNZ in the letter which the Minister has been asked to table in this House and has not—

Hon Nicola Willis: I have tabled.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Oh sorry, sorry, apologies to the Minister. She said she has tabled her letter to the Reserve Bank Governor, so I will look for that on the Table when I’m finished with my contribution. I am sorry and I would like to make a contribution on that letter, so I hope I get another chance.

So we are saying in this bill, if we pass it today, that it is acceptable practice for a finance Minister to use the House’s time, to use primary legislation, to do all of those things which would usually be in conversation with the Reserve Bank and in conversation with the monetary policy committee. So when we look at those experts appointed to that committee, who are experts in their fields—they are often academics, they are often practitioners of economics within our community, they have some form of expertise in this—that we’re saying they don’t need to be listened to—

Hon Scott Simpson: Tell us about the commencement.

ARENA WILLIAMS: —that they don’t need to come to a select committee, the Hon Scott Simpson. And, instead, it’s generally accepted practice for the Minister of Finance to come and make those changes to what is something that is constitutionally important to New Zealand to make those changes. And I would say to those members interjecting on the other side that we have not been able to have a select committee process on this, where I would have proposed the changes that I am setting out to the name of the Act. They’re very quick to shut down debate in this discussion, which is really central to the constitutional framework of our economy. Because the RBNZ’s independence is something that we all agree with—that the RBNZ, when it can make its own decisions, is the exact point of a 1980 Act.

Tim van de Molen: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): If this is about the relevance of what this member is talking about, then that is a job for the Chair. But I’ll invite you to carry on with your point of order, anyway.

Tim van de Molen: Yes, thank you. No, I notice you’re doing that, Mr Chair. I just noticed she hadn’t seen your attempts to bring her back to the bill. So I was just trying to draw her attention to your gestures there. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Thank you for your attention to the Chair, Mr van de Molen. But the point is, you do need to keep referring back regularly to the point, especially when you stray off these three parts of the bill we’re discussing.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chair. The point I’m hoping to make is that the name of this bill is really important and would have been important to the select committee’s process if it were to have occurred. It did not occur, which is a change in the way that we might otherwise make, you know, amendments to the way that the Government directs the RBNZ.

So I would have proposed in select committee that the name would have changed because it’s really important that we’re clear that we are establishing a new practice for finance Ministers to make changes in this way. So we should be clear, when we’re elevating things that are usually in secondary legislation to primary legislation, that we are doing so. This might have also been something the excellent committee the Regulations Review Committee might have also considered, but we’re actually moving away now from a secondary legislation tool and into primary legislation. So the job of the select committee would have been the only check and balance of reviewing that legislation, because primary legislation only goes through those select committees. That is an opportunity that has been denied to this House and that’s why we should accept this amendment.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I want in this particular call in this debate to refer to the title of the bill, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill 2023, and to highlight my concerns as to why that title is not accurate to both what is in the bill and indeed what I believe is the intent of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act that is being amended.

The idea that there is a single objective about the economy that the Reserve Bank is looking for is completely false, in my view. Members of the House will be aware that there are many, many different definitions of what the economy is. For us on this side of the House, the economy is not an abstract thing. It is in fact very much about people. So my view is that the title of the bill should actually reflect that it is a narrowing of the objectives of the Reserve Bank beyond, or below, or whatever word you want, the economy as we understand it.

It was instructive to note that when Arena Williams was speaking about people losing their jobs and people not being able to pay their bills, there was laughing coming from the Minister in the chair during that period of time. From our perspective on this side of the House, if you’re going to title a bill about the Reserve Bank of New Zealand “Economic Objective”, it should at the very least somehow or other represent people. Ultimately, that has been what’s at stake in this debate. Our job when we are in the House is to accurately describe legislation. If I was describing this piece of legislation accurately, I would say that this is the “Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Putting At Risk People’s Jobs) Bill”, because that is, essentially, what has happened here.

Graeme Wheeler, the previous Governor of the Reserve Bank in 2013-14, took some decisions and went on a monetary policy tightening cycle when unemployment was up above 5 percent. He did that with the single mandate. So if we were thinking about his actions in relation to the title of this bill, we would be very, very concerned to make sure that it was accurately titled. It would, in fact, be something along the lines that I have suggested about the impact that it would have on people’s jobs.

Also in terms of the title is the concern I have around the idea that a single objective actually reflects the role the Reserve Bank Act provides for. When you’re amending a piece of legislation, the title needs to ensure that in some way or other it reflects the primary legislation that is being amended. It is quite clear—and this point is one that I did make in a different part, so I am acknowledging that to the Chair, but it is quite clear to me that the purposes of this Act and the objectives of the Act as it has now been amended are out of sync. So, again, the title should probably reflect that as well by saying the “Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objectives—Counter to Purposes) Amendment Bill”, because that’s now what’s been done.

Because when we made the change in 2019, we made a change not just to the objective, to add the objective of maximum and sustainable employment, but also to the purposes of the bill, to add in the concepts of sustainability and wellbeing. This brings us right back to my first point. The Reserve Bank’s job, yes, is to set monetary policy, but it doesn’t do that in a vacuum; it does that when it’s focused on the impacts of those decisions on the whole economy. That’s what the Reserve Bank Act actually does right now, today, because the purpose clause still has it in. Yet this bill, titled “Economic Objective”, runs directly counter to that. It’s actually not what the purposes of the Act say.

The Minister was asked a couple of times in earlier debates whether or not she could reconcile those two things and just kept saying that she was going to change the remit. Well, that may well be the case as to what she’s doing. It doesn’t stop the fact that we now have legislation that is inconsistent. So that could be another title for this bill: the “Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective—Creating Inconsistency) Amendment Bill”, because that is precisely what this piece of legislation now does.

The Minister in the chair may well laugh, but she needs to take a look at the legislation that she’s amending and see that the purposes of it very clearly take the Reserve Bank to a place where it has a job to promote the wellbeing of these Zealanders. The title of this bill no longer reflects the rest of the legislation.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Chair, for giving me the opportunity to speak directly to the amendments proposed by both the Hon Grant Robertson and the Hon Damien O’Connor in relation to the commencement date of this bill.

The reason I seek the call is because, as the Minister has already said, the Minister has advised that she does not want to change the commencement date and she still wants the commencement date to be the day after the bill receives the Royal assent. Commencement dates are incredibly important—incredibly important—and no more so if you are taking a bill through under urgency. You are, effectively, changing primary legislation and then you’re saying to the public “and do it straight away”. Under urgency, we haven’t had a select committee hearing. We haven’t had an ability to call for submissions.

There are a number of mechanisms within the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act which allow for reviews over the years. In particular, there is one around having, I think, a remit review within a five-year period. My concern is that because we went through Part 2 so fast, I was unable to table an amendment to look at what we could do in terms of a statutory review. When you have new regimes or you have such significant policy decisions, this affects our macroeconomic outlook. This affects how the Reserve Bank Governor changes the official cash rate and what they take into account for that.

So without the ability to have a select committee hearing, because we’re doing this under urgency, there is an inability for me to table an amendment for a statutory review, which is sometimes the safety net that parliaments across time use time and time again—when there is piece of legislation like this, they put in a statutory review.

I urge this committee to approve a delay in the commencement date, because we’ve heard from the Minister, from officials, from the regulatory impact statement, from a number of speeches in the Chamber, and from the Reserve Bank Governor himself that there is still a priority on price stability and that there is clear evidence that the maximum sustainable employment is actually almost like a hierarchy; it’s secondary.

But one of the main things—and, again, I thank the Treasury officials for that regulatory impact statement. And this is something where the Hon Shane Jones said in the House the other day, “Details, details, details.” Well, I’m a details person, and I’m a person that reads regulatory impact statements, and I want to put that on the record for the Prime Minister, who said that nobody reads them. I read them. And one of the footnotes in the regulatory impact statement—footnote 2—references a Treasury report drafted in 2023. It’s Reserve Bank’s 2023 monetary policy committee Remit Review - 27 April 2023 - Treasury Advice on the 2023 monetary policy committee Remit Review Information Release - The Treasury.

Again, Mr Chair, this is relevant. It will go to why I urge for a delay in the commencement date. So I go back to the advice—you know, “details, details, details.” Well, this is the detail. This is the Treasury report: Reserve Bank’s 2023 monetary policy committee Remit Review. In here is the analysis and the background that Treasury provides to the Minister of Finance, and I quote: “Monetary policy is currently operating in a challenging environment, with inflation at multi-decade highs while the labour market remains tight. The current operating context reflects both demand and supply factors, including the combined impacts of significant fiscal and monetary policy responses”—fiscal and monetary responses, I quote—“during the COVID-19 pandemic, and supply-side disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In New Zealand, the monetary policy committee has raised the OCR at its fastest pace since prior to the Global Financial Crisis to contain inflation and anchor inflation expectations.” Then it goes through two particular figures which show the projected Consumers Price Index and the annual inflation figures.

Then, at paragraph 8 of this important report, it carries on, and I quote, “Monetary policy is expected to continue to face challenges in the years ahead, including uncertainty about the future trend in neutral interest rates and the related risk of reaching the effective lower bound, increased risks of supply disruptions associated with geopolitical tensions and regionalisation, and the move towards more sustainable production practices in response to practices in response to climate change”. And that refers to an earlier 2022 Treasury report.

The key thing from that particular report, which I take back to clause 2, is why I urge this committee to consider a delay and agree to one of the amendments on the Table, whether it’s the 18-month delay recommended by the Hon Damien O’Connor or whether it is the additional delay until 2026 recommended by the Hon Grant Robertson. It is for the key point that that report sets out, which is in the detail, which is in a footnote, which is in the regulatory impact statement, which, again, I read: “Monetary policy is expected to continue to face challenges in the years ahead, including uncertainty about the future trend”.

Those amendments on the Table to clause 2 ask for more time because we are in a very uncertain period, and that’s why I don’t agree with the changes, obviously, to the remit. We’ve had a lot of debate on that, even though it was shortened because we had no select committee stage. But, again, I think having a delay in the commencement date allows, in a period that we are in of high uncertainty, for there to be greater stability because you’re not changing the primary legislation.

And I understand that the Minister did say we didn’t want the Order in Council because, you know, it’s secondary legislation—that was in response to one of the other member’s comments—and that is exactly what’s in the regulatory impact statement. That’s exactly what the Treasury officials advised against—not to do that Order in Council.

However, she failed to remember that in the regulatory impact statement they also said, “Don’t change the primary legislation; do it through the remit.”, which is why I think it’s incredibly important that, you know—you don’t necessarily have to agree with Treasury all the time. I know other Ministers in various Governments didn’t always agree with Treasury. But we are in a period of uncertainty. We have a period where the country is going to be facing a number of challenges in the year ahead because of what’s happening geopolitically, both in our region and overseas.

That’s why I absolutely urge the committee to consider a delay to this primary legislation—because we are in an uncertain period. I’m not too sure whether I’ll have an ability to scrutinise—or perhaps I could do it as a member’s bill—and do a review. However, in the absence of that ability—because we had urgency and we weren’t able to table too many more amendments—I’m looking at having some time to be able to keep the primary legislation as it is, with the dual mandate. That is not to say that in 18 months’ time or in 2026—when, actually, there was going to be a review anyway; I think the last one was in 2021. It just allows the ability for there to be certainty in our markets, and then our markets know, in 2026 or in 18 months’ time, in the forecast that has been provided, we are going to see more stability. It allows there to be that opportunity for the commencement date to be then. But if you do it now, straight away, in a bill that has not been to a select committee and has just been subject, basically, to the analysis on this side of the committee by various parties—unable to provide those amendments, with no statutory review because we didn’t have the ability to table that in enough time, and because the process on Part 2 was so short. I urge the committee not to go through with it straight away, on the day after the bill receives the Royal assent. Instead, go either with the 18-month period as recommended by Damien O’Connor, or 2026, as recommended by the Hon Grant Robertson, because that allows us to be able to have some certainty over this period. And, again, monetary policy is expected to continue to face challenges in the years ahead, including uncertainty about the future trend in neutral interest rates and the related risk of reaching the effective lower bound increase of supply disruption, geopolitical tensions, regionalisation, and a move towards more sustainable production practices in response to climate change.

This is not the time to go straight into the date being the day after the Royal assent—it is a time when we have a lot of uncertainty, as set out by officials. We have a little bit of time to be able to stabilise things that we need to do, because I understand you’ve got a laser-like focus on it. Allow for that stabilisation and then bring into force, if you still want to do it, that particular commencement date—either in 18 months or in 2026. I urge the committee to have consideration of that.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just a couple of things. Decisions around closure motions have been around two things. One is getting the wording exactly right to the closure motion. The other is the Minister’s participation. The other is, of course, the relevance and repetition. So all three are probably failing at the moment, so I’ll go to the Hon Grant Robertson.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Mr Chair, thank you very much for another call on this part, which is an important part—the title and commencement. I want to focus this call on a different matter that I haven’t raised before, and that is the question of Royal assent. So just to be absolutely clear here, the bill will come into force, according to clause 2, on the day after Royal assent has been granted. Now, the process of Royal assent in New Zealand is long established—it’s one that most members of the House will be aware of. And when the Governor-General, who would be giving Royal assent in their role—on behalf of the King—comes to consider this piece of legislation, they will be asking themselves the questions that we on this side of the House have been asking, and that is: is it appropriate to sign off a piece of legislation that has come forward and at no point in the debate on the legislation has there been any evidence provided as to its necessity?

Now, the Sovereign will, obviously—or the Sovereign’s representative—take very seriously the fact that this Parliament has debated the matter. But there are actually debates in Parliament in the past that have covered this question around whether or not there is an automatic requirement, essentially, that Royal assent has to be granted.

Well, I would suggest that in this particular case, we’ve got a very good example of where a bill has not had any evidence to back it up. It hasn’t gone well.

Hon Members: Aww!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, no. Members opposite argue and interject in my speech—adding to the need for it—that perhaps evidence has been provided. On every occasion in the earlier parts of this bill, when we asked was there evidence that the Reserve Bank had taken their eye off the ball of focusing on inflation because it had a dual mandate—every time we asked for that, we didn’t get an answer. We got “it could”, “it might”, “it’s possible”—we never heard evidence. So the actual purpose and reasoning of the bill is not supported with a commencement date as currently listed in clause 2. The other matter that I believe would be given serious consideration as to whether Royal assent should be granted is the fact that this bill has gone through under urgency.

Now, I accept that bills go through under urgency on a regular basis in this House. There are a variety of reasons for that, but there are particular types of legislation that one would want to be very careful about putting through under urgency, and, therefore, if one were in the position to be granting Royal assent under clause 2 of the bill, one would want to consider. And, in particular, this legislation—the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 2021—is at the heart of the way the economy is managed in New Zealand. It’s arguably of constitutional importance, because the Reserve Bank is an independent institution, and when Parliament comes to make decisions about changing aspects of it, serious consideration needs to be given to the views of the public and the transparency. So when one is making a decision about when this bill should commence—and we have options on the table, amendments that are there that can be taken up by the Government to give some space and time in the absence of that select committee process.

When the changes were made in 2019 to move to this position, we took this piece of legislation out on the road, in draft form, for people to understand—actually, it was before the draft, but we took the concepts out on the road for people to understand. There were many submissions and a lot of discussion. A bill was then drafted, and then it went to select committee and public submissions were taken on it. So if we’re thinking about when a bill should commence, it should commence after all of that has occurred, and that is what is being offered there: the amendments on the Table that suggest either going to 1 December 2026 or taking an extra 18 months—or, indeed, having an independent expert panel come in. Those options must be the ones that the House takes up, because, actually, we owe it to New Zealanders, for a matter of this seriousness, that it does get a matter of proper public scrutiny, it does have some transparency associated with it, we do hear from experts in the field—otherwise, we are placing the person who has to give Royal assent under clause 2 of this bill in an extremely difficult position. There are alternatives to commencing this in the haste that the Government is, and I urge them to take those alternatives up.

HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Grant Robertson’s tabled amendments to clause 2 are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation. The amendment proposed is to create an uncertain commencement date.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The committee has considered the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill makes clear that for New Zealand’s new Government inflation is public enemy number one. New Zealanders have elected a Government who has what it takes to address the cost of living crisis that was allowed to fester by the outgoing Government. We understand that for so long as inflation remains out of control then New Zealanders will continue to suffer. They will continue to suffer from price increases that erode the value of their savings. They will continue to suffer from price increases that eat away at the money in their bank accounts. They will continue to suffer with price and rent increases that make it impossible for too many to get ahead.

So what this bill does is it realises our commitment that in our first 100 days we would return the Reserve Bank to a single focus on inflation. This bill gives the Reserve Bank and its monetary policy committee absolute clarity about its role in our economy; it needs to focus on the principal objective of price stability because that is the best contribution that monetary policy can make to our economic and social wellbeing. Because without price stability, all of the other things that members of this House wish for, whether it be sustainable employment, well-paying jobs, good opportunities, none of that can be delivered without the foundation that price stability provides.

And be there no doubt about the scourge that is inflation, because the past three years have laid bare what happens when inflation gets its grip on an economy. We have had a cost of living crisis that has seen people across our community suffering. Loose monetary policy contributed to an asset price spike on a scale not seen for many, many years that had the direct impact of widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Inflation has been particularly hard on low-income earners as wages have struggled to keep up with increased price pressures. And in the debate about this bill, we have had some rather fatuous arguments from the other side who have tried to question whether we on this side believe jobs matter. Well, let me be clear: jobs matter very, very much and, actually, on this side of the House we understand what’s required to create them and sustain them. We have studied enough economics to know that monetary policy is not the primary determinant of the level of employment because, actually, structural factors—the tax system, the regulation of the labour market, the level of skills in the economy, all of those things must be considered.

We are a Government that will take responsibility for our role in creating the conditions for employment by ensuring that businesses have the confidence to invest, they have the confidence to create jobs, that they’ll give people a go and create opportunities. And I would note that, actually, the former finance Minister was advised himself in May 2018—when he took advice on whether he should fiddle with the Reserve Bank Act he was advised of that very thing, that, actually, the monetary policy was not the primary determinant of the level of employment, and, in fact, that price stability, low, stable inflation, is the precondition on which employment sits.

There have been questions in this House about why we would amend the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. Confused questions, because some members have sort of been saying this is a terrible, awful bill—and we had the former member for Wellington Central waxing lyrical about the 1980s and 1990s; we got to occupy that part of his mind that lives in the past—but then we also had them saying that the bill would have no effect whatsoever. Well, the fact is this: without amending the Act, the monetary policy committee would still be required to have regard to maximum sustainable employment. So in order to achieve our objective and the promise that we have made to New Zealanders—which is to ensure that single focus for the monetary policy committee—we must amend the Act and that is what we are doing today. The value here is that we ensure greater focus than we could through doing things with the remit alone. And I have to say, was it a low point in Mr Robertson’s career when he used a filibuster in the House today to question whether the Governor-General should really be able to offer assent to bills at all? It felt like a bit of a low point to me.

The benefits of this bill are not only that it gives clarity in how the monetary policy committee operates but also that it will give clarity for those rare circumstances, which economists agree could occur, where the two goals of maximum employment and price stability could be in conflict. With this Act, we will make clear that price stability should be the objective. It will also have an impact on perceptions of the role of the Reserve Bank, of its decision-making processes, and of its objectives. The Reserve Bank itself has noted—itself has noted, including in a letter I have tabled in this House—the need for that priority of inflation busting to be made clear to everyone, to be made clear to decision makers, to be made clear to market participants, to be made clear to New Zealanders. With this bill, we will ensure that price setters—that is, the people who are setting the prices for the goods in the shops that New Zealanders are buying—will be thinking about what inflation is going to look like in the future. And when they’re thinking about those questions over the coming months, they should think about this: we have a Government now that is crystal clear it wants inflation out of this economy. It wants price stability back. It wants inflation gone. They can be crystal clear when they’re thinking about where inflation is going that we have equipped the Reserve Bank with the singular focus it needs to drive that goal.

So where we are today with the passage of this legislation is we are marking a return to economic fundamentals. We are marking a return to proven economic orthodoxies that have delivered for New Zealand in the past. We are marking a return to clarity and purpose in the action of Government where confusion has reigned for six years. We have gone through, as a country, a period of economic experimentation; six years of failed experimentation that led to worse results for New Zealanders. We have had a Government that threw a thousand priorities at the wall, that made multiple aspirational statements on everything from a nuclear-free moment through to a hundred thousand KiwiBuild houses through to eliminating child poverty.

Carl Bates: Fantasy!

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We’ve had a Government full of fantasies, a Government that added objectives and priorities willy-nilly across our statute book, that considered the signal of virtue more important than the realisation of deed. In this Government, we now have a crew who are committed to clarity of purpose objective, and with this bill we make clear that fighting inflation sits number one on that list because without inflation under control Labour’s cost of living crisis will go on.

And here’s the thing: this is a basic step, but if you don’t get the basics right, the words—all of those words—amount to nothing. And so today, in passing this bill, the Government makes clear our priorities, our expectations, and our grounding in economic fundamentals. Because for too long, New Zealanders’ living standards have been sacrificed on the altar of good intentions. And that’s all that the six-year experimentation with the changed Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act was; it was a mishmash of good intention, and good intentions without the foundations of basic economics amount to nowt. So with this bill we make clear that we wish to eliminate inflation. We are using all levers—

Hon Grant Robertson: Eliminate!

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Eliminate high inflation, get it back within the target between 1 to 3, the midpoint of 2. Because at the end of the day you can’t deliver for people with words, you do it with action.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): What a sad indictment on this Government that the very first piece of legislation they bring to the House is not to look forward, to take the country forward; it is to take away a focus on jobs by one of the most important actors in the New Zealand economy. It stands in stark contrast to what happened in the first hundred days of the Government in 2017, where we passed legislation to increase access to paid parental leave, where we passed legislation to create the winter energy payment and the Best Start payment, where we moved to make sure that there was legislation so that New Zealanders who lived in rentals lived in healthy rentals. That’s what you do when you’ve got a bold, progressive plan of action.

But what you do when you’ve got no ideas whatsoever is that you fall back to some kind of Milton Friedman - style dream that actually we’re living back in the 1980s. Well, we’re not—we’re not. We’re living in the 21st century, where we need monetary policy and a Reserve Bank that has the tools and the apparatus to be able to do a job that is equivalent to the times.

We were told numerous times by the Prime Minister and others that this would be a Government who would present to the House and to the New Zealand public evidence-based policy. Yet at every turn over the course of the last many hours that we have been in this House debating this legislation, no evidence has been presented that this piece of legislation is necessary. Because at every turn when the Minister of Finance was asked to provide that evidence to show that the Reserve Bank had somehow or other taken their eye off the ball of inflation because they had a dual mandate, she declined that. She talked about how it could happen or it might be possible, but it didn’t. The Reserve Bank Governor himself told us that—that that is not what occurred, and, in fact, the focus on inflation was resolute in a global inflation crisis.

So that is also where this piece of legislation falls down, because, on the logic of the Government, inflation should have been higher in countries with a dual-mandate central bank and lower in countries with a single-mandate central bank during the recent global inflation crisis, but that wasn’t true. In New Zealand and Australia, both of which have central banks with dual mandates, inflation peaked at—we have a prop—7.2 percent and 7.8 percent respectively. But in the United Kingdom, a central bank with a single price stability mandate, inflation peaked at 11.1 percent. Or in the Eurozone, where you have a central bank with a primary price stability mandate, it peaked at 10.6 percent. So no evidence there that there actually was a relationship. Actually, it was a global inflation crisis.

Equally, no relationship between the speed at which central banks responded depending on their mandate. The New Zealand central bank, the Reserve Bank, was one of the fastest and quickest to respond in the face of this crisis. Also, no evidence provided that the Reserve Bank didn’t understand that there were trade-offs to be made if in the future those two ideals conflicted with each other.

It is worth noting at this point the complete misunderstanding of the Government of what maximum sustainable employment actually is. It’s written, for the benefit of members opposite, in the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy framework. As defined by the Reserve Bank, maximum sustainable employment is “the highest utilisation of labour resources that can be maintained … without generating an acceleration in inflation”. So it’s already built in to the definition of maximum sustainable employment that it shouldn’t undermine the work that the Reserve Bank is doing to control inflation. So no evidence presented to this House that actually there’s any contradiction whatsoever. The only conclusion you can draw from that is that the Government doesn’t care about people being in jobs, and it doesn’t care about their wages rising, and it would rather prioritise a narrow ideology from the 1980s than actually support working people.

It also ignores the virtue of having a dual mandate. It was covered a number of times during the debate that there has been an example in New Zealand’s recent history where having a single mandate arguably caused the Reserve Bank Governor to take actions that, in fact, would increase unemployment. So even though we had inflation running at about 1.5 percent, the then Reserve Bank Governor in 2014, Graeme Wheeler, decided that this was a good time to start a monetary policy tightening cycle. Unemployment was at 5.6 percent. And that’s the risk—that we put ourselves back in that position where a Reserve Bank Governor myopically focused on one objective misses the rest of it.

It’s always been about making sure that prices are stable, but what we did was modernise the legislation so it actually spoke to the higher and wider purpose of monetary policy. I note that the Government didn’t change the purpose section, which we put in in 2021, which continues to say that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act should have as its purpose the wellbeing and the sustainability of the New Zealand economy. So we’ve set that higher purpose. They haven’t changed it, but they’ve come along and changed the objectives, the things that you do in order to achieve the purpose, and narrowed them down. So you’ve now got an inconsistency there, but beyond that inconsistency, you’ve lost the opportunity for the Reserve Bank to be given that role of making sure we’re talking about maximum sustainable employment, we’re talking about jobs and keeping people in jobs.

The thing that’s got New Zealand through the recent global cost of living pressures and the spikes in inflation and the increases in interest rates that followed from that is because people have been in work. That’s what’s got us through this. If we hadn’t have had the low levels of unemployment that we’ve had in New Zealand in the last few years, we would have seen waves of mortgagee sales. We would have seen a far deeper impact.

So keeping the eye on the ball, on inflation? Critical. And the Reserve Bank did it. Keeping the eye on the ball of keeping people in work and making sure they’ve got money to be able to put kai on the table—that matters too. Every single part of the economic apparatus of Government should be playing its role in that. And today the Government decides Kiwis’ jobs don’t matter. That’s what they’ve decided with the change that has been made today.

The other claim without evidence throughout this debate has been that this change will magically improve the cost of living situation for New Zealanders. We even had members opposite in the debate in the first and the second reading saying “pass by Christmas and the cost of living for New Zealanders will improve”. Absolutely no evidence presented on that. In fact, some very big claims from the Minister of Finance. Just latterly, one of those was that she was going to eliminate inflation entirely. Good luck with that. But secondly, in the House yesterday, the Minister claimed that inflation would go down quicker under her Government as a result of this legislation than had been previously projected. Well, we will be holding the Minister to account for that claim.

Inflation is indeed forecast to be coming down, as we would expect and as we would hope when the Reserve Bank is doing its job. But nothing in this legislation is going to make that happen quicker. The members opposite are selling New Zealanders an untruth here, because they are claiming in this House that they are passing legislation that will reduce the cost of living by Christmas, according to some of those members opposite, and that simply is not going to happen.

So this first piece of legislation in the journey backwards that has been taken at rapid rate by this Government sets a very unfortunate precedent. The next bit of legislation attacks the wages of the lowest-income people. The bit of legislation immediately after that attacks the climate action programme. And this piece of legislation says that this is a Government who have got their priorities wrong. They are deciding actively to undermine efforts to make sure that we focus on jobs—the things that New Zealanders value so much. It is a depressing start from a depressing Government who only want to take us backwards. This is a bill that the Labour Party strongly opposes.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. It is now many hours on from this legislation being introduced under urgency late last night, and I got to say I still am kind of left quite puzzled in the absence of any meaningful evidence as to the purpose of this very legislation.

I think it’s just worthwhile putting on the record once again for the nth time the three reasons as to why the Green Party oppose this legislation. The first is that, as was put forward by the Reserve Bank Governor, Adrian Orr, in the Finance and Expenditure Committee most explicitly in the November 2022 hearing, which the now Minister of Finance was present at—in response to my question of whether that dual mandate had made any difference to decisions that they would have made, had they only had that sole mandate of the focus on price stability, he said, and I quote, “No is the answer. We haven’t come across any trade-offs of employment versus inflation. There is no conflict.”

I totally take on board the point from the Minister that there could potentially be a point of conflict. But therein lies our second point, that it is unnecessary for this change to come about in law. In fact, the major rationale that’s been relied upon in this debate from the Government side of things has been that letter that the Minister received, speaking to the need to explicitly prioritise that dual mandate, particularly, resulting in the primacy, the explicit primacy, of that price stability mandate. And to that effect, as was put in that June 2023 review from the monetary policy committee, there is a way to do that without changing the legislation. This was actually what the Minister’s own officials recommended with regard to the ability to simply change the remit. Again, that’s reflected in the regulatory impact statement out there for everybody to see.

Thirdly, I have heard throughout this debate that the Minister still wants the monetary policy committee (MPC) to have regard to employment. We’re yet to see how that will manifest through the MPC remit. I’m very interested to see that, but it is, I think, a little bit concerning that we’re basically being asked to wait and see here as to how that will manifest while this bill passes under urgency and we’re left without the evidence to have a meaningful and informed debate on what that remit is ultimately going to shape up to be.

So to reflect on some of the broader points that have been raised throughout this debate, because many have raised the notion of inflation in general and the notion of the economy, I just was reflecting on a meme, actually, that a friend of mine sent to me a few months ago throughout the election period, saying that whenever we’re hearing politicians speaking about the economy, you can replace that word, the “economy”, with “vibes”. And we’ve kind of heard that in some sense from the sentiments expressed by the Minister of Finance, that what is actually perhaps most important here is perception of market players, the vibes of market players, the confidence of market players.

And again, to that effect, what we’re really talking about here is that this economy that all of us so frequently talk about as a stagnant kind of set of rules that are somehow set in stone or concrete is, in fact, a set of rules created by human beings to govern all of us, our behaviour and activities, to get the kinds of outcomes that we all supposedly want in this society. Because we don’t live in a game of Monopoly, which, by the way, was invented in the early 1900s to actually teach children the pitfalls of an economy that is premised on land speculation and luck. Yet, hey presto, what do we have to this day?

I’d just like to quote here from Paul Hawken, who says, and I quote, “We have an economy where we steal the future, sell it in the present, and call it GDP.” GDP, of course, was invented by a guy called Simon Kuznets who took it to the US Congress in the 1930s and was, like, “Hey guys, here’s a really good way for us to measure economic transactions at a macro scale inside of our economy.” But, God forbid, do not use it as a measure of what he called welfare and we now call wellbeing. That’s because that baseline measure of just those transactions does not give us any meaningful insight into the value of those transactions, whether we actually want them in the first place, whether they actually benefit people and the planet, nor the distribution of those transactions; that is, who benefits from those transactions. Because the squiggly line of GDP can go up, but we also know full well that so too can homelessness, so too can the desecration of the environmental fundamentals that are necessary for life as we know it. So the kind of premise from the Green Party here is that we can do this economy thing a lot better.

We’ve heard a lot about how this bill is apparently going to be the magic bullet to deal with inflation. In fact, we’ve heard some really fascinating things, including in the closing remarks from the Minister of Finance, about how we want to get rid of inflation. The kind of logical consequence of that is probably deflation or stagflation. And again, I’d really like some clarity, and perhaps we’ll get that in this, you know, magical monetary policy remit which will come out at some point subsequent to this bill passing under urgency without any meaningful scrutiny, least of all through select committee.

But with all of this talk from members of the Government about prices going up for many goods which are provided inside of our domestic economy, largely under a duopolistic kind of behaviour, it seems as though they’re actually probably more fundamentally concerned about capitalism and the way that capitalism works. [Interruption] I can see that riled them up and I’m grateful for it, because I’d love them to stand up and to excuse or to make a rationale for those points that they’re talking about with regard to inflation and what drives it. Because, in fact, we actually also throughout the election had some great pieces of research coming out from the likes of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions which showed us that corporate greed was one of the major drivers of inflation domestically. They may bicker with me about that point, but so far the major citation that I have heard from members of the Government about the market players that matter right now, with regard to their perception of inflation, are Business New Zealand. Again, we can have all kinds of debates about the relationships that political parties have with entities outside of this House.

But the fundamental point remains that this bill will not do what it says on the tin and what the Government is promising that it will do. Because, again, those three core points that the Greens have stated time and again throughout this debate remain. It is that the Reserve Bank Governor himself has put it on the record, as the Minister well knows, that the dual mandate has not changed the way that they approach or focus on inflation or price stability. So the subtext of what’s being put forward today by the Government is that they don’t trust the Governor, as far as that goes. The second thing is that it is unnecessary to change the law to do this, as reflected in the regulatory impact statement from the Minister’s own officials. “They could do this through the remit”, which it appears that they’re also still planning to impose some kind of consideration for employment within—so, again, I’m still kind of quite puzzled as to what outcome we’re seeking to get here, because they still want the MPC to have regard to employment, if not maximum sustainable employment. And, thirdly, they still want the monetary policy committee to have regard to employment; i.e., they still want some kind of form of this dual mandate. We’re just not quite sure how that’s going to play out and we’re playing a wait and see game which is not a very evidence-informed way to have a debate or discussion or to progress legislation; in fact, it’s the opposite of evidence based.

So I am just finally reflecting on all of the other pieces of evidence that have come out, and actually also some of the sentiments as expressed by the Minister about the kind of interrelationship between monetary policy and fiscal policy, because she was making it abundantly clear that her view, the economic orthodoxy’s view, of which she and the Government is apparently the arbiter of—but their view is that the sole remit of monetary policy should be that focus on price stability and that it is the remit of fiscal policy; i.e., the things that the Government does, tax and spend primarily, which should be that which focuses on employment. But I would also argue that that’s where the Government should also focus on things like productivity and should also focus on things like inequality, should also focus on things like house price stability and otherwise, rental affordability.

To that effect, it would be remiss of me not to mention a landmark piece of research which came out at the beginning of this year from Treasury with subsidiary papers from the IRD, which gave us a pretty clear insight into where the productivity problem is in this country. It’s in our tax system. It’s in our tax system, which sees right now the top 311 families in this country holding more wealth than the bottom 2.5 million New Zealanders combined. That is not an accident. It is a consequence of a tax system which sees a disproportionate burden placed on those who work for their living versus those who simply accumulate more and more capital.

That can be addressed. That can be addressed whilst also addressing our productivity problem and, God forbid, rewarding hard-working New Zealanders for their work. If we were to fix the problem which sees us as the only OECD country without any form of capital gains tax, of inheritance tax, of stamp duty tax, of ghost house tax, or otherwise—you can reduce the burden on working people if you fix our tax system and you can get more productivity out of it in the long run.

We face massive challenges as a country and as a world with the dual crises of the climate crisis and inequality. This bill doesn’t touch the sides on either of those things.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Well, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I thought that was another refreshing nugget of honesty in another of Chlöe Swarbrick’s speeches, where she said at one point—as someone who’s spent 6½ hours in this Chamber debating this bill—there’d been no meaningful scrutiny. I mean, I think she needs to give herself a bit more credit. I know there’s a productivity problem in New Zealand, but to spend 6½ hours and then tell the whole world and put in Hansard on the public record that you achieved nothing is really take self-effacement far too far.

I’m proud to stand on behalf of ACT and as part of this Government to support this bill. This bill is the right thing to do, and the Opposition knows it. And we know they know it, and everyone at home can see they know it, because they have made such contradictory arguments. We heard from Deborah Russell at one point that if this bill went through and there was no longer an objective of maximum sustainable employment, then we would be neglecting people’s jobs, that people could lose their jobs. I guess the logical response to that is that the Reserve Bank should print as much money as possible to keep people employed! That was an extraordinary thing for Deborah Russell to say, and to think that she was the Minister of Revenue responsible for the country’s entire tax system—it just makes me glad that we’re over that period, frankly.

But then we also heard from Grant Robertson—who, I’ve got to give credit, has a few more chops, at least when it comes to the economy and spending money. He was making the argument, as was Chlöe Swarbrick, that having a dual mandate for the past three years has actually made no difference whatsoever. So we might as well keep the dual mandate, we might as well keep the Reserve Bank focused on price stability, because it only focuses on price stability anyway. Now, if anyone trying to follow along thinks, “Well, that doesn’t quite make sense”, well, they’re actually right to think that because it doesn’t.

If having a dual mandate, as we’ve heard claimed from the Opposition, made not a jot of difference to how the Reserve Bank acted, the Reserve Bank effectively behaved as though the dual mandate was never introduced, then you might ask: what was the previous Government, and specific members still on that side of the House who voted for it—what was their justification for introducing the dual mandate?

There’s a few possibilities. Perhaps they thought, wrongly, at the time, that the dual mandate would have an effect on monetary policy. That’s OK—we’ve all thought things in the past that turned out not to be true. In fact, that’s actually how knowledge advances: you have a theory, you test it, sometimes it’s wrong, you discard it and pick up a new theory—that’s fine. But if it’s true that they used to think the dual mandate would change the Reserve Bank’s behaviour, somehow, for the better, and they’ve since learnt that it didn’t, if they were rational people on the Opposition benches, they would have changed their position and said, “Look, we were wrong then, it didn’t make any difference, so we’re quite comfortable with getting rid of it.” That would have been a logical and sensible approach for the Opposition members to take. But they haven’t taken that approach. They’ve said, “We introduced it, it made no difference, but, somehow, it should be kept.” How they manage to square that circle, I do not know.

Another variant of that of that argument was made by Chlöe Swarbrick, who had read in the regulatory impact statement that there was the possibility the Government could achieve its objectives by changing the remit—that is, the direction or the lever from the Minister of Finance to the Reserve Bank Governor—rather than changing the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. But, once again, if that is true that the objectives of the bank set out in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act make no difference and can be somehow substituted for or even overridden by the remit, then that would have applied just as logically back when the previous Government changed the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act to introduce the dual mandate. So if they really believe the argument they’re making today, they could have actually just changed the remit three or four years ago instead of spending all of the time that they spent amending the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act.

That leaves the Opposition in quite a pickle. Were they right then? Are they right now? Is it possible they’re wrong both times? Logically it’s not, but I’m going to tell you which time they were wrong. You see, it is a simple fact that if you hold one lever, you can only pull it in one direction at a time, and if the Reserve Bank holds a lever which is how quickly the printing presses run or not—and I know some people say that’s a metaphor, and they’re right—how easily available do they make credit in the New Zealand economy? Well, they can either run the printing presses faster or slower, and if they run it faster, then at least in the short term that can stimulate economic activity—no question about that. Countries all around the world, despots, bad rulers—they run the printing press fast and everyone feels rich for a while, and, woah, the economy takes off. But if there’s not enough production, the prices go up, we get inflation, and people find that they’re actually just running to stand still and it’s hard to predict what stuff’s going to cost.

So you can certainly run it faster, and that can have an effect, at least in the short run. Or you can run it slower, and sometimes that’s necessary to make sure that there’s not so much cash floating around in the economy and prices are more stable. What the Government was asking the Reserve Bank to do with the previous policy of a dual mandate was push one lever in two directions at once. Well, it cannot work, and we saw it come out in the debate where some members opposite said, “Well, maybe there could be two objectives but we could just make it really clear that one was more important than the other.” But the question that immediately arises is: how much more important? Does it mean that just sometimes they should push the lever in one direction, but most of the time the other, according to whether it’s employment or inflation that is most important to control? How would they prioritise that one was more important than the other?

The fact is that the Reserve Bank has one lever—print money faster or print money slower—and they can only push the lever in one direction at a time. If they try to do both, or even if they try to pretend some subterfuge that they’re prioritising one over the other, then they will find that they cannot be honest and they cannot be accountable because it’s logically impossible to answer the question of whether they’re doing the right thing. The only available answer will always be “We’re doing both because we have to.” So moving back to a single mandate is the only way that we can be sure that we will have a Reserve Bank that clearly understands its job, that is totally accountable for doing its job, that can never say, “Well, I failed at one but I was doing both.” There will be one standard for the Reserve Bank and that is: have they met their single objective, which is price stability?

For members opposite who say, “When will this work and how can it work and did it work before?”, well, economies and market participants are funny things. You see, markets are really about processing information, and when new information comes into play, people start to take account for it. People start to price in what they expect to happen in the future. I suspect that, other things being equal, by taking this step today, by sending the message we now have a Government that is prepared to put its time and its capital—and a whole lot of Chlöe Swarbrick’s time, apparently—into making sure it’s perfectly clear what our monetary policy objectives are, that people are going to start pricing in, that a new sherrif is in town and inflation is going to the wall. I just suspect that, actually, that is going to have an effect on the prices that people pay, and they will be lower than they would have otherwise been, and people can start to feel some relief from the long, hard, grinding road of inflation they’ve been subject to by the previous Government for nearly three years now where inflation has been outside the target band.

That’s why the leadership being shown by this Government to everybody in the New Zealand economy that price stability and sound money are front and centre is an essential foundation to the economic recovery and the prosperity that this country sorely needs. I support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): New Zealand First rises to support this bill in its third reading, probably in fewer words than the previous speaker, but we do endorse Mr Seymour’s comments.

We have recently had an election. The wheels were falling off everywhere in New Zealand, but, essentially, the biggest issue was the cost of living. We as a coalition Government, if we have one job, it is to get on top of inflation. Kiwis have found this in their back pocket: it’s their groceries, it’s their rent, it’s their rates—it is all pervasive. Inflation has impacted everyone, at an individual level, to businesses in employment, the ability to pass on wages, etc. This is foundational in terms of engineering our recovery out of the dire situation we found it in.

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) in this is being sent a very clear signal that we want inflation under control. The RBNZ also sent the Government a clear message recently—in fact, Governor Orr telling the Labour Government that “monetary policy needs mates”. So it’s not only about this; it’s about making sure our fiscal policy is matching and that we’re not pouring petrol on the fire. We’re very confident that Minister Willis will take heed of that advice and that she will get her arms around this problem.

The target is unambiguous, it is clear, it is direct, and we are confident that the RBNZ will pick up on that and act. It’s also a signal to the markets, it’s a signal to businesses, and it’s a signal to the public that we mean business. We will banish inflation, and we believe, in New Zealand First, that this is a foundational step. We support the Minister of Finance in bringing this forward, so we’ll support this bill to the House.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Well, I speak on the third reading of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill. As laid out in my contributions in the first and second readings, Te Pāti Māori are strongly opposing this bill. I want to begin by reiterating how outrageous it is that the Government have pushed this law through under urgency. To refuse experts in the public the opportunity to submit is arrogant and extreme. It is reckless lawmaking. Te Pāti Māori are concerned with the excessive use of urgency that we have seen from successive Governments. Urgency should only be used when something is genuinely urgent, such as bills that respond to natural emergencies—and don’t worry, this was the same speech we gave to the last Government as well. There is nothing pressing or urgent about this bill, and even when urgency is used there should always still be a select committee process, even if it is shortened.

As a new member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I would have welcomed the opportunity to hear from the Reserve Bank and the other monetary policy experts on the implications of this bill. But it is clear that the implications are all bad. The benefit of the maximum sustainable employment objective of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act is that it ensures that the bank considers how its monetary policy effects employment outcomes. During periods in which prices are relatively stable, which is most of the time, the bank can stimulate the economy to support high levels of employment. This is an important counterweight to the general price stability emphasis of the Act and the bank’s operational policy. It helps to ensure the bank doesn’t run an unnecessarily restrictive monetary policy that damages economic output and employment outcomes.

This bill is a solution looking for a problem. There is no economic evidence that the employment mandate has contributed to inflation over the past two years, nor that it has had any other negative economic impacts. Monetary and economic policy should be designed in such a way that it uplifts the social and cultural outcomes of tangata whenua, tangata moana, and working people. Monetary policy that is blindly focused on economic orthodoxy and protecting the interests of the wealthy must be rejected.

The Te Pāti Māori approach to reforming the Reserve Bank would entirely be different. We would be looking to widen the mandate of the bank, not limit it even further. If you look at other countries, many have a much broader view and mandates for their reserve banks to take into account social outcomes and ensuring the wellbeing of communities. The mandate should include holistic wellbeing outcomes including social, cultural, and environmental.

The 21st century calls for radical rethink to the way we do economics in this country. The economy is not an end in of itself. It is a tool we can use to improve the social outcomes for our communities. People are struggling. Just getting the basics is becoming more and more expensive. Unemployment is rising. Māori unemployment, as always, is rising even faster. This bill just fills the pockets of this Government’s rich mates. At this time, we should be laser focused on policies to reduce unemployment, yet this Government is doing the exact opposite. We can see clearly the agenda of this Minister of Finance, which is capitalism over workers. It is the beginning.

Carl Bates: Misinformation!

RAWIRI WAITITI: Oh, nickonomics. This is why we condemn this legislation. Te Pāti Māori will continue to fight for tangata whenua, tangata Tiriti, and for ordinary working people. E te Whare, tēnā tātou.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Can I congratulate you on your appointment as Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare.

I think, for the benefit of people who might be watching at home, we should put our speeches and language into a context that means something to ordinary people. I think, to ordinary people, the work of the Reserve Bank is not always clear. The impact of monetary and fiscal policy on people’s everyday lives, when we use that kind of jargon, isn’t always clear. This bill is not likely to make any substantial difference to inflation in and of itself. There is absolutely no reason to believe it would make a difference to inflation.

As I showed members opposite last night in the second reading on this bill, if we look at Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation right around the globe, New Zealand tracked right along with other countries, like the United States, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Australia. In fact, New Zealand’s inflation peaked at a lower level and, while CPI inflation has been slower to come down, ultimately it’s the same general shape, and that’s because the shock that affected New Zealand affected the whole world, and reserve banks around the world responded in similar ways—the constraints on people going to work, because of the COVID pandemic, did result in supply chain shortages, and there were other factors, like the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, which affected gas prices and oil prices, which flowed on to energy prices here in New Zealand.

So the main takeaway for people at home is that New Zealand has been through a similar experience to many other countries—that the new Government is trying to blame these arbitrary things on that result, rather than looking at the factors that genuinely contributed to prices going up here in New Zealand. Once we got into a situation of inflation and the Reserve Bank started tightening, which means raising interest rates, that has almost a cyclical effect—like, it tends to reinforce the price rises that were happening. So now food producers’ interest rates are going up—they’re passing that on in the price of food. Interest rates going up for mortgage holders, interest rates going up for landlords—so they’re putting up rents, even when they probably already own the building outright and don’t have a mortgage on it. So we get into the situation where the fact of increasing interest rates, while it can only bring down the price of so many things, definitely has an effect on asset prices like housing, but not necessarily consumer goods.

Ultimately, what the new Government wants people at home to believe is that they have the answers, that they are the masters of the economy, and that they’re going to improve everything for everyone in the country. The truth is that they have been put in these positions by wealthy donors and vested interests to look after the interests of those people, especially from the ACT Party but also from Nicola Willis, the Minister of Finance, in the National Party. There is a dangerous ideology, which is the belief that letting rich people get richer is good for everyone—well, obviously that’s not true—that implementing the failed neoliberal policies of the 1980s and 1990s will somehow make New Zealand more productive and lead to everyone being richer. But the truth is that what works for individuals to get wealthy in this current system does not work for everyone.

So when you say, for example, that we’re going to reward people for being landlords—which means that they do no work and they earn a return on their asset, and they don’t pay tax on that—everyone in the country cannot get wealthy through being landlords. I mean, think about it: can every single person in New Zealand be a landlord and get rich that way? No. Property owning is a type of rent-seeking which is not part of the productive economy, but the people opposite cannot tell the difference between what is good for them and their donors and what is good for New Zealand as a whole. They can’t tell the difference, and the reality is that, if New Zealanders want to see genuine, sustained improvement in our quality of life, we need to protect our environment, we need to make sure our water is clear, we need to accurately price pollution and externalities, and we need to support people by investing in public services, by raising benefits, by limiting the growth of rents, through things like rent controls, and that will genuinely create an environment in which people have an opportunity to succeed.

We all do better when we share the wealth, not hoard it, and that’s what the Green Party will continue to campaign for.

Debate interrupted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The House is now suspended for lunch and will resume at 2 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 12.59 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Speaker’s Rulings

Te Reo Māori—Simultaneous Interpretation in the Chamber

SPEAKER: Members, the House is resumed. The Business Committee yesterday, essentially, convened for a discussion on the use of te reo Māori in the House during oral questions. I want to reiterate the right of every member to use any official language of New Zealand in the House.

To ensure that members do hear the interpretation of anybody’s contribution, it was agreed at the Business Committee yesterday that the interpreters will take around about 15 to 20 seconds’ pause while they begin that particular translation. I think this will assist members in using the earpieces that are currently provided. There’s also some investigation going on into the quality of the earpieces we’ve got. Quite clearly, moving forward, we’re going to need better—I see all the heads nodding; that’s great. It’s like being back in the classroom—it’s fantastic. Quite clearly, we’re going to need to have a better audio system available to members.

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Making infrastructure investment decisions quickly. That paper is published under the authority of the House.

Points of Order

Question No. 11 to Minister, 12 December

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday at question time, in response to a question from the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, the Minister for Children provided an answer where she stated that it was in the negative. Now, subsequently, she’s come to correct that, which is great. But in a series of points of order after that answer was given, the Hon David Seymour stated that the answer that was provided was in the positive. So it’s the view of the Labour Party that if the Minister has subsequently come down to correct her answer, perhaps Mr Seymour should also be asked to correct his statement, given he was speaking on behalf of the Minister’s response.

SPEAKER: Does Mr Seymour have any response to that?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): My statement was based on the facts as I believed them at the time. It’s clear from the Hansard record that those facts have changed, and people might imagine that I’ve changed my view too, and it doesn’t in any way invalidate the record of what I said at that time.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he could do a little better than that, because, if the Minister has made a correction, perhaps, it would be a good idea to indicate to the House that you accept the correction.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It would be extraordinary if I didn’t. I’m obliged to take all members at their word, and I certainly take the honourable Minister at her word in issuing the correction.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the Paris Agreement 2030 emissions reduction targets, “We are going to meet our commitments and obligations”, or does he agree with his Minister for Resources, who said yesterday that “We are not going to meet the 2030 dreamy, fairy-tale, aspirational figures”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, I stand by my statement. The Government is going to meet its obligations and commitments that it’s made on climate change, and I also stand by the statement from the Minister of Resources as well, because he was clearly talking about the previous Government’s 100 percent renewable electricity target, which is, actually, a fairy tale and is counter-productive.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does his Government have any targets or policies to reduce fossil fuel use across the energy and transport industry to replace the 2030 renewable electricity target, and, if not, why not?

Hon Chris Bishop: It’s called electrifying New Zealand.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, we’re going to actually electrify New Zealand by doubling the amount of renewable electricity that’s in New Zealand so we can make the transition well and make our sectors move to clean, green energy.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned about the growing contradiction, under this Government, between New Zealand’s international and climate commitments and domestic plans which undermine efforts to reduce emissions, such as reopening oil and gas drilling and cancelling the Clean Car Discount?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely not. We are deeply committed to delivering on our climate goals and commitments. The way we go about doing that may be different from the previous Government, but don’t misunderstand our commitment to the targets and goals.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement, “There is no reason for climate deniers and climate minimalists in the 21st century”, and, if so, is he embarrassed by the statements of the Minister of Resources that “One of the great lies about climate change is that, yes, apparently, it’s a crisis.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Climate change is a crisis.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with the Climate Change Commission that “Weakening action on climate policy during times of adverse economic conditions—which climate change is only likely to exacerbate—is not sustainable and will greatly compromise [Aotearoa New Zealand’s] ability to meet [emissions budgets and the 2050 target].”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re not weakening our actions on climate change; we’re just going about it a different way.

Chlöe Swarbrick: That’s a demonstrable lie.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he or will he not instruct all Ministers to implement the commission’s advice—

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. I apologise for interrupting the member. You may not have heard, but, after the Prime Minister resumed her seat, I heard Chlöe Swarbrick say, “That’s a demonstrable lie.” That’s quite a serious accusation to make of any member, and I wonder what your view is and how you’re going to enforce such rules?

SPEAKER: Look, I did not hear it from up here. If the member made a statement like that, she may consider withdrawing and apologising.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Speaking to the point of order, my point was that it is demonstrable.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. I think the member should be given a chance to withdraw that, because it may well be on the Hansard audio record, and, if that’s the case, then we know where this goes after that.

Hon Marama Davidson: Speaking to the point of order, there are all sorts of statements—

SPEAKER: Start again.

Hon Marama Davidson: —on the Hansard record, including from that very Minister.

SPEAKER: Excuse me! Start again. I’ll call the member so the whole House can hear her. The Hon Marama Davidson speaking to the point of order.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I apologise. There are a whole range of statements on the Hansard record, and I’m happy to accept clarity for what will and will be struck off Hansard records. Thank you.

SPEAKER: That wasn’t the point being made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. However, I’ve got advice here. Speakers’ ruling 48/1: saying a member is lying is always out of order. So if that is what the member said and does not want to withdraw it, then that does have other consequences.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Speaking to the point of order, I was speaking to the content of the policies, as put forward by this Government, and the fact that the content of those policies is a lie. If the inference is that, therefore, the Minister or the Prime Minister is a liar, that wasn’t the statement that I was making, but I was pointing out that it is demonstrable on the evidence that the undertakings from this Government are completely contrary to our climate commitments.

SPEAKER: OK, I think we’ll move on. That is an opinion; others will make a judgment on whatever the Hansard record might eventually show.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he or will he not instruct all Ministers to implement the commission’s advice in their work programmes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Our Government’s committed to delivering on climate change, and our Ministers are making sure that they can do that through their respective portfolios.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can he name one decision that his Government has taken to date that will materially reduce New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions; if so, what is it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s our plan to actually increase and double the amount of renewable electricity.

SPEAKER: We come now to—[Interruption] Yeah, good—nice argument across the House.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and particularly the Government’s statement that we will be a Government that gets things done for New Zealand. That starts with our 100-day plan, which includes a number of changes to make it easier for Kiwis to be able to get ahead, make our communities safer, and deliver better health and education for our young people. This is a Government that’s got a mandate for change, and its focus is on delivery for New Zealanders, unlike the previous Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his Government’s commitment in the National-ACT agreement to “Review whether the Firearms Registry is effectively improving public safety,”, or does he agree with Mark Mitchell that the registry was justified, as the country, without a doubt, has an issue with licensed firearm holders going in and buying—on order—for people who don’t have licences, mostly gang members and organised crime?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We agree with the decision to review the gun register.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we want to make sure that it is working effectively and delivering public safety.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has he told Mark Mitchell he’s wrong?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: He’s not wrong. We support the gun register. We want to make a review to make sure that it’s working effectively.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with David Seymour that ACT’s proposal to have a debate and referendum on the Treaty—“you know, the coalition Government has agreed to go halfway with that, and then re-evaluate and perhaps proceed further, and it will actually enhance the mana of the Treaty”—or does he agree with Christopher Luxon that “we will pursue a Treaty Principles Bill to select committee, and that is as far as it will go.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The position of the Government is that we will support the bill until select committee, through its first reading, and that’s as far the comment goes at this stage.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What’s the point of sending a bill to a select committee that the Government intends to vote down, other than to waste thousands of hours of people’s time and a lot of taxpayers’ money?

Hon Shane Jones: Democracy.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s a democracy. And as part of our coalition agreement with National and ACT, that is our commitment that we have made.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is this the first example of the Government’s reduction in waste—that they’re going to vote in favour of a bill going to select committee that they have no intention of passing into law?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I think it’s a bit rich for that member to talk about wasteful Government spending. He led a Government that undertook so much wasteful Government spending, it drove domestic inflation, drove interest rates up, slowed our economic growth up, and put at risk employment. So, no disrespect, not taking any lectures from that member.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has she received on the challenge of inflation in New Zealand?

SPEAKER: Just before the member answers, we need to have—I know that was a loud burst; it’s a technical issue—a bit of quiet while people are asking questions.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The reports I have received confirm that inflation remains a major challenge in New Zealand, at a rate of 5.6 percent, even while inflation falls rapidly overseas. The Reserve Bank has said in their most recent Monetary Policy Statement that non-tradable inflation is easing only gradually, highlighting the challenge facing the Government and the Reserve Bank as we look to win the fight on inflation in coming months. I want to reassure New Zealanders who are struggling with the cost of living that beating inflation is this Government’s top priority. Our first act in Parliament was to introduce and progress legislation returning the Reserve Bank to a single mandate, ensuring New Zealanders can have confidence that our commitment to beating inflation is rock solid.

Catherine Wedd: How does inflation in New Zealand compare to other countries overseas?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, while inflation remains very high at home, at 5.6 percent, other countries offshore are already making significant progress. Inflation in the United States fell to just 3.1 percent overnight.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How’s the UK going?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Inflation in Canada is also down at 3.1 percent. Mr Hipkins asks what the inflation rate is in the UK, and I can inform him it is down at 4.6 percent, so he managed to do an even worse job than the UK.

Catherine Wedd: What factors have led domestic inflation to remain so high?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: According to the OECD’s latest economic outlook, “Up until late 2023, too much weight has been put on monetary policy to reduce inflation, requiring higher interest rates”, and that “The fiscal deficit is contributing to this imbalance.” The incoming Government will not be able to fix in one Budget an imbalance of spending that has built up over six years. However, the outgoing Government has left us with a forecast deficit this year of $11.4 billion—and that’s in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update. But we are already taking early action, as part of the 100-day plan, to end wasteful spending, and I look forward to giving many speeches on that.

Catherine Wedd: What next steps is the Government taking to support New Zealanders with the cost of living crisis?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We know that New Zealanders are struggling, which is why the Government is committed to delivering fiscally neutral tax relief next year. After years of watching their money squandered on wasteful projects like Lake Onslow, light rail, the Auckland bike bridge project that cost millions and went nowhere, like the TVNZ-RNZ merger, the jobs tax, the income insurance scheme, and all of the other items in the policy bonfire, our Government is committed to reducing wasteful spending and delivering income tax relief for New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister of Finance as to whether or not, in her previous answer, that is the greatest disparity ever between a forecast surplus and an actual deficit?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What I would also highlight—the member is correct to highlight—

Hon Grant Robertson: Answer the question.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Deputy Prime Minister is correct to highlight that the gulf between the rhetoric of a Government and the actual numbers it delivered—I don’t think has ever been wider. Because we had a finance Minister who repeatedly promised a return to surplus, and yet every time he arose to announce his next Budget, the surplus would mysteriously slip, slip, slip away.

Question No. 4—Children

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā tātou e te Whare. Kāore au i te pātai i tēnei pātai i roto i te reo Māori.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, greetings to all of us in the House. I will not ask this question in the Māori language.]

4. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement on the Government’s policy to remove section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, “Nothing about this change will affect the support services and programmes that Oranga Tamariki provides for Māori”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, could we possibly just have the question? But if it is to be in Māori, can we have it in Māori—but not both?

SPEAKER: Very good. We’ll have the answer from the Hon Karen Chhour.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: How can she stand by that statement when Oranga Tamariki’s own public website states that section 7AA enables them to “develop strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations, including iwi authorities”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: By removing section 7AA, that will not remove the ability for the 10 strategic partnerships that are currently in place and work to be made on other strategic partnerships. I have instructed officials to continue working with iwi, hapū, and whānau when this is to the benefit of our children.

Rawiri Waititi: How can she stand by that statement when Oranga Tamariki also spell out that the section ensures “that policies, practices and services have regard to mana tamaiti, whakapapa and whanaungatanga”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Nothing in removing section 7AA will remove that. There are already existing provisions within the Act that protect the rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi. I refer the member to sections 4, 5, and 13 of the Oranga Tamariki Act.

Rawiri Waititi: What is her response to iwi leaders appalled by this policy, including Waikato-Tainui chairperson Tukoroirangi Morgan, who has said that taking the section would sever iwi partnerships successfully reconnecting tamariki Māori with their whakapapa?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I respect what that member has to say, but nothing—by removing that Act—will make that happen. The only people implying that these partnerships will be affected are those from across the House, and I have instructed officials that they should continue working with iwi and Māori organisations where this is achieving positive outcomes for young people.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does she agree with Chief Children’s Commissioner, Dr Claire Achmad, who said that section 7AA “makes clear the right of mokopuna Māori be connected with and know their whakapapa. That means wherever they can be safe being in the care of their whānau, hapū and iwi.”, and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The Oranga Tamariki Act already has provisions which protect the rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi. I again refer the member to sections 4, 5, and 13 of the Oranga Tamariki Act.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can she justify this policy to whānau, hapū, and iwi Māori when she knows full well that this will lead to many more tamariki Māori being severed from whakapapa?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I actually really disagree with that sentiment. Nothing with removing section 7AA from the Act removes the ability for young people to connect with their whakapapa.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is she comfortable with her legacy as Minister for Children being the person who presided over another stolen generation of indigenous children?

SPEAKER: The Minister may answer, but that question is pretty wide of the mark and not—

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I am proud to stand here as the Minister for Children that represents a Government that is committed to making sure that every child in New Zealand wakes up knowing today is going to be a better day.

Question No. 5—Regional Development

5. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Development: What updates can he provide of any regional development investments?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): It’s my pleasure to announce to the House that as a consequence of a far-sighted politician six years ago making an investment, on behalf of the Government, in the Snowy River goldmine, the entirety of the $15 million has been paid back. This goldmine in Te Tai Poutini, the West Coast, enjoyed the upside of employing 50 people. Another 140 are on the way as they seek to raise $100 million—a great example of central government collaborating with industry in regional New Zealand.

Jenny Marcroft: Is he confident that seabed mining will feature in regional development investments?

Hon SHANE JONES: Yes. Seabed mining has a legitimate place in New Zealand’s regional economy. Sadly, a number of pixie-like hapū in Taranaki have sought to undermine this legitimate industry. I can assure you, though, that the Environmental Protection Authority legislation, if it needs to be changed to give certainty to investors—and we will not have tikanga Māori mangled and distorted 37 kilometres off the coast of Taranaki.

SPEAKER: Just before the member speaks, I’ll just say that we can’t, on one hand, demand a degree of decorum in the House and then bring in expressive language like that that can be a little inflammatory. The member’s very good at it, there’s no question about that—most entertaining but not particularly helpful.

Jenny Marcroft: How will oil and gas investments located in regional New Zealand feature in regional development?

Hon SHANE JONES: I brought this document here with me today, which contains an assertion, aspirational in nature, that, by 2030, all sources of energy to maintain security of supply in regional New Zealand will be renewable. Oil and gas will play a key role, and when that legislation is changed in regional New Zealand, it will offer certainty to the investment community. And then the grown-ups will ensure that there is security and manageable risk in our energy sector, unlike what we hear from the other side of the House. I look forward to providing that educational service to other members of Parliament.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What is the total cost to the Government of the “tax relief” outlined in the Policy Programme of the Government as expressed in the coalition agreements?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The Government stands by the commitments set out in our coalition agreements. The advice I have received on the potential fiscal impact of tax relief is obviously Budget sensitive, and I look forward to updating the House on details in due course.

Hon Grant Robertson: Does she stand by the answers she’s given in this House that she does not know what specific revenue initiatives will fund the tax relief programme?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would have to see that comment in context to believe it is being fairly represented in the House.

Hon Grant Robertson: How can she say that she will deliver fiscally neutral tax relief, when she doesn’t know how much it’s going to cost?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because I do know how much it’s going to cost, but I am not sharing with that member the information when it is Budget sensitive. I can also be confident about delivering tax relief, because, unlike the member opposite, I actually believe New Zealanders deserve to keep more of what they earn, and they deserve a Government that won’t waste their hard-earned wages on boondoggles, like he did.

Hon Grant Robertson: Why has the member changed her position on the app tax?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am not responsible for commitments made in party manifestos.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that the National Party’s position before the election was to reverse the app tax, and it is now the position of a National-led Government that it will keep the app tax in place?

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you know what I’m going to say: the Minister is not responsible for statements made by political parties before elections.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Just like GST.

SPEAKER: Yeah—good. The member might like to try another way of asking the question.

Hon Grant Robertson: Does she agree with Nicola Willis, the National Party finance spokesperson, who said that the app tax was an outrage and should be reversed?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do agree with Nicola Willis. And what I also agree with Nicola Willis on is that it is time for a Government that stops tax grabbing and should start by prioritising income tax relief for working people. We have been left with fiscal constraints, by the previous Government, that are extreme, and, in that context, our priority must be letting New Zealanders keep more of what they earn with personal income tax relief.

Hon Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, that she agrees that the app tax was outrageous and should be reversed—she agrees with Nicola Willis on that—how can she continue to be the Minister of Finance in a Government that is now imposing the app tax?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I agreed with the statements of Nicola Willis in the context in which they were given. As the Minister of Finance, I am responsible for the policy commitments of our Government and its decisions.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Transport: What actions is he taking to repeal the Clean Car Discount scheme by 31 December?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Our coalition Government committed to axing the ute tax and Clean Car Discount scheme by 31 December, providing assurance to hard-working New Zealanders that they can purchase the vehicles that they need without being unfairly penalised; and ending what is a fiscally unsustainable scheme. Yesterday, I introduced legislation to the House to axe the ute tax by 31 December and deliver on this commitment. This means that charges will end for vehicles after 11.59 p.m. on 31 December 2023, and buyers of low-emitting vehicles will no longer be able to apply for rebates.

Ryan Hamilton: Why are these actions being taken? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Stop there. Sorry. Far too much talk while people are asking a question. Please ask the question again.

Ryan Hamilton: Why are these actions being taken?

SIMEON BROWN: A very good question. The previous Government promised the scheme would be “fiscally neutral”, but, as at 30 November, $579 million has been paid out in rebates and $13.5 million has been spent on administration costs, while only $290 million has been received in charges. This has left taxpayers footing the bill for an eye-watering $302.5 million deficit.

Ryan Hamilton: What subsidies have been paid out under the scheme with this $302.5 million deficit?

SIMEON BROWN: Well, the $302.5 million deficit hitting taxpayers’ pockets has contributed to thousands of subsidies to high-end vehicles costing $70,000 or more. In the last 18 months alone, over $122 million has been paid out to those buying high-end vehicles under this scheme. Our Government does not believe that taxpayers should be subsidising those who can already afford to purchase these vehicles.

Ryan Hamilton: What advice has he seen on the financial sustainability of the scheme?

SIMEON BROWN: Well, advice I have received shows the Clean Car Discount scheme will not survive past mid-2024 without substantial changes to how it operates. Continuing the scheme would likely require a combination of lowering and restricting rebates to electric vehicles; increasing charges and applying them to all petrol, diesel, and some hybrids; or providing more Crown funding. This will only worsen equity issues and could result in taxpayers footing an even bigger bill.

Question No. 8—Children

8. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Yes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: The Minister said that section 7AA creates a fundamental conflict between protecting the best interests of children, on the one hand, and honouring the Treaty, on the other; what is the conflict?

KAREN CHHOUR: From what I’ve been hearing from community organisations and groups, and also hearing from news articles around the issues with section 7AA, the intent behind honouring what the Treaty means is not clear. It depends on how someone interprets what honouring the Treaty means. And so that creates a conflict, because, when decisions are being made, the decisions may vary on the interpretation of what honouring the Treaty means.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she still maintain there is a conflict, when section 4A says, “In all matters relating to the administration or application of this Act (other than Parts 4 and 5 and sections 351 to 360), the well-being and best interests of the child or young person are the first and paramount consideration, having regard to the principles set out in sections 5 and 13”?

KAREN CHHOUR: This change is about helping provide clarity of focus to social workers to any decisions they make around removals and placements, and there are already provisions in the Act that provide rights to whānau, hapū and iwi. I refer this member to sections 4, 5, and 13 of the Oranga Tamariki Act.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can the Minister confirm that before the introduction of the bill, she will meet with the strategic Māori partners: Eastern Bay of Plenty Iwi Provider Alliance, Māori Women’s Welfare League partnership, Ngāti Kahungunu partnership, Ngāi Tahu partnership, Waikato-Tainui partnership, Tūhoe partnership, Ngāpuhi partnership, Ngāti Toa Rangatira and Te Āti Awa partnership, and Te Kahu Oranga partnership?

KAREN CHHOUR: I have asked for advice on how I can organise to meet with these groups that have committed partnership agreements, and if my calendar has the space to do this, I will do so.

SPEAKER: Can I just say, no noise over here either [Gestures to Government side] when there is a question being asked.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: In light of her response to question No. 4, that she is proud, how can she possibly feel proud to condemn future generations of Māori tamariki to be alienated from their whakapapa, language, and culture?

SPEAKER: I think the Minister might like to make an attempt to answer that question—you’re making a big supposition there which is a little outside of it. Let’s see what we can get.

KAREN CHHOUR: I am very proud to stand here and be the Minister for Children and to make sure that I am putting things in place to make the lives of children in New Zealand better. Nothing I have ever said or done implies that I want to destroy Māori heritage, whakapapa, or anything to do with Māori ethnicity.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister to be careful of when she sees these Māori groups, because the last Minister in her place who did that ended up voting for another political party, not Labour.

SPEAKER: Very good. Thank you for the advice—I’m sure the whole House will take that on board.

Question No. 9—Education

9. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to improve literacy and numeracy achievement in New Zealand?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yesterday, the Education Bulletin was sent out to the education sector, indicating the Government’s intention to implement the hour a day policy into New Zealand schools. Improving outcomes in reading, writing, and maths is a priority for this Government, so I have asked schools with students in years 0 to 8 to spend an average of an hour a day teaching reading, writing, and maths.

Carl Bates: Why is it important that children spend an hour a day on each of these subjects?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Reading, writing, and maths are fundamental skills that unlock the rest of the curriculum. In a 2021 report into the teaching of mathematics in New Zealand, the Royal Society found significant variation amongst schools in terms of the amount of time devoted to teaching maths, with some teachers scheduling maths for as much as seven hours a week, while others teach it for fewer than three. It was their recommendation, in that report, to introduce an hour a day of mathematics. The previous Government ignored those recommendations. But this Government will be introducing an hour a day to see all children, across New Zealand, getting consistent, high-quality education that they deserve, and this is just the first step.

Carl Bates: What results has the Minister seen to indicate that this change is necessary?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment results show a significant decline in the performance of 15-year-old students in maths, compared to 2018, and confirms the long-term trend of declining achievement in core subjects since 2000. The 2022 national monitoring study showed that only 41.5 percent of our year 8s were at curriculum for maths after eight years of schooling. These results show us that our education system has continued to deliver poor outcomes for learners. But our Government has a plan to turn this around. Our Teaching the Basics Brilliantly policy, which includes an hour a day, builds an important foundation to ensure young people receive the high-quality education they deserve and allows them to live the life that they want.

Hon Jan Tinetti: How does the Minister know how frequently reading, writing, and maths is currently being taught in classrooms, given the acknowledgment, in the Ministry of Education bulletin to school principals yesterday, that many of them were already doing that and little change was needed?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: If the member opposite had been listening to my previous answer, she would have heard the fact that the Government’s own report that they commissioned in 2021 stated that there was a wide variation between schools in the teaching of mathematics, with some only teaching it for three hours a day. We acknowledge that many schools already do this, but there is some variability, and we want to make sure it is consistent across the sector. And I suggest that the member, next time, listens more carefully to my answers.

Carl Bates: What will an hour a day look like in practice in the classroom?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I said in the Education Bulletin that went out this week, we know that many schools already do an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths. But it is our intention to ensure that this great practice is happening consistently across the sector in New Zealand. We expect that these hours take place across the entire school day and throughout the curriculum. This will include explicit teaching, collaborative learning, activities, games, and all the other best-practice techniques teachers use to engage and develop young people’s skills. But, rest assured, it is our expectation that our young people are getting access to an hour of reading, writing, and mathematics every day, across the whole country, in every classroom.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) to the Minister of Transport: What communication, if any, has he had with the Ministry of Transport and Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency regarding the role transport will play in reducing climate emissions?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): The Ministry of Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency’s briefings to the incoming Minister covered key transport issues, including the role transport can play in the reduction of emissions.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has he instructed the leadership of Waka Kotahi and the Ministry of Transport that transport will have little to no role in emissions reduction this term?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I have written to the New Zealand Transport Agency to ask them to stop work on the prior Government’s vehicle kilometres travelled reduction work programme, which was simply writing reports rather than actually delivering infrastructure. Our approach will be actually delivering infrastructure, while the last Government was all about writing reports.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. I appreciate the answer. I did ask a very specific question about whether he had spoken to the leadership of the transport agency and the Ministry of Transport and said that transport will have little to no role in emissions reduction.

SPEAKER: Well, it’s a bit novel to appreciate the answer and then criticise it, but the Hon Simeon Brown may like to repeat what he’s already said.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yeah, as I said in my answer, I have written to the chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency in relation to the work around vehicle kilometres travelled, which was funded from the Climate Emergency Response Fund, and as I mentioned earlier—

SPEAKER: Good, that’s it—that clarifies that.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he committed to achieving the transport emissions reductions targets, and, if so, how does he intend to achieve them?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, and I have received advice that transport is expected to achieve the first emissions budget period, 2022-2025.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he accept the advice from the Climate Change Commission on transport emissions that the need for decisive Government action is immediate, and, if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’ve asked for advice in relation to the climate report which was released yesterday, but I would say that our Government’s approach will be actually on building infrastructure rather than wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on endless reports, business cases, and actually not delivering anything, which was the past Government’s approach.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he accept—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the Minister referred to the briefing to the incoming Minister in his response to the primary question. It’s understood that, in that case, he will be required to table the document. Will the Minister be tabling that document?

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, well, that would be true if the Minister was quoting from it, which he wasn’t.

SPEAKER: I think that is the rule. So, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, you’ve got another question.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he accept the advice from the Climate Change Commission, released yesterday, in relation to low-emissions and zero-emissions vehicles, that “Supports to address the upfront cost barrier are especially important.”, and, if so, will he implement a price incentive for zero-emissions vehicles to replace the Clean Car Discount?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: No, we’re not going to continue to waste hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to subsidise wealthy New Zealanders to be able to buy electric vehicles they can already purchase. Instead, we will invest in supercharging the electric vehicle charging network, which is a priority under this Government.

Question No. 11—Police

11. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by the statement made by the National Party Police Spokesman, the Hon Mark Mitchell, that “an additional 300 police officers over four years … takes us from a ratio of 480 to 470 to 1”; if so, why?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Point of order. Sorry, to the member—I should have stopped her before she asked her question. We’re surprised, on the Government benches, that this question has been accepted as a primary question. The Minister is not responsible—is not able to stand by statements made by National Party spokespeople. I can’t remember the exact question earlier on, but you yourself accepted, in response to a previous supplementary and point of order exchange, that Ministers are responsible for statements as Ministers, and they’re not able to stand by statements; I think it was the question of Mr Robertson and the Minister of Finance around political party statements. So we are slightly surprised that this question was accepted as a primary question on notice. It could have been worded differently, but, in the way it’s worded currently, the Minister is being asked to stand behind a statement made by a political party spokesperson.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Speaking to the point of order?

SPEAKER: OK, away you go.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: This has gone through a process, and I understand that it has been amended in order to fit within the rules, and it is indeed consistent with supplementary questions which have been allowed already in this question time.

SPEAKER: Look, the question itself has been modified from what was first brought to the Clerks and—actually, now that I look at it, it’s not modified the way it was meant to be modified. I think, if I look at another sheet to make sure that I’m looking at the right one—OK. The point, I think, here, is that the answer to it could well be the suggestion just made by the Leader of the House. So the question is on the sheet. The question will stand. I’ll call the Hon Mark Mitchell.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Well, as incoming Minister, I was advised that the previous Government had failed to complete work on the ratio announced and had, in fact, severely underfunded it. I’m committed to the additional 500 police officers agreed in our coalition agreement.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will he guarantee the 1:480 police to population ratio?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, that is not the coalition’s policy; that is the failed, outgoing Government’s policy. Our policy is to commit to an additional 500 police officers on top of the 1,800 police officers that New Zealand First delivered—New Zealand First and National, in this coalition Government, will now deliver 2,300 additional police officers.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does the Government have any policy on police to population ratio?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the outgoing Government had a shambolic policy in relation to police to public ratio. The coalition Government has got a very clear and concise policy. We are going to add an additional 500 police officers to the front-line police numbers.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order. I don’t think that question was actually addressed.

SPEAKER: Sorry, say that again. There was noise over here from your colleagues.

Hon Ginny Andersen: I’d like a point of order. That supplementary question was not addressed by the Minister.

SPEAKER: Well, in what way was it not addressed? You’re not always going to get an answer that is totally satisfactory to the question being asked. That’s a long-established factor here. Ask the question again.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does the Government have any policy on police to population ratio?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Again, the Government’s policy and commitment as a coalition is very clear. We are going to add—net—an additional 500 front-line police officers during the term of this Government.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the comment of Christopher Luxon that the funding for additional police comes out of future operating allowances, $124 million over four years?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the reality is that the books were a shambles under the previous Government. So we’ve got quite a bit of work to do. The previous Government already underfunded the policy around the 1:480 numbers. So we’ve made a commitment to the 500 and we will come through with that commitment. But, believe me, we’ve got a lot of work to do to tidy up the mess that that Government made.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I respect the ruling that you made before, around whether or not you can expect a particular answer. That question was actually about the source. We can have a debate about the amount, which the member had done several times in earlier questions, but that was a question about the source of the funding, and it wasn’t addressed.

SPEAKER: Well, the police Minister will, obviously, make submissions to the finance Minister, as the member will well know the process to be. Where the funding comes from is not a specific bucket, as the member might like to convey.

Hon Grant Robertson: Should we ask you the questions, because this is a better answer.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know—well, I could easily agree with you on that, but that’s not where we’re at. The point is that the Minister has answered the way a Minister should.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, he hasn’t.

SPEAKER: Well, that might be your opinion; it’s not mine.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will he guarantee there’ll be no cuts or reprioritisation to the police budget in order to deliver 500 extra police?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Absolutely, I’ll make that guarantee. This Government is committed to supporting our front line, because it appears not only were they a soft on crime Government; they’re a soft on crime Opposition as well. We are committed to supporting our front line. It is a coalition commitment that we will deliver 500 front-line police officers and we will do that.

Question No. 12—Social Development and Employment

12. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen on the jobseeker support benefit?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): According to the latest benefit numbers released by the Ministry of Social Development in November, there are currently 182,340 people on jobseeker support. This is an increase of over 11,000 people this year alone. In total, there were 61,614 more people receiving the jobseeker support benefit during Labour’s time in Government.

Joseph Mooney: What have the labour market conditions been over the past two years?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Over the past two years, the employment market has been one of the tightest in recent memory, with employers everywhere crying out for staff. However, this opportunity was squandered by the previous Government, and, unfortunately, this has led to an increase of over 60,000 people on the jobseeker benefit.

Joseph Mooney: When is the jobseeker support benefit expected to peak?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The tough economic conditions that our Government has inherited mean that the number of people on the jobseeker benefit is expected to keep rising until January 2025. The latest figures, released in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update, forecast the number will increase to 197,400 New Zealanders.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How does the proportion of working-age New Zealanders on jobseeker benefit now compare to the same period of time post - global financial crisis under the National Government’s watch?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What is relevant today is the increase in number that that Government, when they were in charge for six years, oversaw; a massive increase in the number of people on the jobseeker benefit. When the unemployment rate was low, nearly 3 percent higher were on the jobseeker support benefit.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was actually relatively specific. If the Minister doesn’t know, she can simply say “I don’t know”, but it’s not an open invitation to attack the person asking the question.

SPEAKER: Well, it may not be, but, remember, too, in discussions we’ve actually quite recently had, where there is a clear political point being made in a supplementary question—which I think it was, in that case—then it’s reasonable that you’re going to get a different type of answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There was absolutely no political statement in there. It was asking the Minister to compare one period of time with another period of time. What was the political statement?

SPEAKER: I took it that by the member asking firstly a primary about the—the primary relates to what reports has she seen on jobseeker support benefit, and then it morphed into what’s different to what was happening six years ago. I think there was a point trying to be made. However, in good faith, let’s have Carmel Sepuloni ask another question—might be a similar one—and see what the Hon Louise Upston can say in reply.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I’ll ask a different one. How many of the 180,000 New Zealanders on main benefit now, are on benefit because they have a health condition or disability?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I think that member is getting her numbers mixed up. The 182,000 are on the jobseeker benefit. That is not the total number on main benefit—that is a lot higher.

SPEAKER: Point of order, Chris Bishop.

Hon Chris Bishop: Were you going to call the end of question time?

SPEAKER: No, I was going to take Joseph Mooney, who was on his feet.

Hon Chris Bishop: Oh, OK. I was going to wait until the end of question time. I’ll do it now.

SPEAKER: Well, no, we can wait until the end of question time.

Joseph Mooney: How many more young people were on jobseeker benefit under the Labour Government?

SPEAKER: No, the question’s out. Sorry.

Question No. 11 to Minister

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just before we move on, I wanted to ask you, sir, to just reflect on question No. 11 and the primary wording of that. If it is now the practice that Ministers can be asked to stand by statements made by spokespeople in Opposition or in other roles, that will significantly widen the potential ambit of questions to Ministers. That would be quite a change to the way question time has worked. So we let question No. 11 go, and, you know, it was fine. It is what it is. But I think it would be helpful if you would maybe reflect on that and provide some clarity for the whole House.

SPEAKER: I think I should also be absolutely certain that any adjustments that are made to questions are reflected in the sheet. The words “stand by the statement” could well have been “agree with”, in which case it would have brought it totally in order.

Bills

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

SPEAKER: We come now to the resumption of the Address in Reply debate—sorry, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill. Is some honourable member taking a call? Oh, sorry. The Hon Barbara Edmonds.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Sorry about that. You can understand with the noise as people are leaving the Chamber, it’s possibly—

SPEAKER: I agree with you; it’s very inconsiderate—very inconsiderate—and your time will start from now.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It has been a very interesting 24 hours in the House since it went into urgency.

SPEAKER: Sorry, can I just interrupt the member, and she will be able to start again. Members who are leaving the House, leave as quietly as possible and don’t engage in discussions on the way out the door. So would members, please, in an orderly fashion, resume seats or quietly leave the House. One more time—the Hon Barbara Edmonds.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to stand and to be able to take a call on the Reserve Bank bill that’s currently before the House. It’s been an interesting 24 hours under urgency that we’ve had in the House. It’s also been incredibly disappointing for a number of members here in the Opposition, who, because we did not have a select committee process, did table a number of amendments to try and be able to provide the robust analysis of the bill, given that we couldn’t have a select committee, we couldn’t call for submissions. We also had members from this side of the House who had actually proactively contacted other people who had submitted on the previous bill when it was changed in 2019 and then enacted in 2021, asking those submitters whether they had any particular responses to the current mandate by the Government to, basically, remove the dual mandate and to return to one mandate, which us on this side of the House believe takes us back to 1989.

It takes us back to 1989, which is a time where for some of us on this side of the House, we were probably just in primary school. Dead Poets Society was released, I understand, that movie. Ghostbusters II was also released at that time. And there’s a lot of ghost-bustering and myth-bustering that we’ve been having to do over this side of the House in the last 24 hours to be able to provide some scrutiny and accountability and to hold this Government to account. One of the biggest mythbusters and ghostbusters that we’ve had to try and really push from this Minister of Finance is actually asking the Minister what evidence base does she have or does she hold in order to make such a change? We had absolutely no response to that. She could not provide evidence of the advice that she had received from her officials to absolutely and emphatically support her view that the Reserve Bank mandate should go back to one mandate, which is in relation to price stability.

The Minister at the time also referenced a letter that she had received from the Reserve Bank Governor which apparently supports her view, or the Reserve Bank Governor will work towards supporting the view, of going back to one mandate. But a number of our members on the Opposition had asked a very clear question and asked the Minister to table, then, her letter to the Reserve Bank Governor. We’d asked for that letter because what we want to know is, actually, what did she ask the Reserve Bank Governor? Because, actually, as the Minister was—she was a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and a number of times we had the Reserve Bank Governor, Adrian Orr, come to our select committee and confirm that, even though there were two mandates, in practice, there was a form of hierarchy and the remit which then follows on from the objectives of the Act also reaffirms that there was, in some form, a hierarchy. However, the Reserve Bank Governor also confirmed that he could work within the two mandates.

So we go back to the evidence base, and, again, there was no evidence-based policy, and that is incredibly disappointing from this side of the House because if we look at, actually, what is the evidence that we have on hand, the evidence shows that there is no relationship between a country’s inflation trajectory and its central bank mandate over the past two years. I’ve talked in the House early in the committee stage around some of the Treasury reports that were part of the regulatory impact statement which actually set out that there are really quite global issues at hand and that stability is needed. That confirmed that inflation has been a global challenge, which means that what we should do, then, is look to the evidence about how New Zealand compares and our experience against other wealthy OECD countries. On the logic of this new Government, which, again, was not evidence-based, but on their logic, inflation, therefore, should be higher in countries with a dual mandate central bank, and therefore lower in countries with a single mandate central bank. Unfortunately—unfortunately—the evidence stacks up that for this new Government no such relationship exists.

So, again, we’ve heard time and time again in the last 24 hours, this side of the House questioning the Minister: show us how this single mandate central bank will bring down inflation. But, you know, you look at New Zealand and Australia, we both have a central bank with dual mandates—inflation peaked at 7.2 percent and 7.8 percent for Australia. But in the UK, which has a central bank with a primary price stability mandate, inflation peaked at 11.1 percent. I want to address something that the Minister had said in the House during question time: she said that inflation was around 4.4 percent. That is actually the amount that it has dropped, so it’s still high. They have one mandate, and their inflation rate is still high. In the eurozone, which has a central bank with a primary price stability mandate, it peaked at 10.6 percent, and in Sweden, which has a central bank with a primary price stability mandate, it peaked at 12.3 percent. So, additionally, almost all wealthy OECD economies have experienced a similar inflationary trajectory, regardless of the central banks’ monetary policy mandate.

The question this then begs for us is: so what is the relationship between the speed at which central banks have responded to rising inflation, and their monetary policy mandate? We found the evidence—and The Reserve Bank is only second to the Norwegian central bank in hiking interest rates in 2021. I know this is perhaps a lot of technical jargon and a lot of interest rates and a lot of macro- and microeconomics for 3 o’clock in the House, but the reason why I bring this up is because the Government, time and time again, over the course of the last four weeks, has been saying they want to do evidence-based policy. This is clearly not evidence-based policy, because the Minister failed to prove to the House that she had the evidence to back that if you went down to a single mandate, it provides a laser-sharp focus on inflation without basically showing how the inflation is going to change, because, actually, again, look to Australia, look to New Zealand, where we have a dual mandate, we have seen that inflation is lower compared to those that have had one mandate.

But a number of times in the House—and this is the reason why I’m quite disappointed—last week, I spoke here about the vision that was lacking in the Speech from the Throne and from this Government. But, actually, it’s been really, really clear what the vision is for this Government, and it’s been really clear in the last 24 hours, given that this is their very first bill that they put on the table. This is the very first bill that they decide to put under urgency, not calling for submissions, not allowing the Opposition to scrutinise it through a select committee process. It shows that their vision is not for workers, because both this bill and the very next bill that is on the Order Paper, which looks to repeal fair pay agreements—and there were hundreds of people outside today who were protesting that—show that the vision of this Government is not to support workers and that, actually, by changing those economic parameters, by having one mandate, it doesn’t matter for them how much official cash rate (OCR) rates hike, it doesn’t matter the job losses, which I find incredibly contradictory, to which the Minister of Social Development just stood up and answered a question in the House about. I find it incredibly contradictory that we’re not going to pay attention to trying to keep a maximum sustainable employment for the people of New Zealand.

Again, there are going to be remits that come from this but as we showed through the committee of the whole House stage, it didn’t matter how much we were trying to get that assurance of flexibility, there wasn’t any flexibility, because you go back to the one mandate, and very much the evidence-appointed policy, or the most recent case that you can think of is you go back to 2014 when the Reserve Bank Governor had the one mandate and even though inflation was relatively low in comparison to what we have today at 3.5 percent inflation, that Reserve Bank Governor still decided to increase the OCR at a time when unemployment was over 5 percent. You can understand what happens after that. Basically, it’s going to be the working people—those who are going to be unemployed—that are going to be paying for this policy change.

It gives me a great disheartenment to stand here in the House today to, basically, once again understand that the vision of this new Government is not to support workers, is not to support those who are employed in salary and wages—and, again, the next bill that’s coming through the House, again under urgency, with no ability to be able to scrutinise it with the public, once again shows how deaf that side of the House is to the hundreds of people who stood outside and protested, who were workers. That’s exactly what this bill does. This says to those workers, “You are no longer important, it’s just about increasing the interest rates, and we don’t care for you.”

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I support the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill because it is time to bring back aspiration, bring back confidence, and bring back economic stability. It’s time to strengthen our economy and reduce the cost of living, and it’s time to get on top of inflation.

This bill is the first step towards reducing the cost of living crisis for hard-working New Zealanders. On this side of the House, we care about the fact that people are struggling, we care that businesses are struggling, and we care about our damaged economy. Because we care and because we want to support hard-working New Zealanders to get ahead, we are going to repair this economy. Let’s give some optimism to businesses. Let’s put some confidence back in our primary sector, with our farmers and our growers, so we can create employment and opportunity, so we can bring down inflation, so we can provide relief for many families out there struggling, who are wondering how they’re going to pay their grocery bill, their rent, their mortgage, their petrol for the week.

This struggle is real, and this Government is getting real by focusing the Reserve Bank solely on controlling inflation. Our economy is driven by agriculture, but our farmers are dealing with the highest inflation in 40 years. Our food producers and exporters are facing tough times. They aren’t growing and creating the jobs that we so desperately need. Without aspiration, without confidence, and without the wheels moving in our economy, we are letting down the people of our country. This bill is a move to a better future for many Kiwis who are doing it tough.

This bill is a solid start to tackling inflation and reducing the cost of living for everyday Kiwis and businesses. I commend this bill to the House.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Speaker. To allow the Reserve Bank of New Zealand to fully focus on achieving and maintaining price stability in our economy, this bill removes the maximum sustainable employment objectives. This move was strongly campaigned on during our most recent general election, and because we sit on this side of the House, one could say that the majority of those who voted agreed with the move.

This bill is the first order of business for this National-led coalition Government and demonstrates the importance and priority we place on getting our economy under control. This bill provides the much-needed relief to all from the cost of living pressures each and every one of us are exposed to—and when I say each and every one of us, I mean just that. I don’t buy into the rhetoric that exudes out of the Opposition members conveying that this bill will result in worse outcomes for Māori and Pasifika communities. I don’t see it as a cause of mass unemployment like they say. In fact, I strongly believe that this bill will deliver exactly the opposite.

Businesses have struggled right throughout this high inflation era, with numerous having to cut jobs or, even worse, close down completely, all due to the challenging economic climate that has existed over at least the last few years. No one wants to see this outcome, especially when these unemployed people still have to pay their bills. Abating the escalation of food prices, petrol prices, insurance costs, rates, rents, or even the very heavy burden of increasing interest rates for home mortgages is so critical in easing the challenges for hard-working Kiwis right across the whole of our country.

Persistently high inflation is the tyranny of any country. We must do all we can to get inflation under control. It makes absolute sense for the Reserve Bank to have one focus and one focus only. By returning to a single objective, the task of the monetary policy committee is clearer, it is simpler, and therefore more likely to be met. Having a single mandate also allows it to be more easily determined when the monetary policy committee has, or indeed has not, fulfilled its primary function. Let’s get it so that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has a singular clarity of purpose—a purpose that will ultimately deliver far better outcomes than what we’re currently experiencing, a purpose that will drive a strong economy, a purpose that will ease the cost of living, and a purpose that will deliver the future we all aspire to.

I stand and speak to this item with hope, enthusiasm, and optimism, and it gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): There has been a lot of talk about this bill over the hours that this bill has been rushed through, and there have been a number of questions that have been put up. But I return to some comments I made in I think it was the first reading of this bill last night, which was that this is the first piece of legislation that this Government has brought to this House as part of a package of three bills that the Government is bringing to pass under urgency, which, in many ways, is symbolic and defines the kinds of priorities that this Government is putting forward.

In this bill, we see a Government that is removing the focus on jobs. The second piece of legislation we’re about to move on will see a Government that is removing the focus on the wages of ordinary New Zealanders, and, to complete their trifecta of things they are undoing, after that we’ll see a Government that is removing the focus on real action on climate. So what we’re seeing is that we have a Government that does not want to focus on people, their wages, their job security, and making sure we are securing our future through real climate action.

I compare that to what our Government did in our 100-day plan, the first package of legislation that we brought to this House. We brought in a healthy homes guarantee, we brought in a winter energy payment, we brought in a Best Start payment, and we extended paid parental leave. In this package of repeals that we are seeing from the current Government, what we are seeing is a Government that only wants to take New Zealand backwards, a Government that has no vision, and a Government that certainly does not have a focus on jobs or wages or climate action. That is writ large for the New Zealand public to see.

Now, one of the things with this bill that we’ve seen is that the Minister of Finance knows that this is not actually going to achieve that much. So when I hear some of those new members of Parliament saying that this is how they’re going to crack down on inflation, they’re going to be sorely let down. Although I think there have been a lot of promises made—and during the course of this debate, the Minister of Finance, at one point, did say that she was going to eliminate inflation, and we might set that as a KPI for the success of this Government, since it’s been claimed in the House—the reality is, and all the experts agree, that this amendment bill will do nothing to help with the cost of living.

In the latest forecasts, the Reserve Bank expects inflation to fall within the target range of 1 to 3 percent within the third quarter of 2024. What we are doing here—the legislation we are passing—is not going to materially change that. It will not make a difference as inflation is falling anyway. But what we have seen the Minister of Finance do in this House during question time is say it’s going to fall faster. So we will be tracking that, and we will be holding the Minister of Finance to those promises she has made in this House, because there is not a single piece of evidence that supports that that is the case.

The Minister of Finance was given three options by her officials for how she could reduce the mandate. We don’t agree with what they wanted to do, but to go back to that single mandate, they could introduce this legislation—the route they’ve chosen to go down—they could have issued a monetary policy remit only, and Treasury gave the advice that this would be the most expedient way to do it; or she could have temporarily suspended the objective and she could have achieved it through an Order in Council. The Minister and the Government chose to do it by virtue-signalling legislation that is not going to achieve a thing. The only thing it is achieving is showing New Zealanders where its priorities are and where they aren’t, and they are certainly not with job creation. They are certainly not with creating higher wages for workers in New Zealand. What we are seeing is a Government that is turning its back on those things as a focus on something that it sees as a responsible Government should put in place.

When the bill was introduced by the Hon Grant Robertson to give the Reserve Bank a dual mandate, it was seen as a modernisation of our monetary policy. What we have here before us is a Government that is celebrating the great step backwards and that wants to go back before the 1990s to take New Zealand backwards and certainly to remove any kind of focus on jobs and wages.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I am pleased to be speaking again on the third reading of this bill. I could speak at length about the benefits of this bill, but I’m not going to. The affirmative points have been plentiful, and all I need to say is that I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): This first piece of legislation that the Government has brought to the House has gone through under urgency, with no opportunity for submissions. However, as people who have sat through the committee stage will know, I have heard from a number of people about this bill. So I’m going to take this opportunity now to read what they have written to me into the record as their submissions on this bill.

So coming from Greg Presland, he says, “I wish to make a submission on the Reserve Bank amendment bill. If this Government is determined to do something about the cost of living, then this is the worst possible thing it could do. The result of any change will be to increase unemployment and also increase interest rates as the Reserve Bank operates single-mindedly to decrease inflation. Both of these things will make matters worse for ordinary Kiwis. For those who are made unemployed, their quality of life will be dramatically affected. For those whose businesses depend on their clientele having jobs so that they can continue to buy things from those businesses, their profitability will be affected. And for those of us who have mortgages, we will need to pay more to predominantly overseas-owned banks as interest rates increase. Please urge the Government not to do this.” That was the first one.

From Raema Inglis, an accountant, who wrote to me about this bill and had some views on it. She says, “I believe the Reserve Bank should keep a maximum sustainable employment as something to consider, alongside inflation, when setting monetary policy. The aim to have low levels of unemployment is the best use of this country’s resources—its people. Having inflation as the Reserve Bank’s only monetary policy does a disservice to every person who would become unemployed. It has debilitating effects on those marginalised and vulnerable sectors of society, including disabled, Māori, Pasifika, and young people. High unemployment is an old-fashioned idea that should be left in the 1990s, when we saw severe economic hardship in many of our communities. No one wants to return to those days. A visionary Government would recognise the importance of maximum sustainable employment. I encourage this Government to include not only inflation but also maximum sustainable employment when setting monetary policy.” That was from Raema Inglis.

From Margot Govers, also an accountant—actually, I know a few accountants. She says, “I’m writing to you to encourage you to speak out against the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Economic Objective) Amendment Bill. I am particularly concerned about the Government’s decision to remove the dual mandates of controlling inflation whilst also ensuring a maximum sustainable level of employment. To have a fair and just society, everyone should have the opportunity to work and support themselves and their families. This gives them dignity or mana, not to have to rely on Government handouts to survive. When the Reserve Bank has to only consider inflationary measures, and, because of their measures, people lose their jobs, not only do they suffer, so do we as a society. Society is a group of people working and living together. With high unemployment, not only are those who are unemployed unable to support themselves but the rest of society has a bigger burden to support them. I think removing the dual mandate is short-sighted. Having a mandate to look at both price stability and maximum employment will better lead to long-term growth and a more macroeconomic outlook for New Zealand.”

From Josh, he says, “I firmly believe workers should not be thrown on the scrap heap in an effort to get inflation down. New Zealand has had close to full employment for the last few years—thank you, Labour—and has made our economy and society stronger, avoiding the dislocation seen in other parts of the world. Repealing this incentivises the Reserve Bank to drive interest rates even higher, risking the livelihood of employees and business owners in the process. The side effects of high unemployment are also too great to bear: worsened mental health, less money to go around the economy and stimulate growth, and a greater sense of alienation from society.”

The last one, from Dr Sarah Paterson-Hamlin: “It has come to my attention that there is an intention to return to a single imperative for the Reserve Bank to reduce inflation, and that reducing unemployment no longer will be part of their remit. I am extremely concerned with this regressive action. If COVID-19 demonstrated anything, it is that prioritising human beings over the economy is not only the ethical choice but, in the end, also the best economical choice. I have been unemployed, and I’ve worked with tāngata whaikaha—disabled people—who have been unemployed, and I can tell you that the emotional toll is enormous. The loneliness associated with it has been proven to reduce health outcomes and life expectancy—see, for example, Holly Walker’s writing and research on this. Even if we were to cynically look at human beings as only economic units, then, still, reducing their functionality and working years by subjecting them to the soul-crushing reality of unemployment is a poor economic choice. I would argue, however, that to treat people as economic units rather than individuals with souls and hopes and dreams and history and whānau is morally bereft.”

That is some evidence and submissions that people said to me about this bill—submissions that that side of the House did not want to hear. That side of the House even tried to get rid of the most basic forms of evidence we get on bills from Government departments. “No RISes”, they said—“We won’t have RISes.”—but the Treasury got one through.

The Treasury put in a regulatory impact statement (RIS) on this bill. Interestingly, Jonathan Milne at Newsroom wrote about this regulatory impact statement, and he said it’s something that Sir Humphrey Appleby would be proud of. The reason is that the language in this regulatory impact statement very carefully said to the Government, “Do not do this—do not do this.” If you want to prioritise price stability over maximum sustainable employment, he says to use the remit process. There is no need to change the legislation.

In fact, Jonathan Milne provides some interpretations of the language in the regulatory impact statement. Here’s what the Treasury says: that is important not to change the law but to use the remit processes. The RIS says, “the Treasury puts significant weight on the value of a stable and enduring legislative regime for the Reserve Bank, which supports public and market confidence in the independence of the institution.” In other words, says Jonathan Milne—interpreting for us—“Don’t mess with an institution we’ve spent years building.”

In another place in the regulatory impact statement, the RIS says that making this change through the mechanism of a law change and amending the Act “could be seen as reducing future barriers to legislative change”—fine words from Sir Humphrey Appleby. Interpreting that, Milne says, “Once you’ve started messing with the law, every bloody politician will want to have a go.”—keep the law stable is the real meaning there.

Another thing that Jonathan Milne picks out of the regulatory impact statement—he says, “The Reserve Bank’s statutory framework is of considerable interest to market participants, and changes to it—or the use of some options—may trigger market concern.” Milne’s interpretation of that: “Run for the hills!”

In fact, going through the regulatory impact statement and looking at the options analysis summary, on the last page of it, shows quite clearly that the best option would be to issue a new monetary policy committee remit. That is the best option, and it is clearly the best option by some margin over changing the law, but this Government nevertheless chose to do it. As one of their very first actions into Government, it chose to do something that was completely unnecessary and to do something that was not the best option available to it.

So what does that tell us about them? It tells us of this Government that not only do they want to do something that’s completely unnecessary, they do something that is harmful to workers, that is harmful to full employment in this economy, and coupled with the next piece of legislation that is coming to this House, where they intend to repeal fair pay agreements, all we can say is that this Government despises workers.

What a shame it is to have a Government that like on the Treasury benches, where they will not care for low-wage workers, where they will not ensure that people have access to employment, and where they will not look after ordinary New Zealanders. It is an elitist and out-of-touch Government not guided by evidence at all. This is a shameful bill, and it is their very first piece of legislation.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak in the very final speech on this bill before it will pass into law. I could take a lot of time to speak on this, but I won’t. I’ve had a chance to speak yesterday on it in some detail. But I’m just going to make a very brief riposte to what we just heard. This bill is actually about fixing the economy, which is what we went into the election on and what people voted for the coalition Government to do. This is about helping all New Zealanders, particularly poor New Zealanders who inflation hits the hardest, and it’s the thief in the pocket. We’re here to fix that, to make sure we can look after New Zealanders. That’s what this bill is about. I’m proud to be a part of a Government that is going to deliver on its election promises and fix this economy for all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill

First Reading

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I present to the House a legislative statement on the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill.

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

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I move, That the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill be now read a first time.

The Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill repeals the Fair Pay Agreements Act and associated amendments to other Acts, and revokes associated regulations. Once the Fair Pay Agreements Act is repealed, bargaining for initiated fair pay agreements will cease as there will be no legislative mechanism to bring any agreements into force.

My clear intention with this repeal bill is for the fair pay agreement system to stop. I want to make that very clear: it is for the fair pay agreement system to stop and for all bargaining processes to cease. Fair pay agreements were never about fairness. They forced a minority of union workers’ views on all affected workers and all affected businesses within an industry. The previous Government introduced legislation in 2022 for the fair pay agreement system. Under this system, unions and employer associations could bargain for employment terms and conditions that covered all employees in an industry or an occupation.

The Fair Pay Agreements Act and associated regulations came into force on 1 December 2022. The National Party and the ACT Party opposed the development and introduction of the fair pay agreement legislation, and this repeal has been well signalled—very, very clearly signalled—through the entire campaign period, through the coalition agreements, and through the 100-day plan of this Government. We have a clear mandate from the voters to do this.

This Government has committed to repealing the fair pay agreement legislation by Christmas 2023 as part of the coalition agreement between the National Party and the ACT Party, and I am committed to acting quickly to remove this legislation before any fair pay agreements are finalised and the transition arrangements become more expensive and more complex. We are doing this bill to send a clear signal to businesses that this Government understands the pressures that businesses have faced in an environment of increasing inflation and a Labour-led Government that has piled on regulations on to businesses that are finding it a struggle to cope. Today, this Government is providing certainty to businesses so they can get back to focusing on what they do best.

Fair pay agreements require all employers within coverage to offer the same minimum terms and conditions. This leads to a rigid, one-size-fits-all agreement. Businesses need the flexibility to innovate if New Zealand is going to compete on the world stage. Workplaces need flexibility. This is something that’s becoming an increasing priority for workers, especially workers seeking better work-life balance. Fair pay agreements restrict the flexibility that both workers and employers want in today’s rapidly changing workplace.

Fair pay agreements also risk harming New Zealand’s already dismal productivity growth. The best and the most sustainable way to increase the wages of workers and to lower prices for consumers is to improve productivity and reduce the regulations holding businesses back. Fair pay agreements just diminish the fundamental right to freedom of association, which includes the freedom to not associate. The most important thing to know about the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s regulatory impact statement from 2021 is that they recommended against—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the Clerks are having trouble with the audio and cannot hear the Minister. So could I ask for a bit of silence on this side. Thank you. Please.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Thank you. The most important thing to note about the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s regulatory impact statement that was produced in 2021 on the Fair Pay Agreements Act is that the ministry recommended against introducing fair pay agreements. They argued that the improvements for employees would be marginal at best and would achieve this at a significant cost to employer flexibility.

The fair pay agreements could lead to worse outcomes for workers by raising the costs of doing business. If bargained wage increases meant businesses cannot remain competitive, the fair pay agreements would have resulted in lower employment or reduced hours of work—which is not good for workers in our economy. This Government supports higher wages and better conditions for workers, especially during a cost of living crisis. But if fair pay agreements had been finalised, the costs of doing business would have increased across the board, which means the prices of goods and services for businesses would be likely to rise too. That’s not good for businesses, consumers, or workers.

No workers—and I want to make this very clear: no workers—will have their wages cut or be worse off compared with the status quo, because no fair pay agreements have been signed or finalised. There have been six fair pay agreements that have been initiated since the fair pay agreement legislation came into force. However, all are in the very early stages of bargaining. No agreements have been finalised in any industry or any occupation. As no agreements have been finalised in any industry or occupation, there are no transitional arrangements required for the fair pay agreements that have been initiated.

We are a Government that wants to see higher wages for workers; we want to see a thriving, competitive business sector; we want to see more and better jobs in our economy; and we want to ease the pain of the cost of living crisis. But the fair pay agreements would have done so much more damage than any betterment to the economy and to the labour market. Far from being fair or even being about pay, the fair pay agreements were about harming the very workers they were meant to help. That is why this Government has opposed it and why we have brought this bill to repeal the Fair Pay Agreements Act to Parliament. I commend the bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and congratulations on your new role.

This is a very sad day for this Parliament. This morning, I greeted some workers on the forecourt of Parliament. I greeted workers who worked in the early childhood sector, I greeted people who worked in the supermarket sector, I greeted security guards, cleaners—people that would have benefited from fair pay agreements. I received a petition of 15,000 people who opposed what this Government is doing.

All of these people understand that fair pay agreements were a way forward for New Zealand to address the embarrassing low productivity that we have and that has gone on for a number of years, and also the low-wage economy that we have had for a number of years. Those people understood that in order for us all to succeed, we need to have secure work, we need to have high wages, we need to have fair conditions, we need to have safe workplaces. Fair pay agreements would have been the mechanism to achieve these goals in New Zealand, and those things are sorely needed.

This Government has shown its true colours in these last few days. The first thing they did was to attack jobs, with the repeal of the dual mandate. The next thing they did was to repeal the fair pay agreements—to attack wages and conditions that working people would like to see in their workplaces, that would have helped New Zealand.

The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has been questioned regularly about the advice that she’s received, and it’s quite obvious from the speech that she has just given that her answers, in the sense that she hasn’t had any advice, are correct, because none of her explanation as to why fair pay agreements need to be repealed is actually backed up by evidence.

I want to address this issue, because we’re going to spend a long time on what is an issue that I find very, very interesting and have spent a long time in my life looking at. So one of the issues I want to address early on is the issue that the Government seemed to say that just because they had something in their election manifesto, it means that, somehow, they can come to this Parliament, they can dispense with the usual norms of lawmaking and scrutiny which are usual, like select committee processes, and use urgency.

Hon Member: You used it.

CAMILLA BELICH: They say—well, yes, the Labour Government used urgency. Yes, we did. But there should always be a justification and reason, and a good reason, for urgency, and there isn’t one in this instance.

As the Minister has said, none of the fair pay agreements that we are looking at have actually been initiated yet. So why is this Government prioritising taking away rights for fair pay, for fair conditions of working people before Christmas? Why is this a priority of this Government? I will answer that question. The reason is because they are an anti-worker Government. They don’t stand with working people. They stand against working people, and that’s why they’re repealing this piece of legislation.

Two hundred thousand to 300,000 working people stood to benefit from fair pay agreements. I want to go through each of the industries that have actually initiated fair pay agreements, so that the people on the other side of this House know, and the public of New Zealand know, who this Government is targeting and who they stand against. The people that this fair pay agreements bill will hurt the most are bus drivers. They are people in the hospitality industry. They are security guards. They are commercial cleaners. They are early childhood education workers that teach our most precious children and have such an important role in the first thousand days, as we’ve heard. They are supermarket workers—our essential workers that got us through COVID-19.

It is absolutely unconscionable that this Government is prioritising taking away rights from these vulnerable low-paid workers before Christmas. They should be ashamed of themselves. Let me tell those on the other side of the House: you are on the wrong side of history. You will look back and your children will look back at this day and they will think, “I wish we’d had industry-level bargaining earlier, because we can see—now that the 2026 Labour Government has implemented it—the gains that that has made for productivity, the gains that that has made for workplace safety, the gains that that has made for wages, how people feel secure in their work.”

This bill is a disgrace, and I do not support it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In a word: gutted—gutted by this piece of legislation, gutted for the workers. I was also out on the steps of Parliament talking with workers: supermarket workers and early childhood education (ECE) workers, who are good, salt of the earth people. What I would say in terms of the speech that we just heard from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is this: she should climb out of the ivory tower of right-wing economic fundamentalism, and talk to the people. Talk to the people—talk to the people.

I joined the picket, last week, of ECE teachers. It has been acknowledged across the House, on both sides of the House, that there are serious issues in terms of pay parity within the ECE sector—the ECE sector. These fair pay agreements would go a long way with making sure that we address those parity issues. Fair pay agreements would have put more money in the pockets of people teaching our mokopuna, keeping our hospitals clean and safe, stocking the supermarket shelves, and getting us around on the bus. It takes a particularly callous Government to turn its backs on the people who do so much for our communities. These are thousands of people who will be forced to work two or three days just to make ends meet.

The other thing which is particularly appalling about this piece of legislation is the proximity to Christmas. We’re two weeks out from Christmas, and what we have is a Government which is addicted to cancel culture. I thought they didn’t like cancel culture, but here they are. They’re cancelling climate action, cancelling te reo Māori, and here they are cancelling Christmas for the workers. Nothing but ciggies under the Christmas tree for the workers this Christmas, and what a shocker that is.

I want to acknowledge all the work that the workers have been putting in, and their unions. I know they’ve been putting a lot of the hard yards ever since this piece of legislation has gotten over the line: working with their people, understanding the different conditions. I remember I went for a walk with some of the workers, and we went and talked with the different security guards in my town of Palmerston North, and they were talking about labour flexibility. If you are stuck in one job and you want to move to another one but they’ve got completely different working conditions and pay rates, it makes it very difficult for them to move from that worksite to another. Fair pay agreements would have helped to address that. Fair pay agreements would have helped to create a floor in order for people to actually work together to make fairer working conditions for workers.

The other thing that I would like to note as well is the number of leaked documents coming out of this Government. Somebody’s not happy on that side of the House. They like to point the finger at the workers but maybe it is one of their coalition partners—who knows? But what it did say is that by repealing this legislation, it’s going to make working people’s lives harder. It’s going to make workers’ lives harder. In particular, it’s going to make work harder for women, harder for young people, harder for our Māori workers, and harder for our Pasifika workers as well. Those people that do the hard yards. Those people that stock our supermarket shelves, that clean our offices, that move us around on the buses, that take care of our mokopuna. This House should have those workers at the front of mind whenever they move legislation through the House. This House needs to be focusing on what it needs to do to improve the working lives of those workers.

The Greens will always be on the side of the workers, and, in this particular case, we are absolutely gutted and appalled that this Government is pulling this move this close to Christmas, casting uncertainty on to hundreds and thousands of working people’s lives. So you will see, through the course of this debate, calls from the Greens to highlight the very specific lives of working people, people that stock those supermarket shelves. Let’s remember: when we were moving through the pandemic, we called them essential workers—we called them essential workers. I say this to the workers: you were essential then; you are essential now—you were essential then; you are essential now.

Members on this side of the House will continue to speak up for workers, will continue to speak up for working people. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I am pleased to be speaking on the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill. I’d first like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister, the Hon Nicola Willis, on her appointment to her role as Minister. I’m proud to be a member of the National Party and this coalition, which is acting at great pace to repeal many expensive and complex Acts that we have not seen make a great deal of difference and that would go on to overcomplicate relationships between employers and employees.

Members opposite are forgetting that we represent the majority, and we also speak to our constituents. I speak to our constituents all the time, many and most of whom are workers, and I can tell you, whether it’s hospitality workers or bus drivers, they are not looking forward to losing the relationship they have with their employer and having that taken away and put into the arms of a union.

We need to repeal this Act so that we can leave flexibility with the employer and the employee, and give them greater control over the relationship they have. I can tell you that staff are very worried about this, and I look very much forward to supporting this through. I say on our behalf that we commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Congratulations on your appointment to the Chair, too—my first chance to have a contribution under your stewardship.

New Zealand First rises to support the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill. New Zealand First has always taken a very balanced view on employment relations. In the last two coalition agreements that we’ve been part of forming, increases to the minimum wage have always been a feature that we have stuck out for. We do recognise the work especially of those blue-collar workers that do the hard yards, and they deserve to have a fair minimum wage.

But the issue around that balance is that you have to have someone that’s prepared to employ you. You have to have someone that’s prepared to risk their capital, risk their house, risk their livelihoods, and put it all on the line to take someone on and have that responsibility of providing a living for someone else. We think this is quite a nuanced debate; this is kind of a circular argument. We actually will only drive wages if we can build our economy. The reason why we’re slipping so far behind Australia is because of our productivity—because we have wrapped ourselves in red tape and will not allow ourselves access to our natural resources, in many cases. So that is the bigger question at play here, but we will support this bill through the first reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātau e te Whare. We will be strongly opposing this bill and this Government that appears to be anti-Māori, anti-Pasifika, anti - everything involving grassroots people, and anti-workers, and continuing to stand up and speak against this “three Scrooges” coalition.

It’s disappointing that I stand on behalf of our party to speak to this reading of the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill. I was proud to stand with the workers and the unions outside this House today to send a clear message to this Government that they are trampling on the rights of working people in Aotearoa—the same working people who held this country up during the COVID, the same people that kept the communities going on the front line.

This bill, like a lot of things that you’re doing in the last couple of weeks, is taking us back years. But I can zone it down to 30 years, to a dark time in the history of workplace relations. I can speak from my own experience as a daughter of a freezing worker who was laid off in Pātea in the 1990s and the massive onslaught against workers at the time as a core part of the neoliberal economic experiment that National and Labour dragged our people through. What we are seeing in this bill today is a repeat of what we saw then. Rather than giving workers the space to push the ceiling and fight for great pay, they are once again struggling and having to defend the floor and hold on to fair play.

It’s disgraceful that this Government is doing that, and you should be ashamed of yourselves and what you are delivering—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I am not ashamed of myself—

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: —to our whānau just before Christmas. You’re not ashamed of anything.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I just remind the member—[Interruption]. Excuse me. Can I just remind the member not to bring the Speaker into the debate.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Thank you for the reminder. My apologies. It is disgraceful and we are ashamed of what we are finding our Government doing at this time. We are playing a zero-sum game. You cannot achieve real productivity and prosperity without ensuring your workers are paid well and have proper working conditions to be able to contribute to thriving and well families. Achieving success relies on bringing your whole team with you, not using and abusing those with less power than you so that you at the top can get ahead.

I want to use this opportunity in this first reading to say how disgusting it is that the Government is pushing through this bill under urgency. Usually, at this stage, we would be able to reflect and bring about a select committee process—things that I’ve heard members of this Government fight for in the 53rd Parliament—considering and providing the opportunity for submissions and fair opportunities for the public to address and then also seek report-backs from the committees. The select committees are a vital part of our democratic process, which you are so precious about—I beg your pardon—which the Government is so precious about protecting; they are a check on the power of the executive.

In Aotearoa, we have far too few checks and balances compared with other countries. Allowing the public to be heard is a bare minimum that the Government is proving once again they don’t care about. With this bill, we should have had the chance to hear from unions, from those that we saw here this morning, from workers, from employment relations, experts, and, yes, from businesses too. Denying them the right to submit on the laws of this land is a breach of fundamental democratic rights that we should uphold dearly, as we are reminded often in this country. The supermarket workers and the bus drivers that I spoke with outside the forecourt today had so much to say that this Government needs to hear. My goodness, we are now meeting protests and receiving petitions at least two to three times a day. How much more do we have to contend with?

To members on the Government benches—to know what it is like to be on the front line of pandemic as essential workers. Do you remember what it was like to receive and remember the exposure and fearing for your health that a lot of our front-line workers had to endure? Do you remember and know what it’s like to take a four-hour break in the middle of the day and then be expected to come back and work a long shift later the same day? Do you know what it’s like to be in the 60s and 70s of age, still having dependent people and still earning an unlivable wage?

I seriously doubt that members opposite know any of these realities, but those are the realities this bill is seeking and the parties on that side of the House should be ashamed of themselves. Kia ora rā.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is of particular interest to me, given my actual experience in supporting employers to grow and employ more people throughout my career.

During the campaign, I spoke to many concerned employers and employees about the impact of fair pay agreements (FPAs) on business sustainability and employee opportunities. FPAs are a blunt tool initiated by unions and a small number of employees, yet they apply to every employee and employer in an industry or occupation, regardless of whether or not they want it or want to be included. Businesses need flexibility to innovate, and FPAs restrict the flexibility both employers and employees want.

As part of this Government’s 100-day plan to get New Zealand back on track, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Well, it was great to hear about all the experience that the member Carl Bates had, which was absolutely nothing. So thank you for that nothing contribution.

I want to inform the House that I’ve got a lot of experience in this area too. Like Debbie Packer’s whānau, I was also in the freezing works in 1991 when, sadly, Jim Bolger and his horrible voluntary unionism set-up came out. It’s a sad thing, really, about Jim Bolger, but he came right in later years by supporting the Treaty of Waitangi, unlike the rest of this useless National Party and the hopeless ACT Party and the New Zealand First lot who’ve forgotten their roots, sadly.

In 1991, the whole line, the whole thought was “We need more productivity. It’s all about market flexibility.” So we had to ask ourselves, “What the heck is market flexibility? What does that mean?” Well, I’ll tell you what that meant. It meant they just wanted us to work more and more and more for bugger all. That’s what that became. So market flexibility was workers work more and more and more and you get more productivity, the company does well, but the workers miss out altogether. That’s what market flexibility was under a National Government with Ruth Richardson and Jim Bolger. As I said, Jim came right later on; sadly, Ruth Richardson didn’t. Most of the National Party of that time was all about suppressing workers’ rights. At the time, we had a huge membership in terms of unions. Sadly, I think that came down to about 20 percent.

The basic thrust of that was to get the workers working, as I said, at 100 percent but also this whole facade about bargaining. You know, the whole view was an individual could negotiate for themselves. That’s the thrust of all this legislation: “You’re a strong individual. You can do the business.” But people know in the House, and if you’ve worked in the unions and if you’ve worked on the factory floor, which most of that lot haven’t—most of them wouldn’t even know what a factory was. If you’ve worked on the factory floor, you know that you can’t negotiate because there’s a total imbalance in terms of bargaining power. So the whole notion that individuals have a right and have a chance to negotiate is just a load of nonsense. The bosses, sadly, through the years, have picked off people, and people have been lost. So that’s been the strength of the unions. The unions have been able to negotiate on behalf of the individual.

This fair pay agreement kaupapa has been something that we as a party and we as a former Government were very proud of—very proud of—because it gave workers hope. Workers in the hospitality area, workers in the security area, bus drivers—these are the forgotten people of this country—

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: We call them essential workers.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —the essential workers. These are the people who National and ACT don’t care about. They don’t give a damn about them. It’s really sad. To see a new Minister going down this track is really, really disappointing.

And I want to thank Michael Wood for the work he did in terms of putting this together. It was one of our proudest moments to have this fair bargaining kaupapa put in place, and repealing this initiative is nothing but an attack on some of our most valuable jobs and some of our most vulnerable workers. These Kiwis were the ones who worked through COVID while the rest of us stayed home. Why are we punishing them now through this just before Christmas?

The fair pay agreements are something that’s so valuable for them. It’s given them hope in terms of their agreements. It’s not the agreement but it’s something that recognises their rights, recognises their health areas, recognises the special specifications for Māori workers. I know that upsets ACT because they’re always booting Māori in the guts, and New Zealand First, sadly, have been supporting them, and National too. But Māori get special recognition in terms of fair bargaining, and so I was really proud of what we were able to put in place, put our frameworks in place, but for it all to be repealed before Christmas is one of the saddest strategies I’ve ever seen from any Government over the years, and the National Party, New Zealand First, and ACT should hang their heads in shame.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Madam Speaker, I’d just like to first of all start off by congratulating you on taking your role. It’s great to see someone from the rural sector in such a fine position. Thank you.

The reason this Act needs to be repealed is very simple—the fair pay agreements—all it does is take us back. I’ve sat in this House for the last few days and all I’ve heard is about going back. Well, if anything’s going to take us back to the 1970s and 1980s, it’s this Act, because all it’s going to do—the long game here is very simple. It’s to create a situation whereby we end up with nationwide strikes and very little productivity because nothing gets done. And those of us who lived through those times remember the damage that did to our businesses, particularly the farming businesses and the freezing works you talked of, because, ultimately, they couldn’t produce because no one was at work. So I would commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): That was the biggest load of rubbish I’ve heard in a really long time, and there’s been quite a lot of rubbish spoken in this House. So what I’d like to speak to is the words of Brooke van Velden that have been haunting this House and have made me recall back, actually, right back into the 1990s, and those words were that no workers will be any worse off without fair pay agreements.

What that reminded me of was back to the Employment Contracts Act 1991, when I was a supermarket worker. In those days, my hourly rate was $4.20 an hour, which doesn’t sound like much, but when you’re 16 and you get paid penal rates at the weekend—double time—$8.40 is not a bad wage. On top of that, you would get an allowance for a meal break, so that actually made it worth turning up to work and it gave you a bit of money.

But when the Employment Contracts Act came in, when they asked us to sign, they said those same words—that no worker would be worse off if they sign this contract—and do you know what? We bloody well were, because each time I got a pay increase, there was something in my pay called a personalised difference, and when my hourly rate went up, my penal rates disappeared and my allowances disappeared, and it took me three years, until I was 19 years old, to earn the same amount of money I was earning as a 16-year-old.

That is the same mentality that is being applied to our workers here in New Zealand. It won’t be any worse off, but it damned well won’t be any better either, and who benefits from that? It’s those people creaming it at the top while our essential workers are slogging their guts out every day, teaching our kids, cleaning our floors, driving our buses. They want to skim that money off and keep it in their own pockets, and that’s what I say is unfair and damn right shameful and selfish.

So when the Employment Contracts Act came in, we have taken a long time to make gains in it, and I want to correct a couple of misinformation points that have been put across in this House today. The number one that’s really important is productivity—what the last speaker, Grant McCallum, has said, which was that this piece of legislation, before it was repealed, would hamper or impede productivity. Well, the OECD and a lot of those people who have done research—including the Rt Hon Jim Bolger—have been on the page of saying that this would be good for New Zealand’s productivity. The key reason for that is it stops the race to the bottom. It stops those bad employers and disincentivises bad employment conditions and poor wages, and it rewards those good employers who care about their employees, who pay them a decent wage. They get benefits for that—they get benefits for that—because they get good quality products and they get higher intellectual property. We get great products that we can sell and have innovation across the world and be known for our number eight wire mentality that distinguishes New Zealand from other countries.

But those opposite want to take us back to 1991. They’re not interested in being cutting edge. They’re not interested in using our brains and our smarts to put ourselves further. They’re going to take us back and they’re going to take the money off those people who were essential workers when we needed them the most.

That’s what really disappoints me, because if we incentivise our employers to be good employers, then the competition is who’s got the best—who’s got the best product, who’s got the most innovative way of doing it—not who can be the quickest one to race to the bottom to pay workers the least, to be giving them poorer conditions in order to be making your profit margin larger. That’s the kind of playing field that this Government has drawn up for New Zealand workers, and that is what is so unfair about repealing something that would actually increase productivity and reward those employers that take good, hard-working New Zealanders for what they are—that they’re an asset to their business, not a detriment.

So I would like to just round off by saying that during the times of COVID, I heard so many speeches from the National Party about how important our essential workers were, thanking them for their hours, thanking them for the difficulties, and thanking them for how they went above and beyond to serve us when we needed it, and now they turn their back on those workers by giving them less, right before Christmas. It’s an absolute bloody disgrace and I hope that they live to see what will happen, and that will be workers of New Zealand who stand up and fight back for behaviour that is selfish and self-serving.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m particularly pleased that my first opportunity to speak in this Chamber is in support of the removal of regulations that will hinder the community that I represent; that’s the Wairarapa electorate. Businesses across the districts of Central Hawke’s Bay, Tararua, Masterton, Carterton, and South Wairarapa are struggling under the weight of legislation that the last Government introduced. My electorate is driven by farming and multiple small and medium family-owned businesses that are often operating on very small margins. They’re much more vulnerable to ill-thought-through legislation than larger businesses. Small businesses in our electorate are embedded in their local communities, employing local people, supporting local. The cost of living crisis is driving them into the ground. When they suffer, the wider community suffers. I urge all members of this House to support the repeal of the Fair Pay Agreements Act.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for second reading immediately.

Second Reading

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time.

The Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill repeals the Fair Pay Agreements Act that was brought to this House by the previous Government. We do not believe that that bill would have improved workers’ outcomes or business outcomes in our economy in New Zealand.

We’ve spoken at length in the first reading about what the effect of those laws would be, but I wanted to take the time and the opportunity to express what we heard when the fair pay agreements legislation went through the House under the previous Government, some very clear submissions that happened at the time. There were quite a few people who spoke about the effect that that law would have on businesses and on workers in our economy and this is why we are repealing the bill. The first one I’d like to note was the Federated Farmers of New Zealand. They said, “Some business owners will be forced to downsize or simplify their business to avoid employing people, or some will close the doors entirely.” That would be an effect of the Fair Pay Agreements Act.

Horticulture New Zealand, when they talked about the effect, talked about the effect on the cost of living for New Zealanders. They said, “Fair pay agreements will result in additional costs and organisational compliance for growers. Growers cannot continue to absorb increased costs. If growers stop producing a variety of fruits and vegetables in New Zealand, or at worst have to close their businesses, this will result in less local choice and diversity of produce for consumers. An increased price of kai for Kiwis—clearly, clearly a terrible outcome.”

There was a quote from a small family-owned promotions company which talked about how this would bring other people into the relationships between an employer and an employee. And they’ve said, “I have a very transparent and good relationship with our team and see any collective agreement that applies to our business will only start alienating my relationship with our small team. Having to negotiate an employment agreement via an unrelated third party may work in a large organisation, but certainly not in most small businesses.”

There was a struggling business in the hospitality sector that said, “Our industry is already paying more. Market conditions resulting from labour shortages have already driven hospitality industry wages up beyond what many businesses can afford. Many small hospitality businesses have already closed or are operating reduced days and hours only, and they simply can’t pay more. The Fair Pay Agreements Act 2022 would represent further change that would go too far, too fast, with damaging consequences.”

I note also from the New Zealand Shipping Federation that they said, “New Zealand workers must have the right to associate with a trade union where they wish to do so. But the right to freely associate with others includes the right not to associate where an individual does not wish to. This bill has the effect of utilising the powers of the State to compel people who have, in many cases, consciously and explicitly chosen not to associate with a trade union or an employers association, to have a trade union or employers association represent them and their interests without their agreement.”

These are clear examples of why this Government is repealing the Fair Pay Agreements Act. We do not believe that all employees and all employers within scope should be forced into an agreement where it doesn’t work for the worker and it doesn’t work for the business. We need a flexible labour market that focuses on productivity growth, that focuses on reducing regulation, and focuses on reducing inflation so that everybody can have more food on their table for themselves and their families but where businesses have the confidence to flourish and employ more, and where business owners have more money to pay their staff more. This Fair Pay Agreements Act would not have done that. It would have led to worse outcomes.

We have a clear mandate from the voters for this law to be repealed. We campaigned clearly. It was in the coalition agreement. It is part of our 100-day plan. It will make a better, more flexible labour market to return to what we had before the Fair Pay Agreements Act came into force. So, therefore, I commend it to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak about something I am very passionate about, although it’s absolutely not a pleasure to be speaking on the repeal bill for the Fair Pay Agreements Act that was brought in by the last Government.

I’m quite surprised, listening to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s speech—and I know she’s a new Minister, and maybe she doesn’t have her full staff on board yet, but I actually participated in the select committee process, and we received 1,700 submissions. The majority of those submissions were in favour, as I recall, of the amendments. I can also read out the submissions of those in support of the legislation that we did indeed pass, but I don’t think that proves the Minister’s point. I think the Minister needs to actually engage with the substance of what she is repealing, because now, with this longer call, I have the time to go through what fair pay agreements actually do.

Fair pay agreements are a form of industry-level bargaining. They’re common across the world, in countries that we would like to compare ourselves to: in Germany, in France, in Italy, in Australia. They are common arrangements in these countries. These types of agreement create a floor and not a ceiling in relation to terms and conditions. If employers want to offer something above what is in the fair pay agreement, there is absolutely nothing preventing them from doing that. They just create minimum standards, which we are very used to in New Zealand—we have lots of minimum standards that apply to workers. We have the minimum wage, we have minimum holidays, we have parental leave, we have sick leave—those kinds of things.

The thing that is different—and beneficial—about fair pay agreements is that they allow employers and workers to come together, whether they’re in a union or not, and discuss what works best for the industry—what they consider to be fair terms and conditions that will allow them to have secure work, secure pay, and be able to see a career moving forward. That is how they work. It is not a scary thing. It is something that actually allows New Zealand to move forward and allows us to become a high-wage, productive economy—which I actually think most people, on both sides of the House, would like to see New Zealand become.

That is what fair pay agreements are, and my colleague Willie Jackson aptly referred to Jim Bolger “coming right”, and I just thought it would be apt to refer to the work that the Rt Hon Jim Bolger did actually do in relation to fair pay agreements. He chaired the working group that set the groundwork up for the Fair Pay Agreements Bill that was passed by our Government. And I quote from the Rt Hon Jim Bolger. He said, “We believe we have designed a Fair Pay Agreements system which will be most useful in sectors or occupations where competition is driving a ‘race to the bottom’ in terms of wages and conditions. Fair Pay Agreements could also be useful where workers and employers identify scope to improve outcomes across a sector or occupation. In particular, I consider that workers and employers will need to work together to find innovative ways to lift productivity.” So someone who was in favour of what we introduced was the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, and I respect and thank Jim Bolger for his work. It’s disappointing to see it repealed like this.

The other thing that I wanted to touch on are the people who will actually be affected by this repeal of the Fair Pay Agreements Act. It’s not us in the Labour Party; it’s not the unions that perhaps don’t find favour with the other side of the House. The people on this side of the House, as has been mentioned, and unions, have good terms and conditions. They’re unlikely to be covered by a fair pay agreement. The people that this is really hurting are not, in the majority, union members; they’re everyday New Zealanders who work in vulnerable industries who need fair pay. They are, as in the Minister’s own advice that she received in the regulatory impact statement, more likely to be Māori, they’re more likely to be Pasifika, they’re more likely to be women, and they’re more likely to be young people. These are the people that removing fair pay agreements is actually hurting. It’s not us; it’s New Zealanders.

I just wanted to refer back to the speech I gave on the first reading of the Fair Pay Agreements Bill, when I quoted in the House at that time Morris, a bus driver I spoke to. He said, “Flat rates just mean drivers work more and more hours to make ends meet. They’re on split shifts. They can be doing 14 hours a day, but not getting paid for these hours. It leaves people with no time for their families and it creates fatigue.” Morris was speaking in favour of fair pay agreements, which he hoped would revolutionise the work of bus drivers. I know that this Government is intent on repealing this legislation, but can I just put a plea out for these workers: no one deserves to be working 14-hour days and not getting paid for all those hours on split shifts. No one deserves to work in a job in New Zealand where they can’t see their families or can’t make enough to live on. These are serious issues that we need to address, so we must actually be brave enough to look at the way we work in New Zealand.

The other person I wanted to mention featured on the cover of The Post, yesterday I think it was. This is Rosey; she’s a security guard. She actually came along—she’s a real person. To be honest, she’s very brave to be speaking out as a security guard and sharing her story. She said, in the paper, “Security guards often don’t receive the proper training for things like health and safety, and de-escalation. FPAs would help security guards get the training and upskilling they need to keep themselves and others safe. It’s a stressful job, and we deserve to feel valued in the work we do.”

One of the things that is interesting about being in this House is when we have the adjournment debate, and I’m sure we’ll see this again when we adjourn for this year. One of the groups of people we always want to thank are our security guards and our cleaners. They do incredible work here at Parliament, and a lot of their work isn’t valued. It is heart-breaking to be, on the one hand, thanking them in our words, thanking them for the service that they do and that they provide, and, on the other hand, passing laws in this House—with our actions—and showing that this Parliament does not value them. Because that is what this Government is doing.

The other things that I wanted to cover, in relation to fair pay agreements—and we will have a decent amount of time to, I hope, discuss this in the committee of the whole House stage as well—are some other issues that have arisen in our scrutiny of this legislation that has been proposed by the Government. We’ve seen, perhaps in their haste to put out a press release saying they’ve achieved their 100-day goals, the drafting of their legislation was amiss in some instances, and I’m foreshadowing that we’ll be putting some Amendment Papers—as they’re now called—into the committee of the whole House stage to seek to address those.

The other thing that I wanted to mention was some of the other concerns that have been raised during the very fast passage of this piece of legislation through the House. New Zealand has, as all in this House will be aware, an EU free-trade agreement. One of the conditions of that EU free-trade agreement is that countries don’t deregulate their labour laws in order to give themselves a competitive advantage, and I understand a complaint has been raised to that nature. So I would just caution members on the other side of the House that, when they do seek to put legislation through urgency, sometimes issues like this can arise, which may be unintentional but can have serious implications for our trade relationships and serious implications for the very important trade deals that we have entered into.

The other thing I wanted to raise is that there is an issue with some of the explanation that has been happening around whether this will actually impact workers. Well, we know that this would have created fairer pay and conditions for workers, and therefore they are impacted. But secondly to that, we know that there is at least one application in the Employment Relations Authority for fixing the terms of a fair pay agreement. Now, obviously, that’s before the authority; it’s not for us to comment on how that will progress, as is customary in this House. However, I think we can comment to say that that particular group will be impacted by this decision. And I note in the departmental disclosure statement which was released with this bill that there was also an issue raised in relation to that under the Legislation Act 2021, which actually doesn’t allow existing rights to be repealed if they’re existing at the time of the repeal—so some interesting issues for the Government to have to address in this piece of legislation that they have moved through very, very quickly.

In conclusion, I look forward to the committee stage, when we can look through the legislation in detail, but I just wanted to say that in the Labour Party we will always stand up for working people, and this is not the end of this fight. We’ll be back, and fair pay agreements will be too.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): It’s a sad day to stand up and take a call on the second reading of the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill, shepherded by a Government that seems to want to make our lowest-income workers have a terrible time ahead of Christmas; a Government that is full of platitudes, happy to celebrate our essential workers when it was convenient and turn their back on them and turn the clock back in time as soon as they take the reins of power.

As we’ve gone through the passage of the debate and in this bill, it’s been really clear that this bill was not centred on the wellbeing of workers; it was centred on ideology. I heard, through the debate, members of the opposite side yell out “misinformation” when the member from the Labour Party Camilla Belich was speaking, and it’s quite the call to be making when the whole campaign against fair pay agreements was based on misinformation. So to now turn around and call the members speaking on the facts on why fair pay agreements would have been good “misinformation” is a slap on the face to the workers, the union campaigners, and the businesses who actually support paying those workers a good wage, because those businesses understand that if you’re running a business model that cannot afford to pay workers a living wage, that business should not have a right to exist. If your premise of running a business relies on the exploitation of workers, then you’re not running a business.

Carl Bates: Have you run a business before?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: It’s interesting that I’m once again getting shouts from the other side of the House, talking about whether we’ve even run a business. I then challenge those members: have you been a cleaner? Have you worked in hospitality? Have you worked in any of those industries? If so, next time those members walk into the supermarket, next time those members walk into the cafe, next time those members thank the cleaners, they need to remind themselves they were the members who voted against improving the pay and the conditions of those very same workers they claim to represent. They need to remember that they have turned their backs on those workers as soon as they entered the halls of power.

Fair pay agreements would have set a minimum standard for those workers. It is about pay, but it is also far more than just about pay. It’s about minimum base wage rates. It’s about overtime rates when they apply. It’s about penalty rates. It’s about health and safety. In a country that has a terrible record when it comes to health and safety standards for our workers, repealing a key piece of legislation that would have improved the safety of our workers is a stain in this Government’s track record and their commitment to keep our workers safe.

I used to work in hospitality—something that quite a lot of right-wingers seem to take issue about, as if it wasn’t real-life experience. But, actually, this bill affects the people who I used to work with. Having worked at a cinema that had some of the lowest wages for a profession such as a projectionist, when other cinemas offered different conditions, it was really clear to me, when fair pay agreements were brought up, the benefits that it would have had for those friends of mine who were still working in the industry to have the certainty that there was going to be a minimum rate for those workers. I had the pleasure of talking to those workers when I went on Dominion Road with people from Unite Union to hand out letters notifying people of what we call a notification of bargaining; of the process of starting that fair pay agreement. It was palatable, the curiosity and the excitement from workers about what could fair pay agreements have delivered for them.

Workers who I’ve talked to on Dominion Road immediately understood that there’s no floor, there’s no standards set across the hospitality scene. For those politicians, for those opponents of fair pay agreements: next time they go out to their favourite eatery in the city, they need to remember those workers who they took that opportunity to have better working conditions and safety standards away from them.

It was also really clear of the voices that were brought to the halls of power—to the forecourt here in Parliament—and for other pickets across the country, that many workers are having to take multiple jobs simply to make ends meet. What this piece of legislation was aiming to achieve was to prevent workers having to work shifts back-to-back, to have to give up time to be with their families, to sacrifice the opportunity of being able to study alongside working just to be able to survive.

I’ve heard, throughout the debate, that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety—responsible for this bill—and those members in support of this bill think that repealing it will give greater flexibility for employers. But at no point have they been able to produce evidence of the outcomes that the repeal will have when it comes to the material reality of those workers. They’ve spoken about the impact it will have on employers, but their trickle-down economics, their trickle-down beliefs that those gains for employers will be passed down to workers, is nothing but a myth.

I notice, in the paper that we’ve been presented, that there were options presented to the Minister about alternatives to just simply scrapping it—perhaps looking at other options—and it’s interesting that when presented with multiple options to perhaps reach a compromise on what they had campaigned on and the wellbeing of our workers, the choice that was still nonetheless pursued was to take us back. When they talk about the so-called evidence on this bill, as has been canvassed by other members, the evidence actually shows the contrary. Overseas evidence shows that fair pay agreements would have benefited—as it has our counterparts overseas—by lifting their wages, lifting their conditions, and for parties that campaign on the issue of our workers leaving to Australia, they need to realise that our workers are leaving to countries that have better standards for those workers. Who are we to then demand that those workers stay in a country that is literally worsening the conditions for those workers?

Again, I point out the fact that this Government had the opportunity to land somewhere that wasn’t back to zero—to not turn the clock so far back—and they still chose to do it with no evidence, with not even wanting to have a proper regulatory impact statement in front of them to be able to hold to their arguments against the advice from people who actually know better than the Minister; people who are connected, who have the expertise and the training. Because the Minister, while she may have claimed that she has met with the with the union sector, she has not been able to substantiate the details of those conversations to back up her arguments on why this piece of legislation and repealing fair pay agreements is a good thing.

Finally, I want to commend, too, the many workers who—despite there not being a select committee submission process—have put their livelihoods, their stories on the line to make the case on why fair pay agreements are a thing to be protected. Because, normally, we would have given them the chance to come to the halls of power, to a House that belongs to them, to explain to us why fair pay agreements should have been protected. Those people who are against it—yeah, they would have been given the chance too. But we’ve bypassed that process, on the premise of ideology. We could have given people the chance to come and submit; to actually test us—test us on the grounds that each of us campaigned on: on workers’ issues—but those workers don’t have that opportunity.

I also want to mihi to Rosey, who was acknowledged in the previous speech. I had the pleasure of campaigning with her on issues around public housing. It says a lot that the workers who have been very visible in the media are the same workers who, the Minister has been advised, will be most impacted. It has been the young workers, the women, the Māori workers, Pasifika workers, young workers who have come out and spoken as to why fair pay agreements are good.

If the advice that the Minister received is not good enough, she may want to turn her face from the ivory tower to the streets to listen to the experiences of those workers. If she does not want a regulatory impact statement to test her own views against the advice from people who know better than her, she could have turned her face to the streets and spoken to those workers that she will encounter in cafes and the supermarket, and next time she goes to a mall and sees security guards.

So, as I finish this call, I want to ask those members opposite to me to speak to those workers, to look at them in the eye, and remind them this Christmas of what they took away from them. Kia ora.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I’m offended that the Hon Willie Jackson and members opposite suggest that we don’t care about bus drivers. Unlike members opposite, who operate in theories and ideals, I have successfully employed and retained over 100 staff, many of whom were bus drivers. My husband has been a bus driver. My father has been a bus driver. My grandfather has been a bus driver. Many of my family and friends are bus drivers, and to intimate that we in the National Party do not care about bus drivers is incorrect.

In fact, like my friend James Meager—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Just a moment—interjections are fine, but there’s too much shouting.

KATIE NIMON: —said, the members opposite do not own workers, and, for that matter, neither do their unions. Staff across the country are worried about division that the fair pay agreement (FPA) will bring. There is no question. As I mentioned earlier, I have successfully employed and retained hundreds of employees, none of which was done through an FPA. So, in the second reading of this bill, I commend it to the House.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to continue to support this Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill.

All I’m hearing from the other side of the House is catastrophising. I mean, this bill hasn’t even kicked in yet, this mechanism. It’s not as though we’re tearing up a workers’ utopia. This is a bill that hasn’t even taken effect yet. So we’re just getting rid of it before it takes effect and cripples the flexibility in our labour market. And I will not be lectured, or New Zealand First will not be lectured, by the Labour Party. We have a track record in three consecutive coalitions that we’ve been involved in; having a rise to the minimum wage has been part of that. Extraordinarily, in 2017, we had to bring them kicking and screaming to the table to do that.

Camilla Belich actually made the actually obvious point that union members probably wouldn’t be affected by this because they collectively bargain anyway. So where is the problem? If that is what people want to do, they have a solution there already. And, of course, we totally respect—as I said earlier—that people that risk their own capital to provide jobs and to grow the economy need the flexibility to be able to do that.

Last time we were in Government with Labour, and they tried to bring this forward, our real concern about this and why we did pull the handbrake on this was particularly around the regional employers. There’s different cost structures in different regions of New Zealand. It’s a different cost of living in Auckland than it might be in Balclutha. So the complexity of bringing these things together is a lot more challenging than the members opposite would make out. But it is typical of them and their one-size-fits-all approach to almost everything.

New Zealand First will support this bill in the second reading. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call the Hon Marama Davidson—five minutes, thank you.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Be honest. Be honest, this Government—the National Party, New Zealand First, ACT—be honest about what is actually driving this legislation to remove rights for workers. Be honest about who your most wealthy and collective donors were and what their purposes are to get you into Government. Urgency; rushing the repeal, the wind-back of workers’ wellbeing and lives is what you are doing in urgency. You’re not even whispering about it; you’re doing it out loud. Be upfront. Just say—just say you don’t care about workers.

Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Just say that, and then we can at least be clear about what your rationale, and your reasonings, and your purpose has always been and will always be. And no, it does not matter—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order—excuse me for a moment. Point of order, the Hon Simeon Brown.

Hon Simeon Brown: The member started her speech making assertions about the Government’s reasons why this bill was being progressed—trying to assert it to do with donors and other things, and I don’t think that’s within the Standing Orders.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I think it’s probably not helpful to refer to donors, and I’m sorry, I was a bit distracted at that point; I was just clarifying something over here. So perhaps we’ll avoid talking about donors in the future.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Speaking to the point of order, could I have some clarity—genuine guidance—about why it isn’t OK in this House of Representatives to refer to who are the drivers and the owners of political parties in their laws.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: [Takes advice] Thank you. So what I’m going to ask speakers to do is to stay away from those. We are going to follow up with some Speakers’ directions, but carry on with your speech for now and avoid going there, please.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I appreciate that, and I will even refine my language: be clear. Be clear about what is actually driving the rationale behind this legislation, just before Christmas—just before Christmas—to repeal and wind back some of the best and most improved progress in workers’ rights that this country would have seen in decades, to address systemic issues. Yes, we have made some progress because of collective power of bargaining on workers’ rights in this country, yes. But there remain some deep, systemic issues that have impacted in the areas of employment and industry that most disproportionately are represented by Māori, by Pacific people, by women, by young people, and by people with a disability in those areas and trades specifically that have, for decades and far too long, exploited those workers who are at most risk and are most vulnerable to being exploited—not just with lower pay but also with hours that are mucky and that impact on their other responsibilities in the rest of their lives, with learning and development conditions and training so that they can actually build upon their work, no matter what that work is—that have been impacted on by a lack of decision making and input from workers, including their ability to be safe and well in their workplace. That is what this Government and all of those political parties are doing, in a rush, right before Christmas.

So, yes, I do stand behind my ask to be clear. Be clear about what your motivations are. Do not try and hide behind and pretend that this is about the wellbeing of workers when the evidence—decades of evidence of systemic problems and failure with the very workers from communities who have been getting hammered for so very long; for too long—don’t try and pretend that this legislation is any attempt to uphold their dignity, their rights, and their mana. That’s all I ask: be clear. Be clear about what your motivations are, because we sure as heck are.

Were the members opposite out there in front of Parliament today, meeting with and hearing from workers? OK, if you have some weird ideology against collective strength, such as unions, all right, that’s fine—you can remain with that ideology, sure. But have you sat down with workers now, today, out there on the steps: the supermarket workers, the people who look after our mokopuna, the people who drive our buses, the people who clean our places of work, our places of living? And no, OK—it doesn’t even matter that I am from a family of generations of cleaners and bus drivers and retail workers and hospitality workers, that I myself have done hospitality—I’m just watching the clock—and cleaning, that both of my parents were bus drivers, that my grandmother worked in a cafe and also did cleaning. OK, that shouldn’t matter. What does matter is that we all here today, wherever we’ve come from, have a responsibility to honour and uphold the mana of those who do not have large moneyed connections to organisations to make these laws happen fast, who do not have power and resource, who have for far too long—

Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Oh, come on.

Hon Simeon Brown: I’ll just draw your attention—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, the member’s raised a point of order. I’ve actually got some information, in front of me, around the issue that was—is it the same point of order?

Hon Simeon Brown: Well, I mean, she just referred to—I mean, again made the same assertion of improper motives.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. So the member has been asked not to do that. I think it’s probably appropriate, actually, that I read out the particular Speakers’ ruling now, and I refer to, under “Unparliamentary language”, 55/5: “(1) It is in order to say that the Government is influenced, but it is not in order to say that in … carrying out of its administrative and governmental duties, apart from the formulation of its policy before it came to the House, the Government is dictated to by an outside body.” And “(2) It is out of order to suggest that the Government or any member is subject to outside domination,”. So I’d just ask the member to be cognisant of that in future. Thank you.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I firstly ask, could I have, I think, the 15 seconds back that I lost in the point of order—20 seconds?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can have your 15 seconds.

Hon Willie Jackson: Make it 30.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: 15.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I will wind up my speech. I appreciate that guidance, genuinely. I hope that we can talk about, though, who the workers have to champion their causes, rather than talking about who political parties have to champion their causes. And who the workers have to champion their causes: it should be all of us in this House of—apparent—Representatives, but it will definitely be the Greens. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I take the next speaker, can I ask—does Te Pāti Māori intend to have your five-minute call?

Tākuta Ferris: Āe.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So I call Tākuta Ferris.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): E te Pīka, tēnā rā koe. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to speak to the second reading of the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill. We will be strongly opposing this bill, pau te kaha [until all our strength is expended].

Let me start by saying, as Emeritus Professor of Accounting Whatarangi Winiata consistently said, Māori have long been the shock absorber of the New Zealand economy. Last hired, first fired—this bill will compound this effect. Te Pāti Māori policy is clear that we support ensuring the ability of multi-employer collective bargaining, and collective bargaining for contractors. 30 years ago, the Employment Contracts Act 1991 removed sector-wide bargaining from the industrial relations system. According to unionist and workers’ rights advocate Annie Newman, this implemented one of the most radical, individualised employment relations systems in the world.

Most developed economies have some form of sector-wide bargaining. Australia’s use of fair pay agreements is one of the reasons they have much higher wages than Aotearoa. For far too long, our people have been treated as second-class citizens in the New Zealand job market—used and abused, working in tough and often inhumane conditions, keeping this country’s economy running. The median Māori hourly wage is $24.98, compared to $28.01 for our Pākehā counterparts. Low wages impoverish whānau and cause extensive inter-generational harm and trauma. Māori, Pasifika, young people, and whānau hauā are often over-represented in jobs where low pay, job security, health and safety, and upskilling are significant issues, and with low union coverage.

Minimum industry-wide standards provide baselines regardless of whether you are a member of a union or not. Health and safety problems in industries like forestry, farming, trucking, fisheries often kill Māori at work. In this House, we should be making people decisions. In this House, we should be making mokopuna decisions. Mokopuna decisions require lifting the material conditions of all whānau.

In 2022, the Government brought back sector-wide bargaining with the Fair Pay Agreements Act 2022, which provided a framework for bargaining for fair pay agreements, industry-wide or occupation-wide minimum employment terms. The Act also set out that each bargaining side will have obligations to use its best endeavours to represent those within coverage, and to ensure that Māori employees and employers are represented effectively. Every worker and employer has the opportunity to be represented in negotiations and to vote on the agreement itself. Fair pay agreements come into force through a majority ratification of the parties. The reforms did not bring back the controversial elements of the old industrial relations regime, like compulsory unionism. Rather, all workers within affected industries and occupations will see the benefits, not just the union members. The introduction of fair pay agreements in both the private and public sectors would have, over a period of time, significantly lifted wages and employment conditions for workers, particularly low-paid workers, where many whānau Māori are employed.

Te Pāti Māori support the Fair Pay Agreements Act because fair pay agreements would have been one of the most significant policies in lifting the wages of working Māori. We strongly oppose this bill pō te ao, ao te pō. [at all times.]

It takes Aotearoa back by locking in the status quo of our last 30 years—a low-wage, precarious job market. As we head into the Christmas period, people are struggling to put food on the table, to pay their bills, to fill up their cars, and to buy their tamariki presents. Right now, this new Government should be focusing on lifting the incomes of whānau, not exacerbating the hardships of the hard-working Māori families. Instead, it focuses on ramming through legislation under urgency that will keep their wages low, and jobs precarious—legislation that will keep them in insecure work with unfair pay and in dangerous conditions. It’s appalling. Every whānau in Aotearoa should have enough to live well, and be able to spend their time with their whānau, and to work in safe, healthy conditions.

Let me conclude in the words of Dr Ranginui Walker, who said, “I have no time for those in positions of privilege who use their privilege to attack the most vulnerable people in our society”.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and congratulations on your new role. There’s a lot of talk in this House this afternoon about Christmas, and maybe so given the Christmas parades I’ve been at recently in Hāwera, in Pātea, and in Whanganui. But it’s a falsehood that there’s a massive present being taken away. Indeed, we are giving the present of confidence this Christmas—a confidence in a new 2024. Confidence that there will be a job for that young person wanting someone to take a risk on them and confidence to the employer to take that risk. Confidence to the food market owner in Whanganui who said she would have to close if fair pay agreements went through. And with that closure, the jobs would go with it. To give confidence to employers deciding if they want and will take another risk, and to the young person looking for someone to take a risk on them, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Well, we’re hearing some nonsense here this afternoon. The only sense I heard was from my whanaunga over there, Doc, who’s made it very, very clear the effect that this bill will have on Māori.

We know, as Māori, how we’re always the last hired and the first fired. That’s an undeniable fact. I look up in the audience there and I see our old friend Naida Glavish.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: “Dame”.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, Dame? She’s my mate, too. Now, she was a wonderful kaimahi, Naida. Wonderful kaimahi, wonderful member of Mana Motuhake. Her only sin was she didn’t follow me into Labour. She was with me in Mana Motuhake, she was one of my members and one of my candidates and stood for me in the north for Mana Motuhake. Well, I can’t remember what she had made of, but we came second. I’m mentioning her because this is the lady—I just want to tell this to the audience—who was one of our great kaimahi. Well, she should be immortalised, Naida, because she was the one who said “kia ora” on the phone.

Hon Member: Kia ora?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: She’s the “kia ora” lady.

Hon Phil Twyford: Wouldn’t happen now, under this Government.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, no.

Hon Member: Oh, what rubbish.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, no—National would sack her now. National would sack her. She’d be gone. Gone for all money, our Naida. Maybe then she’d join the Labour Party, I’m not sure. But lovely to have her here today, because when I think about this sort of fair pay bargaining, I take on—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Willie. [Gestures to gallery]

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’ve got all our whānau turning up to tautoko our candidates this afternoon who are going to make a statement in terms of their maiden speeches. But they would all be worried about this, because I was a union official for 18 years—18 years. [Interruption] I know, because none of the losers on the other side were anything apart from working in offices. I was a freezing workers’ president when I was 21 years of age, so I saw firsthand what was happening.

Hon Simeon Brown: What an achievement.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah, well more of an achievement than a mug like yourself. Then, I worked for the cleaners’ union—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! No name calling.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —I worked for the service workers’ union, and I worked for the Northern Clerical Workers Union, with my uncle Syd Jackson. We saw firsthand what was happening in terms of the damages to workers at community level—Māori workers.

So, in 1991, when Jim Bolger brought in voluntary unionism, we were in shock because it smashed the union movement. So that was in 1991. Jim Bolger brought it in, the architect of voluntary unionism. Who would think in 2018 he would be a champion for the workers? Who would think in 2018 he would be the champion for the workers, for the Greens, for Te Pāti Māori, and for the Labour Party? But not for the useless National Party—a party that has betrayed its history—because Jim Bolger said this: “We believe we have designed a fair pay agreements system which will be most useful in sectors or occupations where competition is driving a ‘race to the bottom’ in terms of wages and conditions. Fair pay agreements could also be useful where workers and employers identify scope to improve outcomes across a sector or occupation. In particular, I consider that workers and employers will need to work together to find innovative ways to lift productivity.”

That’s from the Rt Hon Jim Bolger, the former leader of the useless National Party. He would be ashamed of this useless lot in front of us today, because—

Hon Simeon Brown: Look in the mirror.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, he would be ashamed, particularly of Simeon Brown. He’d look at him and he’d think—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, we won’t make personal attacks. Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m not trying to be personal. But he is useless, I tell you. So he would be ashamed, though. He would be ashamed because this is the former architect of the fair pay agreements. He chaired—

Hon Simeon Brown: Who, Michael Wood?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: A former Prime Minister, Simeon Brown. Nothing—you’ll never get there. I don’t know how you even got where you are now. But a former Prime Minister and leader of the National Party oversaw the fair bargaining process. That’s how far he came.

Hon Simeon Brown: Oh, there was a guy named Michael Wood too. Where’s he?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Further than that useless person over there will ever get. He oversaw the fair bargaining process.

Of course, he’s quite a supporter of Māori today, too, unlike this useless lot on the other side. He’s not only talking about fair bargaining agreements; he’s talking about the Treaty, he’s talking about tikanga Māori, he’s talking about the principles—something they’ve forgotten all about. So he would be ashamed of this lot.

What I’m saying to this lot over here is: why are you doing this to our workers and our communities? It’s been really made clear by so many people. I think Marama Davidson was on to something. It’s about the money. It has to be about something. Why is this lot conceding to the money men in our society? It just makes no sense. Why would you attack workers in Māngere, Manurewa, Manukau, West Auckland three weeks before?

Hon Marama Davidson: Profit.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: What is it, Marama Davidson? It must be because of all the money men who are backing them. There is no other reason. The power imbalance in this is sad, and the fear of getting sacked will pressure some workers into not joining a union in case the boss uses that as a reason to sack them. That’s without a doubt.

This shameful piece of legislation will make it more difficult for workers to join a union and have a direct impact on how unions can promote worker interests. It’s shocking that this group has ignored Treasury advice. Don’t want to know about Treasury advice; regulatory impact statements. “Scrutiny, what’s that? Oh, we’ve forgotten all about it. We don’t need a regulatory impact so—doesn’t need it.” Oh no, they don’t need that. They know everything. They are a disgrace. I’m so glad our people are here. It’s good to see you all, because we have a disgraceful Government sitting right in front of you. They don’t care about our communities.

Rima Nakhle: Not true.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s absolutely true. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Brooke van Velden, has been told that young people, Māori, and Pasifika people will not benefit with the loss of these fair pay agreements (FPAs). But she continues to know what is right for our communities.

Repealing the Fair Pay Agreements Act rips all the good work up. It throws that boost out, just so greedy bosses and greedy National Party supporters can exploit workers. That’s what it’s all about. The Minister claims that FPAs are too blunt. Got the right to sack before 90 days—apparently that’s not too blunt. That’s OK—that’s OK. Her and Mr Seymour—they have all this aroha for the workers, but all they want to do is sack them and throw them out before their 90 days.

They want to dump a whole regime of collective bargaining. Why do they want to do that? Because they want to change the whole workplace. We know this. They want to continue to negotiate with individuals. They’re not interested in collective bargaining. It’s really easy to negotiate with individuals because most individuals don’t have the background, don’t have the history in terms of being able to negotiate for themselves. They don’t. They’re not like Naida Glavish up there, John Tamihere over here—they want to keep John Tamihere out, I think. These people can stand up for themselves—that’s what this is all about. That’s what collective bargaining is all about.

We need unions. We need groups. We need contracts in place so that workers can feel secure—

Hon Simeon Brown: We need businesses.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —not be nailed and smashed over by creeps like Simeon Brown. It’s just not right.

So I say today to our people who are here: beware of this useless coalition of National, New Zealand First, and ACT. They have no regard for our communities. They can’t even speak for 10 minutes. They can’t even speak for five minutes. They are a disgrace to this nation, and we’re going to get them out in the next two years.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker O’Connor. I’ll just take this opportunity to commend you and congratulate you on retaining your role—your new role.

It’s interesting, listening to the other side of the House. There seems to be this grand assumption that all employers are bad. It’s really, really frustrating. As an employer myself from the Northland electorate, where I’ve employed people for many, many years, guess what—guess what! My manager has been with me for 16 years. Do you think he’d be hanging around if I didn’t do a good job and he wasn’t on a fair pay arrangement—and he damn well is. He didn’t need to be part of a union to achieve it at all, and my other workers, including a number of Māori who have worked for me, still to this day also keep in touch. Believe me, I support this bill, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It says a lot about the values of this new Government that one of the very first things they do on taking office is stick the boot into hospo workers, security guards, cleaners, port workers, early childhood teachers, supermarket workers. Fair pay agreements were a long overdue reform to the bargaining system in this country; a set of minimum standards to ensure that some of our hardest-working people could get ahead. We’re talking about people who often work multiple jobs in industries that are casualised. They work longer hours than almost anybody in this building, they are predominantly the young, they are mostly women, and they are mostly Māori and Pasifika workers, and this Government sticks the boot into them in its first couple of weeks in office.

Low pay is at the heart of so many of this country’s problems. Poverty and all of the problems that go with it—the stress, the anxiety, the reduced life expectancy, the poor health. Modern Governments spend all their time cleaning up the messes caused by low pay. But does this Government want to actually do something about it and miss out the middleman and actually pay people more? No, they actually want to drive wages down. They talk about getting people off welfare and into work, right? But when it comes to a law that will actually help people earn more at work and be less reliant on the welfare system, do they want to do something about it? No. They want to get rid of that law. The so-called party of free enterprise; they are happier having the taxpayer subsidise employers to pay starvation wages.

We spend $2 billion a year in this country subsidising rents because people can’t earn enough to pay the rent—multiple billions of dollars every year because employers don’t pay high enough wages. It’s not a socialist idea to want people to earn enough to live and help their kids to survive, so why not allow people to earn enough to live?

I’ve sat here listening to members on that side of the House talk about productivity. Productivity is not about allowing a race to the bottom, driving down wages. This country will never get ahead competing internationally on the basis of low wages of our workers. Italy, France, Germany, Australia—they all have nationwide systems of minimum standards for pay and conditions to stop a race to the bottom. Minister, have you looked at the productivity indicators in Australia and France and Germany and Italy? How are they doing? They’re doing a lot better than us because they believe in driving wages up, not pushing them down. We cannot build a modern economy by trying to compete on the basis of low wages. When wages are as low as they are in New Zealand right now, employers inevitably chose to hire cheap labour instead of investing in the technology, the plant, the capital, that will really drive productivity up. That’s why our productivity is much lower than in Australia, because New Zealand firms don’t invest in technology to improve productivity. They are happier employing cheap labour, and when they don’t need it any more, they send people down the road.

This bill is a hatchet job on quarter of a million of the hardest-working New Zealanders; the bus drivers, the early childhood teachers, supermarket workers, the cleaners, the security guards. We rely on these people; we should allow them to earn enough to live on, to raise a family, and live a decent life. This bill will make New Zealanders poorer, it takes away their opportunity to get ahead. It will actually drive down productivity, and it will take this country backwards.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I rise in support of the repeal of the fair pay agreements. This legislation will hit small businesses after three years of agony and angst. This bill is what is driving us; this bill is about reducing the costs on business—small businesses. The Opposition says it’s all about the rich and powerful. Well, can I remind them that 97 percent of businesses in New Zealand are small businesses—those that employ fewer than 20 people. There are 546,000 of them.

This is a key part of our 100-day action plan. And if they’d gone campaigning in small town New Zealand or in and around small businesses, they would be feeling that in the last three years small businesses have been living off dignity, doggedness.

Hon Phil Twyford: Your constituents will suffer because of this bill.

CAMERON BREWER: Oh, look at this. These are the very people—the people that they purport to represent are the ones that they’ve hurt the most in the last six years, and now they’re trying to retrospectively fix it. They have got survivor’s guilt; they kept their jobs and their voters haven’t, and so they’re now coming back in Opposition and trying to do everything that they didn’t. But it’s too late—it’s too late. We are the party of small businesses, we are former small-business owners, and, after six years of destruction, we’re going to get this country back to where it is. It’s a country of small business—that’s who we’re backing. I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s always a privilege to take a call in this House, but I don’t do so today with any great pride, to be honest, in this House, having heard some of the debate this afternoon.

I want to put on record that I come from a place of privilege, and there are a lot of people in this House who do come from a place of privilege, and I think it is incumbent on all of us to be able to recognise that and recognise that our job in this House is to do the work and to do the mahi for the people who are the most vulnerable in our community. That is one of the reasons why I’ve come to this House.

Across the other side of the House, whenever the word “union” is mentioned, there’s a lot of scoffing. So I’m going to talk just a little bit about some of the work I did as a union organiser—wait for the scoffing—the real work, like sitting in the office of a supermarket manager with a woman close to retirement age. Yeah, it’s interesting watching the people across on the other side laugh. It’s not funny, the story I’m about to tell here, Katie Nimon—it’s not funny.

Hon Kelvin Davis: It’s just their white privilege kicking in.

RACHEL BOYACK: Oh, this is where the privilege does kick in.

I’m talking about a woman in her sixties working for a large supermarket chain, being threatened with losing her job. Do you know why? Because, while working for close to the minimum wage, she wasn’t stacking shelves fast enough. Now, this is actually an Australian company that she worked for, making millions of dollars of profit, and they were saying to this woman, “You are going to lose your job because you’re not stacking those shelves fast enough.”

This was the sort of thing I saw in my role, time and time again. I’m proud of that work. I’m proud of the fact that even though I studied employment relations at university, even though I studied this and I could have gone down the HR track, I chose to stand on the side of people who are often the most vulnerable.

So I want to take members opposite and just remind them of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and one of the sections contained within that wasn’t repealed by the previous National Government. If you look at section 3, “Object of this Act”, you will see that one of the things it states is “(a)(ii) by acknowledging and addressing the inherent inequality of power in employment relationships;”, and, furthermore, to promote collective bargaining.

Having actually studied the subject at university—and one of the things that I hear this Government often talking about is wanting to be evidence-based. Well, let’s talk about the evidence. The evidence says, particularly for women, that if you negotiate as a group, you get higher wages than if you do it on your own. That’s particularly true for women.

There’s an amazing woman called Marjorie Corman Aaron, who actually found through research that a woman who went in and negotiated aggressively for higher pay was the least likely to get hired. But a man who went in and aggressively negotiated the pay was most likely to get hired. This is real research—this is the truth of the matter. So women, in particular, by negotiating together as a group, end up doing better for all of them. And that’s one of the reasons I’m so proud to stand on this side of the House—because it’s not about me; it’s about we. It’s about all of us, and that’s one of the values that we hold. It’s not about what that one individual gets; it’s actually about what we do for all workers.

So I’m going to talk a little bit about some of the work I did in the supermarket industry and a particular woman who used to vote for the other side of the House but doesn’t now because she saw what they are really like. I’m talking about a wonderful woman called Jenny Wells who was a delegate at Pak ’N Save in Nelson. Jenny has had strokes recently, and even though she had a stroke, she still had to keep working because she wasn’t earning enough money. She hadn’t earned enough money working at that supermarket to have decent savings. She went back to work because her husband was sick and couldn’t go to work. She went back to work. The business was sold from one owner to another, and she actually lost terms and conditions through that sale. She lost her time and a half. She lost other penal rates and other extra pieces of annual leave when that business was sold. Now, that’s a multimillion-dollar business—multimillion-dollar business.

And what we saw during saw COVID was a lot of people wanting to congratulate our supermarket workers. But do you know what they did? They sent them cards, they sent them chocolates, but, actually, what those supermarket workers need, especially when the supermarkets absolutely creamed it, is decent pay. And we even saw some supermarkets temporarily increase pay by 10 percent and then at the end of the lockdown say, “Oh no, sorry, you’re not worth that anymore. We’re going to take that away from you.”, and there was community outrage about that.

So one of the issues with the duopoly in the supermarket sector is that we have Countdown, which is an Australian-owned company. They do have a collective agreement in place and the workers in that supermarket normally earn around $2 an hour more than those in a Pak ’N Save or a New World, which are New Zealand - owned. That profit from Countdown—well, it’s now called Woolworths—goes back to Australia. We don’t see it in New Zealand. It goes back across the Ditch.

The profit for those locally owned New Zealand supermarkets, which, seriously, print millions of dollars of money each year, goes back into the pocket of an individual owner. But for those workers, who work their butts off—and I think every single one of us can walk into a supermarket and know that those people in that supermarket are working their absolute butts off—there has been an enormous amount of difficulty getting collective agreements into Pak ’N Save and New World. Part of the reason is that the law does not support that to happen.

Even in my patch—I had an email from someone working in this area who’d been trying to get a collective agreement for up to eight years. So for people to say “You can just work it out.”, eight years of just trying to work it out hasn’t worked. The person wrote to me and said that the Fair Pay Agreements Act was built for cases like this where employers who subvert the intent of the law in bad faith are surface bargaining in order to create a protracted process and undermine the collective will of the workers. A fair pay agreement (FPA) would mean that these workers would get an actual increase in wages, better working conditions, penalty rates for giving up family time on nights and weekends, and much better health and safety provisions. That the Government is attempting to repeal them in haste, under the cover of urgency, and without due process is a failure of their responsibilities to the working people of Aotearoa.

This pre-Christmas move would make the Grinch grin to ear to ear, as the Government steals FPAs out of the pockets of hard-working Kiwis. I thought that was an excellent email, just demonstrating—I see people are laughing again, and I honestly can’t believe that people are laughing. I’ve known supermarket workers who, well before we had challenges around the cost of living, were having to go to a food bank—a food bank. So for people to think this is funny—you know, they laughed before when my colleague Camilla Belich was talking about security guards who die on the job. They die on the job—they get stabbed. People, again, are laughing when I talk about security guards.

Hon Member: It’s really inappropriate.

RACHEL BOYACK: It’s really inappropriate, and it really, really bothers me.

But here are some other words I’ve had from supermarket workers today. A man who works for a New World told me today that “a fair pay agreement is important to me and my co-workers because it gives us financial stability to pay bills for our kids and our homes. We shouldn’t struggle to make ends meet when supermarkets profit more each year.” Another one said, “I work night fill, often six nights a week. I start at 10 and usually finish around 7—it’s very unsocial hours. The job involves heavy labour and we are often made to work at a fast pace. It is very tiring. Having a fair pay agreement will allow me a much better work-life balance and allow me to spend more time with friends and family, to work fewer shifts for the same money.”

On Friday, I spent some time with early childhood education workers, who are one of the groups that have a fair pay agreement in train. There’s been much said about the pay of early childhood workers for many years. They have also worked towards pay equity, pay parity with other teachers, but also the importance of having enough qualified teachers within that sector so that we have enough good quality teachers earning proper wages who are able to then look after our youngest. This is the type of worker that the repeal of this law is going to undermine.

So I remind members across the whole House that we are here for all New Zealanders but particularly for the most vulnerable, and I do not commend this bill to the House.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): I have heard from small and medium business owners across the Wairarapa electorate that are suffering as a result of the last Government’s poor legislation. They don’t have the same capacity to absorb blanket, top-down costs that large businesses do, and they’re suffering right now from the cost of living crisis inherited from over there that is strangling our communities.

Employers within our communities have a relationship with their employees that’s built on trust—trust that the employer and employees uphold; trust that they will behave fairly and reasonably to each other. There’s trust that rates of pay and working conditions reflect the market, the industry, and the location. Owners of small and medium enterprises in the Wairarapa electorate have a personal relationship with their staff. They often go to school together. They shop at the same supermarket together. A high level of trust is a feature of the employment in small towns and our rural communities, and one that we should endeavour to encourage and support.

Crushing small businesses with unnecessary legislation will impoverish businesses, business owners, and local workers in my electorate. Repealing the Fair Pay Agreements Act will bring some relief to small businesses who are already suffering under the cost of living crisis. Both—[Suze Redmayne passes the member a note]

Hon Willie Jackson: Speak from the heart!

MIKE BUTTERICK: Thank you for the advice. Both National and ACT campaigned strongly against the introduction of fair pay agreements.

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, sit down, man—sit down.

MIKE BUTTERICK: Thank you for the further advice from over the other side of the House. Businesses need the flexibility—

SPEAKER: Excuse me, excuse me. I think if the member was aware of the timings that have been agreed by the House, he might not have so much to say about the current process. As someone who does ask us to make concessions at various times, you know, I would ask him to show us some indulgence at this point. I could speak for longer if I had to, but I’ll go back to Mike Butterick.

MIKE BUTTERICK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Businesses need the flexibility to innovate if New Zealand is going to compete on the world stage. We’re a trading nation and our economic viability depends on it. Workplace flexibility is also a priority for workers, especially workers seeking a better work-life balance. We all want higher wages and better conditions, especially during a cost of living crisis. But under fair pay agreements, the cost of doing business would have increased and the price of the goods and services that businesses provide would have increased as well.

Labour, the Greens, and the unions said fair pay agreements would be good for workers, but they were likely to have the opposite effect. Employers would have hired fewer workers or they would have reduced the number of hours they offered existing workers. Some businesses would have increased their rate of automation, reducing their reliance on workers. Some businesses would be at risk of closure.

There’s been some talk about the Government ignoring advice on this legislation. The most important thing to know about the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s advice is that they recommended against introducing fair pay agreements, arguing that the improvements for employees would be marginal and would be achieved at a significant cost to employer flexibility, and a blunt tool like fair pay agreements would not have been successful at improving employment outcomes for disadvantaged workers. Disadvantaged workers would actually have been made worse off under fair pay agreements because businesses would have hired fewer people or reduced the hours of work offered to existing workers because of the costs imposed on them.

Without increasing productivity, businesses can only afford so much without having to raise prices, lay off staff, or close down completely. The previous Government made hiring staff too difficult, too expensive, and disincentivised employers from taking risks. New Zealand’s small and medium businesses are bursting with entrepreneurship, creativity, and innovation, and deserve a Government that empowers them because that’s how we create opportunities. Thank you. I commend this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

SPEAKER: At this point, we would normally be going into committee stages, and that would be a little bit of kerfuffle just a few seconds ahead of an agreed time for a maiden speech. So we’ll just take a moment and then I’ll call the member for a maiden speech.

Maiden Statements

SPEAKER: I call Mariameno Kapa-Kingi to make her maiden speech.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Te rangi e tū nei, te papa e hora nei, tihei mauri ora ki te whei ao, ki te ao mārama. E tangi nei ki te rahi o te pō, rātou ki a rātou. Ko tātou tēnei ki te kaupapa o te ora.

Kei aku rangatira o Te Ātiawa, o Taranaki ‘Hānui e pupuri nei i te mana o te ‘henua, tēnā koutou. Huri noa, tēnā tātou e te ‘hakaminenga e tau nei.

[The sky that stands here, the land that lies here, the breath of life to the emerging world, to the world of light. I grieve for the many of the night, they who congregate together. We are those of the living.

To my noble leaders of Te Ātiawa, of Taranaki ‘Hānui who hold the mana of the land, greetings. All around (the House), greetings to the assembly gathered here.]

Mr Speaker, tēnā koe. Over 180 years ago, my tūpuna Te Māhia, Tupe, Ururoa, and Hongi signed He ’Hakaputanga. Wiki Taitimu, and Parāone Ngāruhe furthered this legacy in signing Te Tiriti, a legacy of mana tuku iho.

Here I stand, part of the 54th iteration of a New Zealand Government as a mokopuna of Eparaima Kapa, member of the 11th New Zealand Government as well as Māori Parliament over 130 years ago. He advocated for the rights of women, and here I am as the first wahine to take the Tai Tokerau seat.

I also stand here as an uri of a man whose photo still shines in the corner of my tūpuna ’hare Waimirirangi (Haere-ki-te Rā), Matiu Rata, the very reason the Waitangi Tribunal exists, which also, only at the weekend gone, handed over a key report to my people of Ngāpuhi, further embedding the truth that we never ceded sovereignty, and our whenua as well as constitutional power must come back to us. Matiu aptly described the tribunal as a charter for tangata whenua rights, and here I am, continuing the fight for those rights.

Looking back on this important ’hakapapa, it’s humbling to realise my place in the enduring pursuit of tino rangatiratanga, a pursuit clearly measured in generations. I also follow on the footsteps of other formidable Māori leaders such as Mira Szászy, Whina Cooper, Titewhai Harawira—no walk in the park. It is more like a marathon at an AGM at your favourite marae—the best training ground ever for an aspiring MP, I might add. Moreover, this is an honour and a privilege that I’m taking seriously with both hands.

When I left the House last Friday, I went directly to Te Tii Marae, to Ngāti Rēhua. A dear kaumātua and colleague lay in state, Waitai Tua, and I was determined to tell him off for leaving us at such a critical time. In usual tikanga style, we were called on to the marae. We were able to complain to him profusely. We were able to celebrate him and send him off with great song. The whole time there I was thinking, what would Waitai expect me to do and say as I head into my new job? He would want me to fight furiously for the things that only we as Māori know are important to us and let no one else describe our past nor prescribe our future. That is ours and ours alone. He would say to me: fight for us, Meno, and I plan to do exactly that.

The following day I turned up at Te Whare Rūnanga in Waitangi to support my people of Whangaroa and other hapū o Ngāpuhi in receiving the hugely important report from the tribunal, which I mentioned earlier. In my opinion, the whole motu should have been there, because if Ngāpuhi never ceded sovereignty, no iwi or hapū in the motu ceded sovereignty. The necessary recalibration of an Aotearoa constitutional framework, as recommended by the tribunal, inevitably pulls in all iwi across these islands. Heoi anō, perhaps that wānanga will come to bear this coming Waitangi Day.

Sunday morning, I drove to Te Kao, to fulfil my final formal duties, for now at least, to my iwi of Te Aupōuri at our annual general meeting. The marae was full of whānau expectant with lots of questions and ideas of their own. I also want to acknowledge my relation, Minister Jones, aka Matua Shane. Even if we are at opposite ends politically, whakapapa is a beautiful and peculiar thing in that it reminds us of who we are collectively and in our obligations of aroha tētahi ki tētahi [love for each other]. I hope and expect that aroha rings true in many forms across this whole Parliament as things move forward.

Heoi anō, I provide this snapshot of my last three days, Mr Speaker, because it exposes the inner workings of the kaupapa and it is a clear reminder to me of what is central to te ao Māori. These days reflect what is possible when we are unafraid and free to express our potential. We call that tapu i te tangata [the sanctity of humanity]. When we treasure te reo Māori, when we know and understand how to apply our own rules and regulations, we call that tikanga Māori. When we understand and cherish the life-death life cycle, we call that hauora Māori.

We cannot be stopped. We are our own walking, talking solutions and aspirations as Māori. We know how critical our tūpuna are to our mokopuna. We name that ’hakapapa. We acknowledge the value of cultural capital. We are vigorous in the mission of economic emancipation; let that sink in. We are the first conservationists. We are tangata whenua. We are the ones that we have been waiting for; no one else.

I belong to all these wonderful people sitting in the gallery, and many, many more, even some over here and some over there. I’m heartened that they came today to deliver me into this House, into the lion’s den. What I know of lions is that it is the lionesses that do the hunting and, might I add, keep house. So it seems I find myself in the right place, ready to do my job in the way that they would have me do so: relentless, fearless, and ready to protect or pounce whatever may come.

Along with my nine siblings, we were raised by two extremely hard-working Māori-speaking parents. Like many whānau living in their rohe in the 1960s, we were swept up in the Māori urban diaspora, forced by meticulous and deliberate Government policy of assimilation. Desperate times indeed to find work and survive in a Pākehā economy meant we lost our physical connection to our whenua in Te Hiku ā tai ki Whangaroa, the closest you can ever get to heaven, as my kaumātua would describe.

My parents were also of the generation who were abused for speaking Māori. Now, I mention this because I know what it is to grow up in a home trying to fit the mould of hard-working and good citizens, which was code for being anything other than themselves. They were forced to mute their voice, cast off their cultural practices, force-fed a foreign persona, and, to clinch it all, shun their culture. My parents, like many others, were not only stopped from speaking Māori but they were also stopped from being Māori. On balance, colonisation ruins a people, destroys their place and corrupts their identity, and expects that you be grateful for the opportunity.

Like many other whānau, the focus was mostly work, school, sport, church, community, and house and home. Becoming more politically savvy or understanding history and impacts on Māori community—Treaty breaches were not exactly the priority for our whānau; surviving was. My parents did their absolute best against the tide. Eventually, alongside others, my mum started a kōhanga reo, which was part of her own liberation as much as replacing her 10 children, who had grown and flown the coop, with 30 Māori and Pākehā children wanting to speak and understand Māori. My dad still struggled with the cultural renaissance movement, having been raised himself by a father dedicated to his church. Despite all these difficulties, I knew that I was understood and loved by my parents.

Words like “colonisation” and “oppression” were not commonly understood, let alone discussed in general at our at our dinner table as kids. But those are conversations I’ve normalised with my own kids, to help them make sense of their world and their reality. I seem to have skipped the picture-book phase and gone straight to writings such as Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Now, our four grown-up babies, Heemi, Tipene, Eru, and Tōrerenuiarua, have taken rank in the resistance and are living versions of mine and their tūpunas’ highest aspirations. They are the improved and evolved version of Korotangi and I, and further growth will come in the form of their own children, my mokopuna, present and to come. They are in the gallery, watching and probably praying that their mother doesn’t go on too long in her first speech. But, quietly, they will be feeling as proud and honoured as I am of them.

He ‘Hakaputanga and Te Tiriti were also not words I heard growing up, but now they are as commonplace as ever, and there is no force in this world that can change that. Even Pākehā are working at waking up to our truth, as enshrined in these kawenata tapu [sacred covenants]. The rest are still catching up, it seems.

In the same way that words can destroy worlds, they can also create them. Words of liberation will continue to ring in these halls. So as long as I sit in this seat, that I can promise. That is my role here: to speak relentlessly the words that have long been suppressed in our hearts and minds, to engineer a world where my mokopuna are happy, healthy, and free to live out their Māori lives with absolutely no inhibition.

My work experience is another thing that has led me here. I’ve worked for some 40 years in the social justice and health sector, focusing on women and children, with my very first volunteer role with the Rape Crisis. Over the years, I’ve worked with community groups, rural adult education, community agencies, youth-care protection, and so on, and most recently with iwi Māori.

Being of service is something I love to do, and I’ve become good at it. To me, that is what “rangatiratanga” means—it is not the pursuit of status but instead the pursuit of the tea towel at the marae. It is about showing up when required for your people and doing your bit for the kaupapa, whatever it might look like. There is rangatiratanga in everything, from diving for kina and kōura, or putting out the net for kanae to feed the people at the hui, to political action for our rights. I encourage us all to find our lane, e te iwi, and I’m confident that I’ve found mine here.

I also want to acknowledge mentors aplenty I’ve had. And I intend to find them in this House, and, hopefully, become one for others, like the likes of Erima Henare, Rob Cooper, Gwen Tepania-Palmer, and Timi and Georgina te Heuheu.

To be part of Te Pāti Māori is an easy choice for me. The only party which is, through and through, about the kaupapa. The only party that will fight ruthlessly for te iwi Māori to the death—political or otherwise. I’m proud to be part of this rejuvenated movement, and excited to see how our younger generation will carry it forward into years to come.

One kōrero I’ll never forget from my father-in-law, Wikuki Kingi: no person is bigger than the kaupapa. I will also say that without people, there’s no kaupapa, which also reflects the famous saying of my tipuna Meri Ngaroto: “He tāngata, he tāngata, he tāngata.” [It is the people, it is the people, it is the people.]

So to all the people—past, present, and future—who make and will continue to make a new world, kia kaha rā, tēnā tātou katoa.

Waiata—“Toro mai tō ringa”

Haka—“Ka eke i te wīwī”

SPEAKER: At the conclusion of the next maiden speech, the House will suspend for the dinner break. When the House resumes its sitting at 7 p.m., the House will go into committee for the consideration of the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill. We’ll just wait for a few minutes to see what happens here.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka.

Nō wai te reo e

Karanga i te takutai moana?

Nō te Māngai o ngā ariki

E hora nei i te ora.

[Whose is the voice

That calls from the seashore?

It belongs to the Holy Mouthpiece of the lords

Who spread health.]

Te Matua, Tama, Wairua Tapu me ngā Anahera Pono, ko te Māngai hei tautoko mai āianei, āke nei, āe.

E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi mōrehu maha, tēnā koutou katoa. E kui mā, e koro mā, ngā orangatanga ake rātou mā kua whetūrangihia, tēnei tā koutou tamaiti e mihi atu ki tō ao hurihuri, tēnā koutou, tēnā mai tātou katoa.

Ko au te wai, te wai ko au, ko tāhekenga wai o runga, ka rere ngā wai o raro, ka pari ngā wai o waho, ka pūheke ngā wai o roto, ka maringi ngā wai o uta, ka teretere ngā wai o tai, ko au ko Takutai Moana. Tihei mauri wai, tihei mauri ora.

E kore au e ngaro, he kākano i ruia mai i Rangiātea.

[The Father, Son, Holy Spirit and the Faithful Angels, the Holy Mouthpiece in support now and forever, yes.

To the authorities, the representatives, the many surviving peoples, greetings to you all. To the matriarchs, the patriarchs, the lives of those who have passed on, here is your child acknowledging your every changing world, greetings to you, greetings to all of us.

I am the water, the water is me, the water from above cascades, the water from below flows, the water from outside rises, the water within surges, the water inland pours, the water at sea rushes, I am Takutai Moana. The breath of the water, the breath of life.

I will never be lost, I am a seed sown from Rangiātea.]

I come from an institution o te ahikāroa, and this is my story of how I arrived here as the elected MP for Tāmaki Makaurau. I humbly but proudly stand here as your new MP for Tāmaki Makaurau. I may be new to this Whare, but I am not new to the whānau ora kaupapa and the challenges we continue to face as Māori, and particularly the challenges for my Tāmaki Makaurau whānau whānui. I feel fortunate to be afforded this opportunity by my people. I was brought up surrounded with aroha and connection. I discovered what love, strength, protection, and support looked and felt like. Now more than ever it is pivotal that I bring the same all-encompassing concepts of whānau ora and passion to this Whare.

In te ao Māori, to know who you are and to know where you are from is to know where you are going. I wish to acknowledge my whakapapa and those that got me here today. They’re all here in this Whare. I am the mātāmua of Clark Karaka Kauika-Stevens and Ngaire Anne Te Hirata Kauika-Stevens née Steedman. I was named Takutai Moana after my father’s mother, Takutai Moana Nora Wirihana Tawiki. Both my parents were hard-working, community focused, whānau-driven, and very, very loving parents. I want to acknowledge my parents, today, who are here. This is where my whānau ora seed was sown. Raised by my grandparents, my nana Takutai Moana was my world. She had 18 siblings, a descendant of Ngāti Pourua, Ngā Rauru, and Ngāti Maniapoto. She was given that name when she was baptised as a mōrehu of the Rātana faith. Nana married my papa, Temanea Turereao Sonny Kauika-Stevens, also of Ngāti Pourua and Ngā Rauru. Together these Ngāti Pourua born and bred veterans raised not one or two but 24 children; six of their own and the rest were my dad’s first cousins. I was brought up with them and they are my village. Many are here today, surrounding this Whare. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou ōku mātua, ōku wa’ine, ōku kāti.

[This is an acknowledgment of you my patriarchs, my matriarchs, my cousins.]

My father enlisted in the Corps of the Royal New Zealand Engineers and was posted to Linton army camp in 1977. The following year, the waka pakanga of our whānau arrived—my sister Leaara Jade Tārete Tangituohu, tēnei te mihi nui ki a koe e taku tuahine.

From Marton to Singapore as Dad served, I then headed to Takirau marae in Waitōtara Valley, South Taranaki, to be raised by my grandparents at seven years old, as it is common tikanga for the eldest mokopuna to be brought up by their grandparents in te ao Māori. Nana and Papa had returned home to Ngāti Pourua to rebuild Takirau marae and to build our whānau papa kāinga.

This was the start of my marae upbringing as I lived there and attended Ngamatapouri School. Takirau is where I was immersed in tikanga Māori and brought up to manaaki people, particularly under the leadership of my grandmother. She made many decisions for the mahi that needed to be done, even from her bed. Takirau was a busy marae. We had many hui and wānanga including hosting international manuhiri. Papa taught taiaha and had rongoā wānanga with Auntie Olive Bullock; waiata wānanga with Uncle Dalvanius Prime, Morvin, Simon, and Uncle Rongopai Broughton, and many others.

My papa and Uncle Dalvanius composed a waiata together called “Pupurutia”, which was recorded by Moana and the Moahunters. It’s a waiata about retaining and passing on te reo Māori me ōna tikanga.

Kia mau ki te reo Māori, ākona ā koutou tamariki, he reo, he reo rangatira nā te Matua i runga i te rangi, pupuritia.

[Hold onto the Māori language, teach your children, it is a language, a noble language from the Father in the heavens above, hold onto it.]

It is ironic that we still to this day are debating whether we use or speak te reo Māori in this very House. Toitū te kupu; toitū te reo Māori.

[Long live the word; long live the Māori language.]

Everything I know can be attributed to my upbringing at Takirau marae, our whānau, our ahi kā. At 10 years old, I was in charge of two of the most crucial jobs on our marae, the logistics of the pantry and our wharekai, and in charge of all my cousins. Don’t ask the ones sitting up there, but they know it’s true. I will always be grateful for my whānau who raised me a home on my whenua, surrounded by my cousins; we’re proud to be Māori. Even though my papa was a composer of waiata and karakia, my grandparents never spoke or taught Māori to us. This was because Nana was beaten by her teachers at Orangimea School in the Waitōtara Valley for speaking Māori. Like so many of their generation, the trauma and suffering experienced at the hands of our then Government—they never spoke te reo to us, their mokopuna, even on our marae. I want to mihi to my mother’s grandparents, Rongokino and Paora Hekenui, Koko Mum and Koko Dad known to many of us, who are influential in the revitalisation of te reo Māori through Te Wānanga o Raukawa.

Today, from the removal of bilingual signage on our national roads to rearranging the names of Government agencies, the immediate actions of this coalition signals a strong reluctance to treasure our national language and taonga tuku iho. The potential impact this Government can have on a whole generation saddens me but also provides the drive and determination to show up for our mokopuna and hold steadfast in the face of adversity. I look forward to being an unapologetic voice in this Whare as we face this adversity. This is our new reality, and we will not be silent bystanders. E tū rangatira mai i tētehi whakatupuranga, i tētehi.

[Stand tall from one generation to the next.]

I returned to my parents when I was 11 years old and went to Monrad Intermediate School at Palmerston North and strengthened my hononga to the Rātana Church. My whānau are mōrehu; my papa Sonny Kauika-Stevens, my great-grandfather Paora Hekenui were āpotoro. I spent many years at Rātana Pā and I mihi to the Tirikatene whānau. My papa’s mother Huatahi Peina Hawira and my great-grandfather’s sister Mariana Hekenui were part of the rōpū that travelled with Tahu Potiki Wiremu Rātana on his world tour in 1924. These two kuia remind me of my own whānau connections to a significant piece of history concerning the Tiriti grievances. The party of 38 left Rātana Pā on 9 April 1924, returning on 24 December, after touring Britain, the US, Canada, and Asia. Rātana carried a petition on the Treaty of Waitangi and land confiscations to present to King George V and the League of Nations. Rātana was searching for mutual remedies for the troubles that the Government put on Māori. Again, it is ironic that today in this Whare, 100 years later, we are fighting for the same Treaty grievances—toitū Te Tiriti.

Like my father’s whānau, my mother’s Steedman and Hekenui whānau from Taihape are also Te Ahikāroa and continue to uphold their roles in this institution of governance and beneficiary roles with determined passion. This is reflected through our whānau contributions and participation in the hearings of our iwi claims against the Crown for breaches of Te Tiriti. My mother and two sisters attended all of these hearings with my cousins, and I led the rangatahi voice to support my mother’s submission regarding the loss of te reo Māori. To quote my sister’s words, “Whakahokia mai tōku whenua, tōku whakapapa kia whakapiki ai tōku whānau me tōku wairua.”—return our lands and our identity to uplift our whānau and spirit.

“Te iwi roa o te motu” is a statement used in our current settlement negotiations for Mōkai Pātea, and it refers to our iwi and our resources being the backbone of this country to this day—resources that continue to be used by the New Zealand Defence Force’s Waiōuru military training area, the Tongariro power scheme construction, and use of the Moawhango Dam and awa, State Highway 1, and the main trunk railway that runs through our rohe. Incredibly, 74 percent, or 58,000 hectares, of our Māori-owned land are landlocked with no legal access, although the Government is the neighbour for much of this land. The expectation is that our settlement returns our land and our identity—whakahokia mai tōku whenua me ōku whakapapa—it empowers our whānau and uplifts our spirits—kia whakapiki ai tōku whānau me tōku wairua.

I mihi to my whanaunga Tama Potaka—our whānau are watching us.

At 14, we moved from the whenua to Tāmaki-makau-rau. I soon left school to study at Auckland University, Te Wānanga o Raukawa, with a focus on anthropology, health, education, and mātauranga Māori. I worked as a community health worker supporting teenage hapū māmā, working for Putea o Pua midwifery support services in Ōtāhuhu alongside the infamous leader and rangatira Syd Jackson. I was fortunate; he mentored me for many years. He always said to me, “Tarsh, look after your people; they in turn will do anything for you.”—manaakitanga 101 is important.

In 1995, I had my son Temanea Ereru Kauika-Quinlan, and two years later my daughter Tania-Jade Waimarie Kauika-Fairbrother. They have brought a new understanding to love, strength, sacrifice, and determination. Temanea lives in Brisbane now with his wife Talay and my beautiful mokopuna Ludy-Anne, and I’m so lucky that they are here today—hi, my darling. I can feel their love. Even though they don’t live in Tāmaki-makau-rau, I feel their love every day with me, and I’m proud to be their māmā and my Ludy’s nanny.

I then became the CEO of Te Kaha O Te Rangatahi for 13 years, delivering sexual health education in schools, alternative education, intermediate kura, and wharekura. Here, I learnt the true value and love for working with rangatahi and the takatāpui community. I encouraged rangatahi to stand proud, that they had a voice, that they mattered, and that they were valued. We developed one of the most successful suicide prevention programmes, called talk2me. The vision is: you matter, your life matters, reach out, talk to me. That was our purpose, and I’m very, very proud of the mahi that we did as Te Kaha O Te Rangatahi, and a big mihi to the whānau that are here today.

As my children grew up in Tāmaki-makau-rau, they developed a love and passion for hip-hop dance. They spent 15 years with some of the most influential dance crews that were produced across Aotearoa, through Dziah Dance Academy. We always said hip-hop saved our lives as a whānau, and Dziah was that life and a lifestyle for us. I went from the “dance mom” to become the Hip Hop International New Zealand Director, travelling the world through the World Hip Hop Dance Championship for 20 years. Last year, I retired, but this year they gave it back to me but in a new competition that’s been grown and owned by Aotearoa. Why? Ko ngā rangatahi te take [the youth are the reason]. In 2021, I was humbled to be acknowledged for my years of dedication to my hip-hop community when I was awarded an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

Amohia ake te ora o te iwi, ka puta ki te whai ao—the health and wellbeing of our people is paramount. Until today, I was the active CEO of Manurewa Marae in South Auckland, where manaakitanga is at the forefront of how we uplift our community. We were the first marae set up to support whānau with vaccinations in Aotearoa. We were committed to putting our whānaus’ oranga first, to stand up and support them when the system was failing. We were one marae that delivered 65,000 vaccinations for all whānau across Tāmaki-makau-rau. I want to acknowledge my Manurewa Marae whānau for championing the needs of our whānau. It takes courage, bravery to stand up for what your community needs and to navigate tikanga through uncertain times. To all our kaimahi who are here, and those that couldn’t travel, who have continued to hold the front line for our people, I mihi to you and your continuous, unconditional aroha for our community. I will never forget the mahi that our marae did and what we stood for. Ka nui te aroha ki a koutou.

And now, because of you all, I am here. Thank you, Tāmaki Makaurau, for believing in me. You are why I’m standing here today. You voted for change, and I will deliver that change for you all day, every day. Tāmaki-makau-rau is a vibrant city with 250,000 Māori. It is the Māori capital of the world. I have lived in Tāmaki-makau-rau for 35 years, raising my children with all our communities. In fact, I’ve raised many children across Tāmaki-makau-rau through my mahi of hip-hop. A lot of them call me Auntie; a lot of them call me Mum, and I’m proud of all of their efforts and achievements.

I’m a ringa raupā, grassroots marae girl born and bred. Caring for whānau runs through my blood, just like my tūpuna, who 100 years ago fought for the right for a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa. Our future in Tāmaki-makau-rau and across the motu is on the right path with our “to Māori, for Māori, by Māori” approach. I would like to recognise the “Proud to be Māori” movement of Te Pāti Māori that has supported six unapologetic Māori voices into this Whare. We will not let you down, and I can promise you we will never be quiet.

But in conclusion, I stand before you, honoured and ready to represent and fight for Tāmaki Makaurau, not only from this tūru but, most importantly, shoulder to shoulder alongside you all. Our people have been left out of the conversation for too long, and we have been waiting for this moment, for our voices to be heard and our passion to be felt, pushing for what is right for us, as we know that what works for Māori will work for all of Aotearoa. I’m an advocate for whānau and the catalyst for change, our urban Māori in Tāmaki-makau-rau. I am your voice, I am your representative, I am here for you. I will strengthen whānau ora in our communities. Never forget: we are magic people. We live in an Aotearoa hou. We will walk and talk and we are proud to be Māori. Toitū te reo Māori, toitū te whenua, toitū Te Tiriti. Believe in you, believe in me, believe in Māori. Kia ora.

[Applause]

SPEAKER: The House stands suspended.

Waiata—“Tērā te uira”

Haka—“Kiringutu”

Sitting suspended from 6.16 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Bills

Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House is in committee on the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill. I would start by reminding members that the wording of the closure motion has changed in this Parliament. The new wording is “That debate on this question now close.”, and I refer members to Standing Order 137(1). We start this debate with Part 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call in this committee stage of the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill. I say “a pleasure”—it’s always a pleasure and honour to speak in this House—but, obviously, there are a lot of issues in this bill that we disagree with on this side of the House. I have looked at the bill and, even though it is a short bill, I consider that there is quite a bit that we would want to raise. So, in this debate on Part 1, I’d like to ask the Minister why there are no transitional savings and related provisions in this bill. That’s the first question I’d like to ask her.

The second question I’d like to ask her is whether she has considered the departmental disclosure statement which was released recently in relation to the publication of the bill and which discusses on page 7 that “The Bill repeals the Fair Pay Agreements system, which provided the Employment Relations Authority and Employment Court with jurisdiction in relation to obligations and rights under the Fair Pay Agreements Act”, but then makes what I consider to be quite an interesting point in relation to the Legislation Act 2021, “where if an existing right or legal position exists before the FPA Act is repealed, a party can still exercise their legal rights as though the FPA Act had not been repealed.” Does that in fact, in the Minister’s view, mean that any right that exists in an initiated fair pay agreement could continue under the Act even though this repeal bill is passed?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Following on that line of questioning, and in the Minister’s previous comments in relationship to the aim of the repeal—

Camila Belich: Point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understand that it’s important in the committee stage to always have a Minister in the chair.

Hon Brooke van Velden: I am.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): She’s in the chair.

Camila Belich: Sorry, you weren’t when I raised the point of order.

Hon Brooke van Velden: I was talking to my advisers.

Camila Belich: Point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understand that that’s not permitted. That’s my understanding.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): OK, that’s understood now. Ricardo Menéndez March.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Thank you, Mr Chair, and congratulations on your ascension to your new role. This is the first time I get to speak, actually, while you’re in the Chair.

So following on the previous line of questioning from the Labour Party member Camilla Belich around the lack of transitional savings for related provisions in this Act as enacted, it’s worth contextualising that a few sectors have initiated the process to get to a fair pay agreement, and one of the things that we wanted to speak of is the Amendment Paper under my name to carve out those sectors that have already started that process of initiating a fair pay agreement.

If the Minister is so confident around fair pay agreements having a negative effect on our economy, would it not actually make the case to test out those fair paying sectors which actually have initiated the process to see the impacts of those, considering the likes of proper consultation and evidence-gathering when it comes to the repeal, and also putting into context that international evidence we do have that does show that there have been benefits overseas? Would it not be worth letting those sectors continue with that process and to treat it as some form of trial—to then actually have evidence available domestically on those impacts? Because otherwise what we have is a vibe-based policy where there hasn’t been domestic evidence on the impact of those sector-based agreements. So, yeah, I was just wanting to get some clarity of why we’re not just allowing those sectors to continue with that process.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to take up my friend Ricardo Menéndez March’s point there because I think it’s a very good idea to carve out the areas that have actually already started bargaining. I’m particularly concerned about some of those areas being ones that are very vulnerable. I have put an amendment in, in my own name, about the hospitality industry in particular. I remember being a hospitality worker when I was young. It’s quite often experienced by a young workforce. My daughter said to me just tonight that she found hospitality some of the hardest work she’s done. We pay lower wages than Australia, and I wanted also to comment on that and ask the Minister for her comments on this, because she has commented that she believes this law will be good for productivity.

Australia has higher productivity—I looked at some statistics tonight, and I think there was 1.4 percentage growth in productivity here when there was over 2 percent in Australia, up to 2019. It seems to me an incredibly important thing that we at least try a different approach which is more akin to Australia, where people are paid higher wages, and by carving out the group of industries that have actually initiated bargaining, we have a number of industries we can look at. We can take out factors, we can look at commonalities, and we can trial this and see whether in fact it assists those workforces. I am very keen to see it happen in the industries that have already initiated, because they are obviously hungry for that kind of trial. And it seems a very sensible place to start.

I know that I have some different views on productivity, but I also am concerned that we’re about to dismantle the Productivity Commission and these are the kinds of institutions that have, in the past, been relied upon to give us advice. They have been saying, as late as July last year, that we need to move to a high-wage economy. Now, the fair pay agreement process is really targeted at the scattered workforce who are not well paid, not well represented, and vulnerable. It really is targeted at the people who most need assistance, because it is just a minimum floor.

I would also like the comments of both the Minister and her colleagues, in the purpose of this bill, about flexibility of work, because this seems to be a misnomer. Flexibility, it seems, always only applies to workers reducing terms and conditions to the bare minimum. Yet, it never applies to employers actually allowing employees to move across the workforce and have the freedom to do so. You’ll note that I’ve got a member’s bill at the moment on what’s called “portability” of work, which is a positive approach to flexibility. It says that workers should be able to move freely across a workforce in the lower-paid work so that they can actually get ahead of it and they can get higher wage rates.

I also want to comment on the hospitality industry as one that I’ve interacted with strongly. I’m now the spokesperson on small business, and I’m taking a particular interest in hospitality because, in hospitality, we have had extremely low-profit rates as well as low wages. Low wages don’t seem to help with profit margins. We want to actually get that sector healthy. We are going to have to move to a different kind of economy, which means, yes, we will have to pay our workers more, but we also need to support our businesses to make sure that we do. There is more than one way to make a business grow in this country, and that’s why I’m asking about things like portability and other ways of actually getting the kind of productivity, because the low-wage economy—because, remember, what you’re talking about is going back to a system that we have now, where those workers fall right down in wages—doesn’t work; it hasn’t worked. It hasn’t worked for a sector like hospitality, and it hasn’t worked for your average worker.

I want also to talk about the health and safety implications of this, because if you think about the implications of this in the safety area—I take my daughter, who I’ve just been spending the break with. She’s a young woman, and one of the hardest jobs she’s ever done—quite a few of the hardest jobs she’s ever done—was in the hospitality sector. In my own experience of that sector, when I was young and I worked for a number of different hospitality groups, you’re very vulnerable to bad treatment. One of the things that this does is give people a floor. It gives them those basic rights, and, actually, it means that employers who are paying a decent wage, who are paying perhaps the living wage to their workers, aren’t competing with people paying a lot less.

I would say to small business—and I would like you to consider this—that actually small businesses often benefit. It might be something they fear, but they often benefit because the big multinationals can’t squash them with this kind of process where they are constantly in a situation where they are tying up those workers, often with restraints of trade, and they are lowering the wages. They are using the small businesses as a kind of stalking horse and saying that it’s for their flexibility, when in fact it’s about driving conditions down across vulnerable industries.

So I would love your comment on these things and whether you’ve thought about them. Even if you disagree with me, Minister, I’d like to understand how on earth you are justifying this and how you see the way forward in New Zealand—how you see high-wage work happening if we don’t do something differently. Because we have been doing this, Minister, for quite a long time now and it has caused a whole lot of people a whole lot of pain, and we have industries like hospitality where there is no money being made. It is heartbreaking for those small businesses. They are not able to compete with the big multinationals that are coming in. They are having those wages dragged down.

I’d also just like to tell one story from when I practised as an employment lawyer. I was practising for 25 years. I had a call from an Australian company. They rang me because they wanted to set up shop in New Zealand, and they said to me, “What do I have to do? What do we do? How do we pay our employees?” They fully expected that there was going to be some sort of agreement which they had to buy into, and I said, “Well, actually, we have the minimum wage, but that’s about it. There’s the Holidays Act. There’s the minimum wage. There’s sick pay. That’s it.” And they said, “But surely if we’ve got people on call, if we’ve got people that are casualised, we’d have to pay them an extra 20 percent, wouldn’t we?” I said, “Actually, you don’t. You don’t have to do that. You don’t have to do any of those things under New Zealand law.”

Now, hopefully this kind of arrangement of fair pay agreements would mean that some of those things that we would negotiate in would be minimum floors, and it would be fair on the employer who’s already doing those things and paying good wages, because they would be on an equal footing with one that wasn’t. But my understanding is that you’re saying that’s not the way forward here. Those Australian employers were well able to pay a lot more, and there are situations I know at the present time where the same employer works across Australia and New Zealand and pays its retail workers or its hospitality workers so much more than its New Zealand workforce. And it makes such sense when we talk about the drain to Australia—how we are going to stop it. So that’s my other question here for you tonight, Minister. How are we going to stop the drain of young talent going to Melbourne to work as a barista if in fact in New Zealand we cannot offer the same kind of wages, because everybody is going to the bare minimum all the time and hoping that that will sometimes make a profit?

Minister, I know that you’re aware that the Productivity Commission has said we have been working harder than almost any other country for less money. We have been doing that. We do a lot of hours, and the only productivity gain we seem to get—that’s what they are saying—is actually out of working more hours. That’s how our productivity goes up in this country. That’s not a good model. That’s not smart. It’s not what I want for my children. It’s not actually what I want for myself. So I’d ask you to answer those questions. Thank you for your time.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to take the chance to answer a few questions that have come already. Firstly, from Helen White—and, apologies, because I’ll paraphrase in the interest of time—talking about why would we not allow initiated fair pay agreements to conclude. And the reason behind that is because we are committed as a Government to repealing the Fair Pay Agreement Act, which means that we’re committed to repealing the bargaining process that allows for the fair pay agreements. So that is why we are repealing the Act in totality: because we’re repealing the bargaining process that sits behind the Act.

When we look at the question from the member Camilla Belich about why there are no transitional clauses in the bill: this is because for the bargaining of all the initiated fair pay agreements, they are in very early stages, which means that there will be no fair pay agreements that have been finalised before the legislation is repealed.

Talking also to Camilla’s other question about the legislation—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Camilla Belich.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: —Camilla Belich; my apologies—there are rights that could be exercised under the legislation, following a repeal. That is because the effect of the legislation of 2019 is that a party can pursue a right or action in relation to something that occurred while the Act was in force. That is under the legislation.

Talking to the member Ricardo Menéndez March’s question about why we would not allow those that have already been initiated as fair pay agreements to continue through the process: well, the answer is quite simple. It’s because we want a flexible labour market where employers and employees can agree to terms that suit their own unique situations. We don’t believe in having a blunt tool like a fair pay agreement, which affects all employers and employees within an occupation or an industry, which is why that goes right to the heart of why we’re repealing this Act and the bargaining process underneath it.

Speaking to the member Helen White’s latest question on productivity: that question is, surely, directed to the Minister for Regulation. I’m sure you can have many, many in-depth conversations with Minister Seymour about how we will improve productivity in New Zealand by removing unnecessary red tape and regulation which is holding back our economy and holding us back against other countries around the world. But that’s not within this bill; this is quite a specific bill about how we will be repealing the bargaining process sitting behind the fair pay agreements.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Look, I want to be able to advance some of the discussions because we’re quite an advanced-thinking party. In Part 2, and I’m talking to my Amendment Paper, we see that the Ministry of Businesses, Innovation and Employment has identified the implications of the repeal of the fair pay agreement legislation on Māori. And, obviously, to be supportive to the Minister in making sure how else, for example, the Government would be consistent with Treaty of Waitangi obligations, my amendment is ensuring that we identify those who are disproportionately affected—and remember that there has been no consultation with iwi Māori, no representation groups.

We’ve had advocacy after advocacy from those who have said that this is not supported by us. We have not had enough time. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Rūnanga also have supported and stated that they are really concerned for Māori and particularly how they’re going to be affected by a lack of standards, and that they would benefit from a system that we have seen here in fair pay agreements.

So my amendment is, again, a solution to a problem that is before us. It is looking to ensure that you are considering an opportunity to continue the Act in areas where Māori workers will be disproportionately affected. And this amendment would provide an exemption for Māori workers who will be harmed by the repeal of the fair pay agreements.

For the Government, whose Prime Minister has assured us that he’s got the best interests of Māori at heart, this would be one way of considering again how we could be making amendments to pull off, I guess, what has been really forced on us in a concerning urgent way.

The question I would have is: why wouldn’t you support my Amendment Paper? Kia ora.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): As my first call with Mr Chair in the Chair and in the seat, I do want to congratulate the wisdom of this choice in having Mr—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: What a greaser!

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I am happy to spend some of my precious time to acknowledge some history. Thank you, Mr Chair.

I would like to ask of the Minister, and what I want the Minister to come back with is mitigating the disproportionate impact of stagnant, lower wages for youth—so rangatahi is a focus that I’m wanting to pick up on—without fair pay agreements. I have noticed throughout the discussion in the House from the Minister, she constantly uses the word “believe”—“We believe that this will be the case”, “We are doing this legislation because we believe it will be better”. Believing and having actual, grounded evidence are two different things.

So in light of the fact that it has long been recognised—and, Mr Chair, I am trying my hardest to respect the bounds of the Part 1 legislation that we are on right now. I will take guidelines from you to keep me on that. But in Part 1, “Consequential amendments to Acts”, I think this is called—OK. “Replace section 132(2) with:”, what this legislation is proposing, and again, in “Replace section 224(1)(a) with:”—there is a different proposal. What those two particular repeals and replacements highlight is a returning of the onus to the worker.

Now, fair pay agreements, and especially on rangatahi—how confident or how strong is your belief that rangatahi, young people, in an employment situation are going to feel supported in an imbalanced power situation to raise any issues? This one particularly relates to the claims regarding “wages actually paid to the employee” and “hours, days, and time” and, also, leaving it up to rangatahi to make a complaint to a labour inspector.

So I would love the Minister please to give something beyond her belief and actually provide evidence, provide statements, and provide a fulsome analysis that shows that rangatahi, who are going to be severely disproportionately impacted by the lack of fair pay agreements are going to be able to have the onus that is going to be placed back on their individual shoulders. See, the purpose of fair pay agreements was collective bargaining. It was to be able to try and correct some of the power imbalance that is especially felt by young people, and I’m not even going to go into the level of exploitation that young people, including young women—young women who I have had come to me about the way that they have been treated and the way that they have been exploited, including in sexual harassment situations. We know this is true; we know this happens.

So please, would the Minister go beyond her belief and instead put up some analysis, some evidence, and some hard-line research that talks about the ability of keeping the onus on young people’s shoulders to raise these inequities and these injustices to their employer with power.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair, and congratulations on your elevation to the role. It is good to see you there, and congratulations also to the Minister on taking up this role in this Cabinet. It is a pleasure to be able to ask these questions of you today.

I want to build on some of the questions that the Hon Marama Davidson has asked in the committee, because I am considering an amendment to clause 4 which would be relevant to you. But before I take the committee through what those amendments would be, I need some further clarity from the Minister on how youth will be considered in these regime changes.

Because the Minister has presented to this committee—she has said that fair pay agreements (FPAs) were never about being fair, which is something that I disagree with. But, perhaps putting myself in her shoes and appreciating the world through her ideology, I can see that she is trying to advance something which is beneficial to New Zealanders. So for young New Zealanders—I know this is something that she’s passionate about and would not be enacting legislation which impacted poorly on young New Zealanders. That begs the question of what amendments this committee needs to make to make sure that young workers are protected, because young workers are amongst the most vulnerable and the least able to represent themselves in these situations.

Further, the purpose of the fair pay agreements legislation when it was enacted in 2022 was about creating an industry floor for many of these industries which are dominated by young workers who move between different employers doing very similar kinds of work. We’ve heard from my colleagues on this side of the Chamber about the example of baristas, fast-food workers, other sorts of hospitality—these are all industries where often young New Zealanders get their first start in life. That kind of work experience that they have is really important to the way that they experience not only their education, their lives, but they also get the first start in their employment journey, which we hope is a really positive one here.

I want to turn the committee’s attention to some of the submissions made by young people in the passage of the Fair Pay Agreements Act 2022, because we don’t have the opportunity for young people to present to the select committee about the kinds of changes that they would want to see in the legislation here. So it is important that the committee give some consideration to what those submissions were.

So first I’ll start with the submission of Stand Up. It was made by Dr Zoe Port and Moniqua Reid. The comments of Dr Port are really useful for us, but it was Moniqua’s story of her own experience as a young person in the workforce who would have benefited from an industry-wide agreement that I want to focus on. She said, “We know fair pay agreements will halt the race to the bottom in wages, improve job security, and put our members on a path to better jobs with fair pay. I’m 28, and I was born to young parents. Only my dad worked in our family for the minimum wage of $7 in 1997. With this one minimum wage income, my young family was able to get their first mortgage on their $70,000 home that still stands in good condition today. It was still a struggle to live on one income, but it was manageable and there was always food on the table. With the inflation rate of 74 percent between then and now, that $70,000 house should be worth $122,000 today. Even if we consider that the $7 minimum wage from 1997 today would be worth just over $12, and the 2022 minimum wage is a lot higher at $21.20. In proportion, we would double the cost of what that house should be worth to $244,000 to keep in line with the current minimum wage. That house today is almost worth double what it should be, at 440,000”.

The point she’s making here is that for someone like her, who’s 28 and earning a minimum wage, she’s in a really different position, because minimum wage and wages for people working the kinds of jobs that her family worked, and the kind of job that she could work, are not keeping up with the generation of her family. That’s the position that many young people find themselves in today, where a race to the bottom in New Zealand and the kind of economic settings that we have had have meant that young people are not able to earn what their parents earned—and their parents before them—in relation to the price of other things. It’s really important that young people get a good start on decent wages and can experience the kind of conditions that not only protect their pay across industries like the ones that Moniqua’s family were working in but also their conditions, so that they experience the economy in a way which is insulated somewhat from the vagaries and fluctuations of it, and they have the ability to hold down their work as well. So that once they have a job, they can keep it, because the conditions of their employment are such that they are given the skills and the kinds of opportunities that they need to thrive in those roles, and to continue in their education.

The comments of Dr Port are really useful for the Chamber to also consider. She said that the FPAs in that context seeks for a generational reset, and a chance to make work and wages fair, and stop the race to the bottom which defines our current industrial relations framework. Young people in this country—[Time expired]

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity, and can I begin, Mr Chair, by acknowledging you on your role and congratulate you on your appointment to be one of our Assistant Speakers. I look forward to being part of a House which has you in the Chair, Mr Tuiono.

I have two questions for the Minister—and I just note I don’t seem to have a clock, so that’s helpful, Mr Chair. The Minister in her earlier reply made some comment around the need to maintain a system that allows individual employers and employees to be able to bargain with each other. I just wanted to make some observations around that, because one of the purposes of the original Act was to actually strengthen our collective bargaining system. I’m just interested in the Minister’s comments that she’s already made about why it is that that would be seen to be a superior framework for negotiating wages and conditions. There is evidence—and I’m interested in what advice the Minister has received on this—that when people do bargain collectively, particularly people in low-wage industries, it leads to higher wages. So I think it’s important that we hear a little bit more detail from the Minister about what evidence has led to those statements that she made in her earlier contribution.

In my reading of the Employment Relations Act, it actually stipulates that one of the objects of the Act is to promote collective bargaining. So this original legislation would have strengthened the ability for workers to come together and negotiate better terms and conditions.

In terms of the second question I’ve got, I was just reading through the departmental disclosure statement, and I just want to add some more comments to my colleague Camilla Belich’s contribution earlier around the lack of transitional provisions within the bill. In the departmental disclosure statement, it specifically talks about whether the Privacy Commissioner was consulted and raises some concerns around the fact that there have been a number of fair pay agreements that have been initiated and are under way, already in process. We’ve heard that there are, for example, supermarket workers, bus drivers—there’s close to 300,000 workers that will be covered by these fair pay agreements. And so I think it’s right to have some concern, if the repeal is successful, around what actually happens to all of that data that has been collected about those workers and who holds that data.

I note in the departmental disclosure statement that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) intends to work with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to put some guidance in place. But my question to the Minister is whether the Minister actually considered whether it would have been helpful to include some transitional provisions in here. Because I think that for those workers—and remembering that many of them are very vulnerable workers—knowing that their information would have been disclosed to their employer, their information would have been disclosed to a union, their information would have been disclosed to MBIE, do have the right to have an understanding that their private information is going to be held securely and also, under the Privacy Act, used for the purpose that was intended to be gathered for.

I’m concerned that there could be some time frames around how long it takes to develop those guidelines, how long there might be information sitting there, being held by the various parties that have been involved in the bargaining of fair pay agreements, and whether it would have been more appropriate to include some transitional provisions within the bill so that we could give some certainty to those workers that actually there is a plan around how their data will be protected, given that the legislation will actually be repealed. So I’d be very interested in hearing from the Minister about what analysis was followed through that.

And also I just note again from my first question—obviously I’ve got two questions here for the Minister that I’d like to hear from her on. The first was that I would very much be interested in what research and analysis was provided around the benefit of collective bargaining against the benefits of individual negotiations—recognising that in some professional industries individual negotiations are absolutely fine and deliver for people. But when we’re talking about—as we’ve heard from others—young people, people who don’t have that high level of bargaining power, they might be new to employment. They might be someone that’s traditionally discriminated against, maybe because of a disability, and there’s actually a lot of benefit for them in being able to bargain as a collective. So I’m just interested in a little bit more analysis about how the Minister came to that position in her earlier comments. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I thank the member for bringing the debate back to the relevant part.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll take the opportunity to respond to a few questions, starting with the Hon Marama Davidson. Her questions touched on how we can protect youth and younger people in our workforce, and I’m delighted to tell the Hon Marama Davidson that we already have quite strong minimum entitlements with the minimum wage, which affects not just youth but also all employees within our employment relations framework. She also asked and touched on what evidence do we have for repealing the fair pay agreement system. There is no evidence for the fair pay agreement system itself. I note the regulatory impact statement for the instatement of this law—for the Fair Pay Agreements Act—actually recommended against the fair pay agreement system.

She also touched on how Māori workers will be protected, with the onus on them being able to negotiate their own terms. It’s also quite possible that there are employment groups that members in this House will touch on that could have been negatively affected. We’re talking about youth, we’re talking about Māori, Pasifika, disabled—there are many people who could have been negatively impacted by disemployment effects. I once again look to the regulatory impact statement that was produced for the previous Government, which says, “It is possible that [fair pay agreements] could lead to employers choosing to hire fewer people or reducing hours of work. Any disemployment effects could also disproportionately impact these population groups.” So it is not the case that these population groups would be better off under a fair pay agreement; it is also quite possible that they could be worse off, as is stated within the regulatory impact statement.

I want to touch on questions from Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, talking about two of her Amendment Papers. The first is asking for there to be a review of the repeal of this Act after three years, considering the impact of this review and the repeal, especially in areas where Māori are overrepresented. My response to that is it’s not possible to have a review of a law that would be repealed, because there would be nothing to review after three years, so the whole point of that paper is null and void.

The second Amendment Paper that she put forward was asking for there to be fair pay agreements allowed to be initiated for sectors where Māori workers are disproportionately impacted; however, the six areas that she has listed, wishing to allow those particular areas to increase, are the areas which we as a Government are repealing under the law. They don’t affect just Māori workers; they affect all people within all of the collective bargaining under that fair pay agreement, so we would be keeping, in effect, all areas of the law. That is against what this Government wishes to achieve, which is to repeal the fair pay agreements law. So, once again, I thank the member for her paper, but this Government will not be supporting that.

The member Rachel Boyack talked about why it is that we want an individual framework and why do we believe that would be better than having collective bargaining. I’m also delighted to tell the member that we do have ability for collective bargaining outside of the fair pay agreement system. This Government has not repealed that law. We are repealing a fair pay agreement law. The Employment Relations Act sets out a framework for both individual and collective bargaining processes, which has worked quite well for the past 30 years and, in fact, my entire life. So we’re going back to what that was.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. E mihi ana ki a koe mō tēnei tūranga hou, te Heamana tuatahi nō roto i Te Uri o Roroi, Ngāi Takoto, e mihi nei ki a koe.

[I congratulate you for this new role, the first Chair from Te Uri o Roroi, Ngāi Takoto, I congratulate you.]

Just in reflecting on the discussion that we’ve heard tonight, I want to hoki whakamuri—take a step back—and think about the voices of those that met with us on the steps of Parliament today. When I saw the babies roll out with their early childhood education (ECE) teachers, those that worked at Countdown—Connor who addressed us, a young man trying to get by and pay his bills. Then thinking about our bus drivers that provide transport now from the airport to Parliament. The new system that’s available, you know, through fair pay agreements would have enabled them to all have a really good Christmas.

The backs of Parliament are built off those who serve us right now—our cleaners and our security guards—they are all impacted by this legislation, and the repeal is an injustice for our people. I have a mother who has worked in early childhood education since the 1990s—I think I was still at high school—and they have battled for fair pay for far too long. And the collective bargaining that was provided through these avenues—oh, and I recognise our unions, the power, the strength that they have given to sectors who have had no voice is an important space for all New Zealand.

As Māori, we are gravely impacted in this space, and I’d like to remind the House that we are often the buffer of all of the lowest statistics in Aotearoa. Lest we forget about tobacco impact and the health and wellbeing of our people, I’m bringing us back to the kaupapa as I refer to the fact that te iwi Māori are overrepresented in the workforce that we’re talking about. So the question for the Minister tonight is about mitigation. What is the path to mitigate the disproportionate impact that this legislation—or, what’s going to happen to te iwi Māori? What is your plan? And then in fact, when I heard you speak earlier, Minister, about “Actually, maybe te iwi Māori may not be so impacted.”, what is the evidence base behind that? Because from my perspective as a mokopuna of an ECE teacher and with whānau who clean hotels right now, and the cousins who serve me at Countdown—I’m here as their voice from Tai Tokerau to share my grave concerns for those who have no voice. Kia ora.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I just wanted to acknowledge the newness of some of the members and remind members to come back to the relevant part that we are discussing.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to open also by congratulating you on your appointment, and also Minister Brooke van Velden, who may not have been the Minister in the chair available to hear that comment when we originally started. So congratulations, Minister. This is an important portfolio and I know you’ll take it really seriously.

I also know that you’ve made comments in the past about how you’ve changed your mind on important issues. So I take that to mean that the discussions that we have today and the points that we raise will be taken in good faith, and I hope that some of them will be considered in terms of supporting some of the many amendments that we’ve put forward, some of which I think—well, actually, all of which, but there are particular ones which I think will be particularly useful for the passage of this piece of legislation.

In terms of how I have read this first part of the bill which we are debating at the moment, obviously it’s a smaller part of the bill compared with the second part, but this first part does have an active provision of repealing this bill, which is, as I understand, a mechanism which is employed in order to clear the statute book, essentially, of a repeal bill.

Arena Williams: I have a suggestion about that.

CAMILLA BELICH: We have some suggestions about that, and my colleague has an amendment that no doubt she will speak to later. But with that in mind, that is informing some of the discussions that we are having. So although it may seem unusual to speak to this bill and the context around this bill in the first part rather than the second, it is because this Act is repealed in the first part, which is why we are discussing things in relation to the repeal bill at this stage, and just to note that there are a number of amendments that haven’t been addressed yet.

Hon David Seymour: She’s using confusion as a weapon, but it’s backfired.

CAMILLA BELICH: Apologies, I couldn’t hear that interjection.

Hon David Seymour: I said the member is using confusion as a weapon, but it’s backfired.

CAMILLA BELICH: I can explain it again to the member. So the first part of the bill has a provision in it which repeals the bill in order to clear the statute book. Therefore, it is relevant to discuss the repeal bill in its entirety, in my view.

Hon David Seymour: No, no.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The Chair will judge that—crack on.

CAMILLA BELICH: Yeah, the Chair will judge it for relevance, but anyway. One of the points that I wanted to make and ask the Minister about was she’s received a number of comments, and I know there are a number of amendments as well in relation to this first part, looking at te ao Māori and Māori. I know that in the advice that she received in the cover sheet of the regulatory impact statement in relation to this, it was specifically noted that Māori women, young people, Pasifika would be disproportionately impacted by this bill.

This is also reflected in the advice, which is contained within the departmental disclosure statement, which I referred to in my first contribution—on page six of the departmental disclosure statement, the advice states that “Māori are more likely than other groups to earn low wages. Given that they are disproportionately represented in workforces where there are lower employment terms, they could have disproportionately benefited from any improved terms obtained by an FPA.” It goes on to note that “No consultation with Iwi or Māori representative groups was possible due to time frame restrictions.”

Now, I know through reading the whole departmental disclosure statement that there is a view put forward in the alternative as well, but I just wanted to make sure that we highlighted the other information about how Māori would be disproportionately affected, and I wondered if the Minister wanted to comment at all. Given that there is this concern raised now in two documents that she’s been privy to, what is she going to do in order to address the low pay that Māori receive in New Zealand, as Minister of workplace relations? Because, of course, she is repealing this bill.

I just have some other comments that I wanted to make. Obviously, we are in a situation where we don’t have a select committee process. We did have a select committee process for the primary bill which is being looked at and we will discuss in detail in Part 2.

Hon David Seymour: What did the RIS say?

CAMILLA BELICH: There is said—

Hon David Seymour: “Don’t do it.”

CAMILLA BELICH: There is said that Māori—well, actually, the most—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): If members could bring back their attention and have a conversation not with each other but with myself, it would be appreciated.

CAMILLA BELICH: Apologies, Mr Chair, I was distracted by the interjections from a member opposite.

There were a number of submissions made during the select committee process. And I note that in other committee stages where there hasn’t been a select committee process there’s been some leeway given to discuss the views of the community that haven’t been able to be expressed due to the fact—[Time expired]

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to talk to three members and their questions. The first is Rachel Boyack—the member Rachel Boyack. She talked about the Privacy Act and the need for employees’ information to be kept private. I absolutely agree with that member. Where people’s information has been collected, it has been for a specific purpose, and now that that purpose no longer exists, or will not at the close of this bill, that information should not be used for any other purpose, not by an employer and not by a union. And I note that the Privacy Act 2020 will apply in this case. Principle 9 of the Privacy Act specifies that an agency that holds personal information must not keep that information for longer than is required for the purposes for which the information may lawfully be used. So once the fair pay agreement legislation is repealed, unions will no longer have a lawful purpose for retaining this information and it will need to be deleted. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is developing guideline and guidance materials to make this obligation very clear to the unions that were part of the bargaining parties.

To the member Camila Belich, she’s talked about the self-repeal provision that’s within this bill. This is a fairly standard provision for a repeal bill to keep our statute book nice and tidy. If we have a law and then we have a repeal of that law, there’s no need for that repeal of law that no longer exists to be on the statute of books. So it just tidies it up within a few days after the repeal—and that’s pretty plain and simple.

To the member Hūhana Lyndon, I’m talking a little bit about the path to mitigate any impact on Maōri. I thank the member for her question. I believe it’s in good faith. However, I do want to stress that this bill will not make Maōri worse off, because there have not been any fair pay agreements that have been finalised. So every employee, whether they’re young, whether they’re Maōri, Pasifika—throughout our economy if they had been part of this bargaining process, they are not worse off. The current wage that they currently have will be the current wage they go into Christmas and into New Year. Nobody is going into Christmas with a lower wage because of the repeal of this fair pay agreement.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to speak to clause 4, “Repeal of this Act”. It is a very simple provision that states, “This Act is repealed on the close of the 28th day after the date on which it comes into force”. I just want to focus on the fact that this is, pure and simple, a repeal. It wipes clear the Fair Pay Agreements Act 2022, which was a genuine attempt based on a lot of discussion, a lot of policy work, a lot of analysis, consideration of a lot of evidence to address the problem of entrenched low pay in this country, to stop the race to the bottom by means of a national framework of sector bargaining and minimum standards.

Now, because this is just a repeal and nothing else, there’s nothing being put in place to replace the Fair Pay Agreements Act. It’s the status quo ante. My question for the Minister is: is that enough for you? Was the status quo ante an acceptable situation? I’m keen to know whether or not the Minister is happy and content with the state of affairs before the passing of the Act, and whether or not the Minister accepts that low pay, which is entrenched in a number of industries and occupations in this country, is a problem or not. I’m genuinely interested to know the Minister’s view on that.

Given that there’s no regulatory impact statement (RIS) for us to discuss tonight, I’m also interested in the departmental disclosure statement. It states that the objective of this bill is to revert to the previous framework where employers and employees or unions representing their members have more flexibility to agree their employment terms.

So if that’s what this all turns on, it’s the flexibility to agree the terms of employment. And given that we don’t have a RIS, I’m interested to know what the Minister’s evidence base is for the assertion that underlies this whole exercise—that it will deliver greater flexibility. If that’s the view that the Minister has, if that’s the prime motivation for this new law, then what is the flexibility we’re talking about? Is it the flexibility for employers to lay down conditions and rates of pay to new workers that they take or leave? Because that is the reality when people are not bargaining collectively, and in many of the industries that have lodged applications for fair pay agreements, there is very little substantive collective bargaining. That’s why low pay and poor conditions are features of those industries.

There are workplaces and there are firms that are unionised, where bargaining goes on. But there are swathes of the economy where there is no significant collective bargaining, and when a worker shows up to seek a job, they get a “take it or leave it” offer. Now, that’s a very flexible situation for the employer, but it is not flexible for the employee, particularly when times are tough in the economy and competition for jobs is intense. So I’m really interested to hear from the Minister whether or not that is her conception of flexibility.

I want to share some comments from someone I spoke to—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): If the member could come back to Part 1—he’s starting to stray.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I want to share some comments about the repeal of this law from someone who won’t get a chance to come along to a select committee and tell this Parliament how she feels about the repeal of the fair pay agreements. Jackie, who is a cleaner at a very large corporate facility in South Auckland, told me that she really hoped that fair pay agreements would make things better. She said, “We get sick at work and we’ve run out of sick days. We can’t afford to go to the doctor because we simply can’t afford to lose a day’s pay.” She hoped that fair pay agreements and more bargaining across the industry actually would improve those kinds of conditions.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I think I heard my name. Acknowledging, because there was no select committee report—I’m just wanting also to unpack the rationale and arguments that were given by the Minister, which we would have otherwise had an opportunity to do more broadly at the select committee stage. So I wanted to pick up on the flexibility arguments the Minister has presented, because to me it sounds like it’s flexibility to pay poor wages and to have a race to the bottom. I guess, in unpacking that argument, which, as I said, we would have had the chance to do in select committee otherwise, if there hadn’t been urgency—when she talked also earlier about the lack of evidence, did she draw at any point on the evidence overseas on wage increases as a result of fair pay agreements and the rationale—

Hon David Seymour: Which countries?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —particularly in the OECD support for sector-wide bargaining? I can hear the member at my left challenging, but there is OECD support for the sector-wide bargaining, and so I’m just checking on those rationales.

The reason why this relates to Part 1 is because we are not allowing for a transition period, right? So we are not allowing for us to test the impact domestically, which means we have to then draw on overseas evidence for their sector-wide bargaining, and if we had given ourselves the chance of having at least a transition period or having a carve out for specific industries, as my amendment would have proposed, then we would have had, I guess, the ability to have evidence domestically as well.

But I just wanted to once again reiterate: did she use international evidence and impact overseas of sector-wide bargaining to inform the arguments, or was it just because she campaigned on it based on vibes and without any evidence prior to coming to forming this legislation?

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to continue the train of thought that I was on when my last call ended, which was, similar to my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March, talking about some of the voices that we would’ve heard from, had we had a select committee process on this issue. There are a number of different submissions that were made—I mentioned earlier in the House today I think there were about 1,700 submissions made—in relation to the primary bill. We as a select committee during that primary bill travelled. We went to Auckland, we heard a number of submissions in person there as well, so took the opportunity for scrutiny of that primary piece of legislation really seriously. I just wanted to raise some of the comments that some of those submitters made during the initial consultation on the bill, because I think it is relevant to consider what they would have said had they been able to participate in a select committee process during this particular bill.

One of the ones that I wanted to highlight was a submission that was made by Kaimahi Whaikaha. They are an organisation who represents workers with disabilities, who, I note, have been particularly in support of fair pay agreements. They said in their submission to the original select committee, “We support the Fair Pay Agreements Bill and its intent to create a framework that will lift terms, [and] conditions, and pay for numerous workers in our country. This Bill will benefit disabled workers as people in low paid work, and … users of services where we know workers would benefit from Fair Pay Agreements.” They went on to say that the statistics in relation to disabled workers show they have “lower participation … in the workforce, … higher rates of unemployment, [and] a greater … underutilisation” in their work, and their “median weekly income is less than that of [their] able bodied peers.” They also state that a number of their members work in industries which have subsequently lodged fair pay agreements. They cited early childhood education, hospitality, cleaning, home care and support, as well as many other low-paid industries. So I think it’s important to have the voice of disabled workers raised again in this House, and it’s a pity, in my view, that they didn’t get the opportunity to submit again on this repeal bill.

Another submission that we received during the select committee was a submission from St Peter’s on Willis Social Justice Group. They cited the potential for health and safety to be addressed within fair pay agreements, because often when we’re talking about fair pay agreements it is about terms and conditions and, obviously, pay, but I think another aspect of this regulatory regime which is being repealed, and then the bill itself being repealed through this Part 1, focuses on health and safety issues and how they can collectively be discussed between workers and employers to make sure that the conditions are fair. Often, the things that may be in fair pay agreements will not be financial; they’ll actually be reasonable accommodations that make a big difference to workers’ lives. So one of the things that this particular submitter said was that the bill had the “potential to address health and safety issues and structural [inequality] based on sex and ethnicity.” and it should have “intervention measures addressing in-work poverty, chronic understaffing, undercompensated [values] … in terms of skill, responsibility, conditions … qualifications and unequal remuneration of workers performing the same work in the same [type of] firm … across the [different] sector.” So, I think, really interesting thoughts.

Another thing that has come up quite a lot in relation to this debate has been the impact on women. There is going to be a disproportionately large impact from the repeal of this primary piece of legislation on women, and we did receive a number of submissions from women’s groups during the select committee process. One of them was from the Public Service Association Women’s Network. We had quite a personal story that was shared from Nancy McShane, who was one of the people involved in that group, and she stated that “Fair Pay Agreements are a sensible way to lift hardworking New Zealanders out of poverty and ensure everyone in [New Zealand] is paid a fair and livable wage.” She also went on to talk about her 14 years within the health service, when she’d watch female colleagues forgo much-needed dental treatment because they could not afford it, stay in abusive relationships due to financial hardship, or suffer mental health problems due to chronic—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yeah, could you let us know which provision you’re speaking on?

CAMILLA BELICH: I’m speaking to Part 1, not the provision, but I’m also, Mr Chair, reflecting on the common practice in this House of, when there is a committee stage in urgency when there hasn’t been a select committee process, the voices of people being able to be brought to the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): If we could focus on Part 1, that would be helpful.

CAMILLA BELICH: Yeah, thank you. So I’ll finish up in relation to the submissions. I did actually have—[Time expired]

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Chair. I was very much enjoying the contribution of the member Camilla Belich, and if anyone was interested in the other submissions that came through, they can refer to my second reading speech; I don’t need to repeat those. But I also wanted to just touch on her earlier question about how we will improve conditions for people in our economy. I note that it wasn’t actually specific to this bill, but I do thank the member for her interest, because this is a Government that is going to have a lot of work on our hands to create a good, thriving economy for every person in New Zealand. And I can’t wait for the member to see what this Government will deliver for all New Zealanders. I note that this is external to the bill, but so was her question.

I wanted to touch on the Hon Phil Twyford’s questions, firstly starting with what evidence base we have for this bill given that we don’t have a regulatory impact statement. I just wanted to alert the honourable member to the second page of the cover sheet to the Fair Pay Agreements regulatory impact statement, point No. 2, where it says that Treasury actually determined that we didn’t need a completely new regulatory impact statement, because it said, “This exemption is granted on the grounds that the regulatory impact statement produced when the Fair Pay Agreements system was introduced in 2021 mostly duplicates the analysis needed to repeal the system. This exemption is conditional on MBIE producing a coversheet”—which is what I am reading from. So it’s not correct to say that there isn’t a regulatory impact statement. The regulatory impact statement from 2021 still well and truly applies, and within that regulatory impact statement they did not actually recommend that we had a fair pay agreements system.

To the second question, which was about why I am asserting that the repeal will actually deliver greater flexibility for the employment market, that’s important because we do have flexibility under the status quo, which is that employees and employers can individually or collectively have employment agreements. That is by definition far more flexible than what this agreement allows for, which is a blunt tool that forces employees and employers to be part of a fair-pay agreement even if they chose not to be part of one. In the case with the submissions that we heard through the Fair Pay Agreements Bill when it was going through under the previous Government, there are businesses where workers don’t actually wish to associate with a union but would be forced to under this law. But also, there are businesses who would be forced to close because they could not afford the terms and conditions that would be forced on them by a third party. So, therefore, there will always be more flexibility under what we are assuming versus what the member is hoping for.

He also considers whether or not we’d be satisfied with low pay in New Zealand. I’m not satisfied with low pay, but I don’t believe that this would actually improve pay and wage conditions in New Zealand. It is really important that we have a flexible labour market where we have high productivity, where we focus on the regulations and red tape that is actually stifling our economy, so that businesses have more money to pay their staff more. Adding more bureaucracy to our labour market will not have the desired effect.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members are starting, in the content of their speeches, to move into Part 2, so I will take another call and see where we go.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I refer, in my contribution, specifically to Part 1 and the part that proposes that we replace section 224(1)(a) in the Employment Relations Act 200 with “(a) an employee makes a complaint to the Labour Inspector,” and it goes on. When I read that, I went to the bill and looked at that part—224(1)(a) of the Fair Pay Agreements Act—which says “(a) decide how to provide the bargaining support services required under section 222;”. So I moved on to that, and it lists a couple: “(a) a union: (b) an employer association: (c) a bargaining party: (d) a bargaining side.”

So what we are seeing here proposed is that instead of an organisation that employees and employers can associate to, they are proposing to replace it with the Labour Inspector. My concern being, of course, is that is one moving from organisations that are self-funded—through members; through associations—to one that is funded by the State. When we propose that something is replaced by the funding of the State, it’s important—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Could the Hon Kieran McAnulty let us know which provision he’s talking about?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I’m talking about, under Part 1, the proposal to replace section 224(1)(a) as it’s outlined.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That’s in Part 2.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Mr Chair, I note your comments in relation to the part, but I have actually got an amendment that I haven’t spoken to in Part 1, which is the amendment in my name to insert a new clause 3, which would still be in Part 1.

When I was at law school, I learnt that in good legislative drafting it is preferable to put a purpose clause in legislation. And the reason for that is sometimes it’s important to understand the purpose of the Parliament in creating a particular law, because, otherwise, when there’s a provision that is unclear or perhaps maybe with the passage of time, a new interpretation is possible, it helps to have a purpose. Unfortunately, this bill doesn’t have a purpose, and, if it did, it would be in Part 1. So my proposal in my amendment is to insert a new clause, and the purpose, to be in line with the Act, obviously needs to be consistent with the repeal legislation.

So the purpose that I have provided in this amendment document is to outline what I believe is the purpose of this bill, which is to ensure businesses can continue to undervalue workers, to protect New Zealand’s low-wage economy from encroachment by workers’ rights, and (c) to entrench inherent imbalance of power enjoyed by employers. I think that, really, that is the purpose of the bill. I know it’s probably not the aspirational purpose that you see in some pieces of legislation, and I hope that we’ll get the opportunity to discuss the purpose clause in the primary piece of legislation when we move on to Part 2, but sometimes the purpose clause does serve a very important role within statutory interpretation. So, if the Minister doesn’t accept my proposal, I would like to know a few things from her.

The first is: why isn’t there a purpose clause in this document and why isn’t there more detail about what it seeks to achieve? And, secondly, if she were to insert a purpose clause or to add more detail of that nature into the legislation, what does she believe is the purpose of that?

I think that does have some value for the Hansard in terms of assisting with future statutory interpretation, and I think that it would be beneficial for those scholars who undoubtedly trawl through the hours of this debate looking for the true meaning behind this repeal Act legislation to understand her thinking, which she’s undoubtedly gone through in deciding to repeal what would have been a fundamental change to industrial relations in New Zealand, probably the most significant one since the Employment Contracts Act. So I’d be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that in relation to that.

I think there’s at least one other amendment that we have that the member seeking to put that amendment hasn’t spoken to yet. So I just remind you that additionally there are some additional amendments on this part that have been raised by other members, which I wouldn’t mind having comment on as well, in Part 1.

The first one is Ricardo Menéndez March’s provision in relation to Part 1. I think what he has suggested in his amendment has a lot of value and I wouldn’t mind if the Minister would elucidate the House with whether she intends to support Mr Menéndez March’s amendment.

Additionally, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer has put forward what I think is a very valid proposal and amendment on this part. I would also additionally be interested in the Minister’s view on whether she considers this particular amendment as worthy. It also talks about a number of issues that have been touched on in the debate to date, including the continuation of this particular fair pay agreement regime, which is to be repealed, in areas where Māori are particularly impacted.

I think in relation to some of the previous questions that we did ask, I know the Minister has responded to some of them, but I don’t really feel she’s given a true answer as to how she will address low pay for Māori. I know that we’re not allowed to repeat questions, but I understand when they haven’t been addressed that it’s important to bring those to the Minister’s attention. So I wondered if she had considered Ms Ngarewa-Packer’s amendment and whether she intends to vote for it, and, again, if not, then what actions related to this amendment under Part 1 she intends to take in order to further the position of Māori and address the low pay which has been mentioned in two documents so far in this committee stage in relation to the first part of this bill.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I thank the member Camilla Belich for asking why we are all here. What is the purpose for us being here tonight? It’s within the bill and it’s our reason for being here, which is that we are here to repeal the Fair Pay Agreements Act. She asks why that purpose is not explicitly written. The Parliamentary Counsel Office have advised that it’s not standard practice in drafting a repeal bill to include a purpose clause, because the purpose of a repeal bill is to repeal a bill.

Grant McCallum: Pretty obvious, really.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: So that’s pretty obvious.

There was also a question from Ricardo Menéndez March. Did we consider overseas evidence of what other countries do with collective bargaining? There are no fair pay agreement systems that we’ve established here based on any international system—it is very much a unique design—and so in this regard we consider that many of its features are unnecessary and negative for the employment market, especially the requirement that all employers and all employees would be drawn into a fair pay agreement if they chose not to be part of it, especially because it could be initiated by a tiny minority, 10 percent or 1,000 workers, for all. It is quite a blunt tool. But there is no international consensus on the best mix of bargaining systems. There is no one-size-fits-all—even different parts of the OECD have different models.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order, Mr Chair. Unfortunately, there is one amendment in this part, in the name of my colleague Arena Williams, that she hasn’t had the opportunity to speak to yet.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): There’s been plenty of opportunities. We’ve been taking calls. What’s been happening is that people have been drifting into Part 2. I’ve been trying to bring people back to Part 1 and there’s been ample opportunities for people to take a call and to focus on that part.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to delete clause 4 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Part 1 be agreed to.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Just checking that the amendment in my name—was that in Part 1? I’m pretty sure it was; it just didn’t get a vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Was it a tabled amendment?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Yeah—I mean, if it’s not, I’ll live with it.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): It’s in Part 1 of Schedule 1, so you’ve got time.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Repeal and revocations

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 5 to 7—repeal and revocations—and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m grateful to have a call, the first call in Part 2 of the debate. I have an amendment that I want to speak to, first, in relation to this particular part, and I think that the amendment that I’ve tabled corrects a mistake in the drafting of this bill. I’d like to direct the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to Schedule 2, Part 1, in relation to the consequential amendments. This consequential amendment looks at the Employment Relations Act 2000 and replaces section 132(2) with a new section entirely, as part of the consequential amendments. Unfortunately, when this was reproduced a few words were omitted, meaning that, in my view—and I’m happy to hear an alternative view from the Minister—the Employment Relations Act in fact is amended by this Part 2 of the repeal bill and, unfortunately, results in the words “including overtime payment rates, and penalty rate payments” being removed from the Employment Relations Act 2000.

Employment Relations Act 2000 in employment law is, obviously, the primary piece of legislation that people look to in order to determine what goes in employment relations and in unemployment law, and so I think—and I’m sure the Minister would agree—that changing this particular Act during urgency, with no select committee process, removing the specific reference to the type of evidence that could be included in the Employment Relations Authority and, specifically, losing the reference to overtime payments and penalty rates, shouldn’t be included in this bill. There shouldn’t be amendments to a primary piece of legislation like the Employment Relations Act 2000, which are substantive and not related to the fair pay agreements repeal.

I did look through all of the other consequential amendments; I couldn’t find another one that appeared to delete words from a primary piece of legislation. But I was concerned to see this, and so that’s why I put an amendment in my name in the committee in order to correct that. As much as I don’t want to see this piece of legislation improved, as I’m fundamentally opposed to it, I also don’t want to see New Zealand workers lose out in relation to the specificity of including overtime payment rates and penalty rates. I’m happy to be corrected, if the Minister receives advice that that is incorrect, but, from my reading of it, it appears to me that in relation to the type of evidence that the authority may get, these are not included.

Now, it may be able to be argued that penalty rate payments are no longer a part of most people’s agreements, and I would agree with that. In some instances, however, there may be older employment agreements which were in place that may reference penalty rates, and so I think that without scrutiny, without a proper process, it would be wrong to just discard the reference to penalty payments, especially in a completely different piece of legislation.

Overtime rates, however, are fundamentally important and are included in many different individual and collective employment agreements, and so removal of those, as I understand is specified in this repeal Act, would not be something that the Minister should be doing—especially, as I’ve said, in an urgency procedure with no select committee process. I see the Minister is receiving advice, so I’m happy to be corrected on that.

But that is the purpose of the Amendment Paper that is in my name and I would invite the Minister, if indeed there has been an error, to agree to my amendment and include it with the passage of the bill, to make sure that people get what they’re entitled to and that there isn’t an inadvertent exclusion of these particular payment rates from the primary piece of employment legislation in New Zealand. So I’m interested to hear the Minister’s response.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I thought I would respond to this one quickly, to get it out of the way. The reason why we have put in this specific amendment, which is to replace section 132(2) of the Employment Relations Act, is to return to the status quo from before we had the fair pay agreements. It was only during the process of the Fair Pay Agreements Act that this provision for overtime rate payments and the penalty rate payments was introduced into the law, and so, by removing this, we are going back to the status quo.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair, and congratulations on your role. It’s quite exciting. I would like to talk about something which covers, really, the whole bill, but this is probably the appropriate part to talk about it. That is the fact that this bill has been rushed, and I have real concerns about legislative quality. The irony is that this is coming from a party whose main plank in the coalition agreement is legislative and regulatory quality. Now, I’ve heard about the regulatory impact statement and the nonsense as to why that wasn’t got—so I won’t go there, but I do have a number of specific questions.

These are questions based on the Regulatory Standards Bill that David Seymour had and that will no doubt be reincarnated in this Parliament. One of the main planks of that bill, which talks about good regulatory and legislative quality, is that the people who are affected by the bill have been consulted. Now, there are a number of people who are currently negotiating fair pay agreements, and what I would like to know from the Minister—a clear answer—is what engagement have you had with the industries and the unions that are leading the bargaining in respect of fair pay agreements, because they are directly affected by this, and by your party’s own creed, you require consultation with them. So that’s the first thing.

The second question I have is that, in that set of principles around good legislative quality, there needs to be an exploration of other options. What I don’t want to hear from the Minister is her doctrine. I don’t want to hear her dogma. What I want to hear is the process that she went through, which her own party requires, to explore other options which were different to or other than a wholesale repeal of the fair pay agreements. What I see in this party is a party that says one thing and does another, and that’s utterly incoherent, it’s inconsistent, and it doesn’t come well from someone who’s now in Government. So that’s my second question.

My third question is this: by the ACT Party’s own principles of legislative quality, an analysis should be done of the costs and benefits of this legislation. I don’t want the ACT Party’s reckons on this. What I want to know is what analysis has been done of the costs and the benefits of having fair pay agreements on the one hand, which raise the wages of our lowest-paid workers, and what the benefits and costs are of abolishing, of sweeping aside, better wages for workers in some of our most critical industries. Don’t give me the Business Roundtable’s analysis, Minister. What I want to know is what independent analysis has been done in the current environment—not back when the original legislation was passed, which was a different economy. I want to know what it is now in the economy that we have today, where wages are under pressure, where people are under pressure. So please give me that analysis and assure me that you will hold yourself to the very same standards that you are proposing to hold other legislators to. This bill is a real step backwards.

So what I would like to know is: are you following your own procedure of legislative quality? And I’d also like to know whether this legislation meets the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee guidelines, not only for its legislative quality in its wording but also the process it has gone through. It’s a significant change in our policy, and it appears to me that it’s been rushed, it’s under urgency, there’s no consultation, there’s no research done on it. It’s a piece of dogma from the ACT Party and I’d like to hear the Minister’s answers to those four questions.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I don’t know if I’ve had the chance to congratulate you on your ascension to this position, and I also want to mihi to my colleagues around me who are also very eager to make contributions—substantive, should I say, rather than just asking for a vote.

I wanted to follow up on the previous member’s contributions around analysis in relation to this bill, and specifically whether a child impact assessment was requested or had been considered at any point. The reason why I ask this is that a lot of the families that would have benefited from fair pay agreements are families with young children and the fair pay agreements would have had an impact on child poverty reduction and would have contributed to our child poverty reduction targets. And so in light of the evidence, analysis—or, as we’re seeing, lack of—I wanted to check what considerations had been given to the impact of child poverty that repealing fair pay agreements would have had, or even any consideration around the benefits that fair pay agreements could have had in relation to our child poverty reduction targets.

Many of the people who have spoken in relationship to this bill—whether it’s of picket lines in the media, etc., our parents who have spoken about balancing the needs of serving their children and attending work—and part of the reason for fair pay agreements was to set those minimum standards. So if the Minister would be able to illuminate us on the impacts of child poverty of this bill, that would be great.

I also wanted to check as well—and unpack some of the previous comments she had made in relation to young people. She referenced that level of flexibility and the fact that we have minimum standards, but I wondered if the Minister had any reflections on the fact that we still have minimum wage exemptions for young people in place, and whether fair pay agreements themselves would have helped young people actually be guaranteed those minimum standards as a result—so, I guess, whether she had done any analysis or had spoken to young people in relation to this bill, particularly those who were workers and those who were in low wages. Thank you.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wanted to talk to an amendment that I’ve put on the Table which is a new clause 8, and it talks about the repeal being subject to a view undertaken in three years’ time of how terms and conditions for the workers—generally in early childhood education, bus industries, security industry, cleaning and supermarkets and hospitality have changed or have they not, also in comparison to the conditions now.

Now, the reason for that amendment is I’ve talked to the Minister before about the issue around hospitality workers, and I’ve spoken in this House a lot about the issues around bus drivers—where I’ve seen real insecurity and a race to the bottom of those wages and they have these split shifts so that they spend four hours unpaid in the middle of the day. I’ve also been really concerned—in fact, I was one of the early lobbyists for trying to get the first fair pay agreement, and this is in the time before I was in Parliament—for the Recognised Seasonal Employer workers, because they seemed a particularly vulnerable group.

I wondered about these groups of workers who are much more obviously our vulnerable workers, who are struggling to get their pay rates to a decent amount, and I’d like the Minister’s comment on whether she accepts that we have a problem in particular industries and whether she is open to a solution where we actually look at those groups that are particularly vulnerable and are particularly stuck in a kind of cycle of low wage work, and whether we could in fact use this as an opportunity to at least review that work.

Now, my friend the Hon Phil Twyford talked about some of the issues around that recognition that there is a problem and whether there is another solution. One of the things I have identified really strongly is that we have almost no information about the majority of workers in New Zealand’s working conditions. We don’t collect the data that comes in from their individual agreements; we don’t know what’s in those individual agreements. We have absolutely no sight over them, so anything could be in them—and it really goes to the point of whether there’s been any analysis here, how much of the problem—of low pay, bad terms and conditions, unsafe conditions—do we really know exists. If we aren’t going to do an inquiry—and usually we would do that in a cost-benefit analysis—what are we doing here? How are we possibly establishing the safety of this decision to repeal?

I also see an opportunity if some of these groups were carved out—and we’ve talked about that before. If we were allowed to actually look at those industries and see how they progressed—if they were saved from this sort of complete repeal, then you could actually compare what happened under these conditions with what happens if you don’t do them, and you could see whether there were changes in productivity or changes in wellbeing or changes in terms and conditions.

So these things are very much related to this proposed amendment as a way to go, and I wondered whether you’d be open to that kind of review of these terms and conditions and whether you recognise that we have quite a deep-seated problem in these areas, because I’ve certainly seen it.

I also just wanted to comment on the difference I’ve seen in some of the industries that I’ve represented. So I’ve represented the Dairy Workers Union and the dairy workers have an incredible collective agreement. It is a really wonderful agreement and it has meant high wages in that industry and high productivity in that industry. It’s actually extremely flexible—it has a set number of hours that take place over the year so that they can work the seasons, they work the peaks and troughs. But I recognise that that industry is actually mainly quite confident male workers and they have actually been able to collectivise in a way that other groups have not been able to organise and collectivise—who tend to be our women and people with vulnerabilities. So we have a real problem where unionism does work.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you—thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to touch on a few comments quickly. Duncan Webb had a number of questions. He talked, firstly, about whether we had explored a range of other options. My focus has been on, firstly, repealing this legislation, as that has been our commitment through the coalition agreement. That has been, also, our commitment to the 100-day plan. Once this system is repealed, I will then focus my efforts on to next steps, and I look forward to his engagement on those in coming months.

There was concern about whether or not we’d had sufficient time to consult on this law. There has been a wide range of consultation on this law. We, firstly, had the law, in effect, have a consultation period when we went through the fair pay agreement (FPA) legislation the first time round. We had a very wide public consultation during the election process. We have also, two days after I was sworn in at Government, met with both Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions, which represent the unions and businesses that represent both sides of this agreement and argument. But, most importantly, we do have a clear mandate from the public, from people who voted for this Government, to repeal this law.

The third question is whether or not there has been analysis done on the cost-benefits of this repeal, and I am delighted to inform the member that, yes, there have been costs and benefits analysed by the Ministry for Business, Innovation, and Employment. That was done in the 2021 regulatory impact statement, but if you look at page 2 of the cover sheet to the fair pay agreements regulatory impact statement that was finalised on 28 November 2023, it does state that there was an exemption granted on the grounds that the regulatory impact statement produced when the FPA system was introduced in 2021 mostly duplicates the analysis needed to repeal the system. So there was no need for a complete new regulatory impact statement, considering that most of this information already existed in a regulatory impact statement on this particular law. Updates were provided where that was relevant, and that was in the cover sheet.

The fourth question was about whether or not the drafting met the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee’s guidelines for legislative drafting and procedure. Those were considered during drafting. The guidelines relate to good lawmaking and they were considered throughout the policy development and the drafting of this bill.

Ricardo Menéndez March asked whether or not we had considered children and considered what impact this law would have on children within New Zealand. I consider that the fair pay agreements system is a blunt tool that affects all employees and all employers within scope within a particular industry, and that would negatively impact on businesses, which would negatively impact on employees, which would negatively impact, therefore, on their families. So, yes, we have considered the effect of what that would be on not just business but employees, families, and all people involved in our labour market and their wider communities.

We have a question from Helen White and it was relating to another amendment on the Table, in the name of another member, about whether or not we’d review the system after three years. Because there have not been any fair pay agreements in effect, it would be impossible to review what a system that had never been in place would look like after three years, in order to review what the difference between two systems could be. So we disagree with that amendment.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Heamana. I’ll join with other colleagues as well in congratulating you on becoming a presiding officer, and also acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Brooke van Velden, on becoming a Minister, of course, and, actually, in the interactive way that you’ve participated in this debate—it’s really helpful, I think.

I was really keen to take a call on Part 2—in particular, to speak briefly on clause 5 and what it actually means to me. It represents the whole passage of that legislation. It represents the enactment of that legislation. It represents, for me, the start of the use of that legislation and the progress by a number of different unions, of different sectors, that have started to progress under that legislation. That means even though it’s one sentence, it means so much. And I want to address all of it that it encompasses within that one clause.

In particular, I want to reference the amendment that I’ve tabled in support of security guards throughout Aotearoa. I referenced the second reading speech of my colleague Camilla Belich when she mentioned a young wahine from Kuki Airani, actually—Rosey Ngakopu is her name. I got to speak with her today. She had followed the whole process represented by clause 5, participated in every part of its progress through this House, and also participates in trying to get better wages for security guards by participating with her colleagues. Now it’s going to be taken away. They had all that hope—aspiration for themselves, their families, for the next generations—that that was going to make a difference. Because what they do know is that throughout their careers of being in the security business, nothing else has worked. Absolutely nothing else has worked. We know that. We know it because they’ve experienced it. And now we’re told it’s no good, got to take it out, go back to where we were, and that will fix everything. Well—hello—it will not. It will make things worse—worse for those families; worse for those workers. This House owes it to every New Zealander—not just Rosey; all her colleagues.

Oh, well, I do want to say one thing, though, about employers. There are some really good employers out there, because, actually—actually—there are some employers of security guards who value their workers and they value their business. They know that the productivity of their business is impacted by the good work that their security guards do, because they keep their properties safe, they keep their workers safe—they even keep us safe in this building. And they deserve better. As I said before, under the previous system, they have not experienced better, and now, in 2023, they get to operate under another piece of legislation, which is about to be repealed by this House without even being given a chance to succeed.

The worst part of it, actually—the worst part of it—is that taking something away takes us backwards, but there doesn’t seem to be any vision of how the future will be for those workers. I think we need to rethink, across this entire House, about how we actually do this kind of kaupapa. Like I said, there are lots of good employers out there who know that value and use it to make more money, which is great for them. And they don’t mind sharing some of that additional income that they generate with their workers. That’s really all I wanted to finish that off. That’s all I really want to say: that we need a better way for those workers into the future.

DARLEEN TANA (Green): Thank you. Tēnā koe, Madam Chair, and I am joining the rest of the Whare in congratulating you in your new role, and tēnā ra tātou katoa e te Whare.

I want to pick up very much on something that the member Adrian Rurawhe has talked to. I stand here as—well, in a previous life—a small-business owner here in Aotearoa. After 20 years away living in Europe, I returned home to Aotearoa 10 years ago and we started our new business. I was really stunned, to be very honest, at the low level of pay and conditions for so many workers. So in establishing our own business here, one of the things that we learnt about very quickly was minimum wage, but we also heard about living wage and we strove to pay our employees just that little bit extra. And I admit that it was really, really hard. We all know as small-business owners that cash flow is king. We look at our cost drivers. Yes, for corporates—having come out of that sphere—we are looking at headcount, fulltime-equivalents, human capital.

But for small-business owners, and particularly here in Aotearoa, and we felt it was exacerbated during COVID, it was the cost of rentals and it was the cost of leasing in our properties. During COVID too, even though it was even tougher, I think one of the things that buoyed us—being able to offer our employees above minimum wage and very close approximated to living wage—was the notion that these were all essential workers. All of our cleaners, all of our mechanics, all of our bus drivers, everyone was an essential worker, and for the first time I felt that actually we recognised these people. We started to say hello to these people. I recall one of the cleaning women—I think it was in a police station—was on the news. Prior to that—entirely invisible to everyone, but thanks to that time, we understood that, actually, essential workers, everybody is pulling their weight.

In te ao Māori, we talk about “te hāpai ō”: it’s not just about leadership in the front but it’s also those in the back who are nurturing us, who are caring for us, filling our bellies, cleaning up after us, and getting us from A to B to where they need to get to. I will come to my question in a minute. Because we recognise as small-business owners that these costs are for naught, I want to acknowledge the reality that there are many small-business owners who run their businesses, not just for profit, in spite of the added cost. These are people who are the true entrepreneurs, the true innovators within our community looking to make sure that everybody in the community has a fair share.

My question goes to: what evidence does the Minister have that small-business owners do not want to sign up to something that is better than the minimum wage and that indeed sets minimum standards across their industries? Thank you.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to take a call here in this committee of the whole House. I really do want to speak to an Amendment Paper that I am putting forward and proposing, and I want to talk about a sector that has been well down the track of putting together their fair pay agreement, and that’s our early childhood educators.

I’m really concerned because when the early childhood educators started to work towards this, there was a great excitement that we might see change in the sector. As we know as it stands at the moment, there is a lot of variability of provision of early childhood education within this country. It goes on a continuum, I’d have to say, from really, really amazing—and that’s the majority—but sometimes it can be quite questionable as well. Unfortunately, part of the reason for that is because of the lack of standardisation of minimum terms and conditions for those educators.

That’s where it seems a bit unfair as well, because there are parts of the sector where there is a standardisation of minimum terms and conditions. I’m not just talking about the schooling sector; in the early childhood education sector, we also have the kindergarten teachers who have privy to collective agreements and have that standardisation. That means that there’s a quality control that exists for those young people in a sector where the education of our youngest and most vulnerable New Zealanders is incredibly important because that sets them up for a really good placement for their education and continuing on in their education. In fact, we know that the research shows that if we have a good quality provision of education in those early years, that is likely to continue on and have greater outcomes when those young people move throughout the education system.

I know that had we been able to go to select committee there would have been a lot of educators who would have come in to talk to these provisions and what it meant to them. We know that fair pay agreements for them could mean that it would take the competition out of the teaching sector. It would leave teachers able to choose where they wish to work based on reasons like having a shared educational philosophy, wanting to work within certain demographics or in certain areas, or because they wish to upskill in certain aspects of their teaching rather than being driven by their salary packages as they are now. Now, we know that the literature review that was gathered in 2019 had pointed towards this and showed that, I quote, “By limiting competition on wages and working conditions, a focus (and investment) on quality and innovation-based economic activities may be fostered.”

Now, I was contacted by an early childhood education teacher who was really disappointed that they didn’t get the opportunity to go to select committee, because she was so excited about the fact that they had the opportunity to put together this fair pay agreement, and I wanted to take the opportunity to just read a few words of what she sent through to me. She says: “Earlier this year, I was one of thousands of kaiako and kaimahi across all of early childhood education who came along to the fair pay agreement meetings to vote on the things we wanted to see in our fair pay agreement. We’re extremely disappointed this Government isn’t giving us the opportunity to follow through and work with employers to make these things a reality. We organised our fair pay agreement claims around key ideas. We wanted to improve child-teacher ratios; we wanted to invest in our educators by providing increased sick leave above the minimum for tough conditions we work in; we wanted to win better pay for support staff and unqualified teachers who are on minimum wages and fully funded pay parity for teachers; we wanted learning support that can actually be accessed for all tamariki who need it, and a funding system that works and ensures community-based and Pasifika ECE can thrive. We voted almost unanimously to support this because it’s a vision of the ECE sector that reflects”—[Time expired]

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to speak to a few points raised by the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe. He talked about clause 5, and I really commend him for coming back to a specific part of the bill and to a clause, and I would commend any member for keeping to the bill. He talked about proposing an amendment to allow for security guards to conclude the fair pay agreement. I also want to agree with him that there are good employers; there are good people in our economy who are wanting to support workers. I really thank him for reminding us that there are a lot of people involved in this situation, from both the employment side of being the employer and from the employee side, that genuinely want to provide very good conditions for their workers, but also a lot of workers who really respect their terms of employment, too. That’s what we’re innately debating here today.

But we don’t consider, as a Government, that we wish to have any exemptions to the repeal, because we believe that there is a better way to improve the conditions of workers, for business and employees, without having fair pay agreements, and that is through increased productivity; that is through reducing regulation. When it comes to the cost of living, that’s through reducing inflation overall as an economy. There are ways for us to improve the rights of workers and to allow for a flexible labour market where businesses have confidence to employ and to pay their staff more because they have more money in their own back pockets as well. So while I very much respect and enjoyed his contribution, we disagree with his amendment.

When it comes to Darleen Tana, I also want to acknowledge the way you presented your arguments to the committee, too, and you referred to the essential workers and the recognition of them during COVID. I think that’s very important. We want to acknowledge many of the small businesses that run in our economy, as well as the not-for-profit organisations. But, specifically, you asked what evidence I have that small businesses don’t actually want to sign up for this type of agreement. When the Fair Pay Agreements Bill went through Parliament, under the previous term of Government, there was quite a substantial select committee process, and many small-business owners did make submissions against the law change.

I did want to point just to one, which came from a small hospitality business. They pointed to the fact that their industry is already paying more. They said, “Many small hospitality businesses have already closed or are operating reduced days and hours only, and they simply can’t pay more. The Fair Pay Agreements Act 2022 would represent further change that would go too far, too fast, with damaging consequences.”

There are many people in our economy who do want to pay their staff more. They genuinely do. I agree. But a blunt tool like a fair pay agreement would have forced some businesses to close their doors, because they wouldn’t have been able to have the conditions that would have been forced on them by a third party that had no knowledge about their particular business or their particular standards within their operation.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. It was very difficult to listen to the contribution from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, because I have to say it was rather patronising. However, getting on to the bill, I want to refer to a number of amendments that are on the Table that talk about clause 5 and inserting after repealed “except in relation to the particular industries that have already started to have their fair pay agreements negotiated.”

One example is that of an amendment that was put forward by the Hon Jan Tinetti, where the amendment is: “except in relation to”—blah blah blah—“early childhood education industry may be concluded and regulated by the provisions of the Act and will not be affected by this bill.” I just want to point out that it is really important to note that that work is under way. A significant amount of human resource and also expenditure and financial resource has already been invested into negotiating these particular fair pay agreements. Now, I know that that Minister and her political party and the Government is very cognisant of the need to make sure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely, so to stop these particular agreements from being pursued whilst they are in the midst of being negotiated, to me, makes no sense, and I question whether that is a good use of the taxpayers’ dollar.

I also want to make mention of the cover sheet that the Minister has referred to on a number of occasions whilst in the chair today. It’s important to note that, because there is no regulatory impact statement, and the Minister has stated on a number of occasions that that particular cover sheet actually provides evidence in a number of areas to support her wishes to repeal fair pay agreements. I, as a previous Minister, don’t ever recall a cover sheet providing the amount of evidence that I would need or require to make any decisions, and so I am very impressed by what this cover sheet may look like.

I just want to refer to some areas that the Minister has already pointed out that the cover sheet provides her cover with to be able to make this repeal. I want to start with the issue that was raised by Ricardo Menéndez March. He was talking about the impacts on child poverty and with reference to these particular workforces, and at that point the Minister said that there was cover through the cover sheet. I want the Minister to respond to my question with respect to what proportion of children living in poverty are actually living in households that have bus drivers, cleaners, coach drivers, hospitality workers, security officers and guards, commercial cleaners, early childhood education workers, and supermarket workers as the household providers for those households. Important to note, because between 40 and 50 percent of children living in poverty are living in working households, so it would be good to know what the cover sheet said about these particular workforces and the number of children that are living in poverty in those households.

I want the Minister to also respond with respect to the proportion of those workforces—and these are the ones that are under negotiation at the moment, and I won’t repeat those workforces—that are women, because when I look at supermarket workers, early childhood education workers, hospitality workers, I can already state, through just general knowledge and understanding, that they are highly feminised workforces. How many, or what proportion, of those workforces are women? What proportion of those workforces are Māori and Pacific? It seems that that must be covered off by the cover sheet that she got as well.

I also want to know what the productivity losses will be for those workforces—because productivity is such a concern for the Minister and she’s raised it on a number of occasions—when those particular workers in those workforces are required to individually bargain for their rights in their workplaces, when they are pushed to the point where they do end up going on strike because a negotiation has not been able to be found due to—

Hon Member: Madam Chair—Madam Chair?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Madam Chair, I’m not finished—I’m not finished. I want to know what the productivity loss will be for those workforces because of the fact that we do not have fair pay agreements in place and our bus drivers, our hospitality workers, our security officers and guards, our commercial cleaners, the early childhood education workers, and the supermarket workers will continue to need to negotiate individually or be pushed in their workplaces to have to strike or take action because of the fact that the employer, the union, and the workers were not able to come to a fair agreement because the Minister is deciding to take fair pay agreements out of the picture.

Now, all of these things, based on what we’ve heard from the Minister in her contributions in the committee today, should be—should be—covered by that very comprehensive cover sheet that stands in place of the regulatory impact statement. Therefore, I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the cover sheet—and I’ll just reiterate—covers off the impacts on child poverty for those in those workforces; how the impact on Māori, Pacific, and women is covered off in those workforces through that cover sheet; how the productivity losses because of the repeal of fair pay agreements is covered off in that particular cover sheet; and, of course, because it’s of the utmost importance to that Minister and the Government, the expenditure that has been wasted because the Government decides to no longer pursue fairness in the workplace for our workers.

Make sure, please, Minister, that when you talk about the expenditure put towards actually negotiating these fair pay agreements, you align that next to the productivity losses we can expect from those workforces because we didn’t, or they didn’t, have the courage to continue down the track of enforcing what is only right, which is fair pay agreements for these workforces.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I didn’t actually catch that. Did you call me? Thank you very much. How good. It’s actually quite hard! You’d think it’d be easy—I’m the closest to you—and I cannot hear. I apologise. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I’m very pleased to have the opportunity, the first one of the evening. I have been trying for some time, so I’m very pleased. Because, of course, now we are in Part 2, the substantive part of this bill—the bill that talks about repealing this, the Fair Pay Agreements Act 2022. I, like all of my colleagues, many of whom are yet to take a call, are keen to talk about this bill—this Act, sorry—that the bill seeks to repeal. As we will see from the large number of amendments, many of which are yet to be touched on, there is a lot of interest in this.

But before I get on to the two points that I wanted to make, I wish to touch on something that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety raised in her response to the contribution of the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe. The Minister mentioned that instead of this bill—there is no other piece of legislation to look to increase wages, of course, but the Minister did say that instead of fair pay agreements, the way in which this Government intends to increase wages is through increased productivity, reduced regulation, and reducing the cost of living. But, of course, reducing the cost of living isn’t necessarily linked to wages. One way in which to address the cost of living is to increase wages, which the fair pay agreements would have undoubtedly done.

Now, if we talk about increasing productivity, this has been the rationale of those on the right for as long as anyone in this House can remember—for as long as anyone in this House can remember: if only we can increase productivity, then workers would be better off. The problem with that, of course, is that productivity is linked to wages, and there is a reason why Australia and other countries that follow what was in place in the Fair Pay Agreements Act—the Act that this bill, in Part 2, seeks to repeal—have higher productivity: the two go hand in hand. Since 1991, New Zealand’s productivity has not kept up with other countries that have maintained what is in the Fair Pay Agreements Act.

So the committee may understand why we on this side are a little bit sceptical of the claim that instead of this Act, which will be repealed by this bill, which will and has been proven to improve conditions and increase wages and get a fair standard across the board—people shake their heads, but they’re not looking at evidence; they’re only looking at their own view that they don’t want to pay higher wages. It is a fact. Instead of this, we go on some theoretical concept of increasing productivity, without any concept at all for the committee’s consideration tonight as to how they want to do that.

Perhaps that, of course, is linked to reducing regulation. Of course, the issue with reducing regulation, in so many examples in the past, is that it’s often regulations that relate to health and safety at work, that relate to conditions at work, and many of them relate to wages—such as regulations around overtime, for example, and regulations around additional pay conditions such as getting additional pay for working on weekends, or working at nights or shift allowances or meal allowances and all those sorts of things. So when we talk about something that has proven—if left alone, if left to the market solely—it has not benefited workers, and reducing regulations which in so many instances protect workers, I’m failed to be convinced by the Minister’s response that this is an adequate alternative to what is being repealed by this bill.

If we start right from the start, in the purpose, it says the purpose of this Act—in reference to Fair Pay Agreements Act 2022—“is to enable employment terms to be improved for employees”. It’s extraordinary that there are people in this House that would oppose that. I put it that way because one might think that if there was disagreement, this was the best way in which to achieve it. Why on earth—and this is my question to the Minister—why on earth hasn’t it been spelt out, on something tangible that would improve wages for workers in New Zealand? Why wasn’t that put forward: a plan, something tangible, there in place, so that we could debate an alternative? Instead, we have a theory and a loose promise.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): First, may I congratulate the Chair Maureen Pugh on her new role and, of course, congratulate the Minister Brooke van Velden as well. Our daughters are looking to you.

Before I ask my question, I would like to remind us that we’re here representing the New Zealand public, and the people of Aotearoa believe in a fair and a just society. Equal pay for work is fair and just. We have evidence and advice from the Ministry for Women, who tell us the gender pay gap is an indicator of the difference between women’s and men’s earnings. We can be proud in New Zealand that we have reduced this gap from 16.8 percent in 1998 through concerted efforts.

Unfortunately, this has fluctuated over the years. The gender pay gap for women compared to men is 8.6 percent; 8.6 percent matters. This effectively means that women work without pay for one whole month of the year. The gender pay gap for wāhine Māori, Pacific, and Asian women and disabled women is significantly higher than 8.6 percent. Minister, I think you would agree that Kate Sheppard is a revered New Zealander. We celebrate women suffragettes. In select committee room 5, we have a whole camellia on the wall to show our respect for women who fought for women’s rights. New Zealand is so proud of Kate Sheppard, in fact, fighting for a fair and just society that she is on our $10 note. Kate Sheppard fought for women’s rights and would be appalled that we are still fighting for equal rights and pay for women.

Fair pay agreements (FPAs) are a key lever to reduce the gender pay gap. The new generation of women deserve equal pay for work. The gender pay gap will not close itself. We cannot become complacent, because the gap will not close without sustained and intentional actions. How will the Minister mitigate the disproportionate impact of stagnant lower wages for women without FPA?

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for the call. It’s wonderful to have a call given to the South Island, so I appreciate the solidarity for the South Island, Madam Chair, and I also congratulate you on both of your roles here in this House.

I have a number of—I was about to call them Supplementary Order Papers, so forgive me for the old terminology. We now have Amendment Papers, and I have three of these on Part 2 to speak to.

I’ll begin talking about—now, I understand it has a number and a letter on it, so, again, it’s new terminology that we’re using. My amendment inserts, after the word “repealed” in clause 5, “except in relation to grocery, supermarket industry may be concluded and regulated by the provisions of the Act and will not be affected by this bill.” What my Amendment Paper specifically speaks to is the supermarket fair pay agreement, which is well advanced. We know that there is a very large group of supermarket workers who are affected by this legislation and by the original Act and then by the repeal bill that we are debating in the Chamber tonight.

I want to speak to some comments around productivity, specifically in relation to supermarket workers, and what I have is a copy of the FIRST Union submission on the original bill. One of the comments that FIRST Union has made, which I think members opposite do need to actually look at, is that while we do have a productivity challenge in New Zealand, we have a bigger challenge in terms of wage growth. Wage growth has not actually kept up with the small productivity gains that we have had since 1991 and since the introduction of the Employment Contracts Act.

One of the comments that I thought was really useful and absolutely speaks to my experience, having worked with supermarket workers, many of whom are on low wages, is that workers who are worried about money, stressed about money—often I met with workers who hadn’t had enough to eat that day—are not going to be productive workers. So the connection between wages and the ability for people to pay their rent, pay for fuel, feed themselves, and not be worried about whether the mortgage is going to be paid this week, and the stress and the concern that that gives them—these are real-life issues that are faced by supermarket workers.

FIRST Union in their submission—and the reason I raised this submission tonight is that because we have had a process through urgency without going through select committee process, over the past few days I have spoken to a number of supermarket workers, many of whom have given me written contributions that they want me to make on their behalf tonight about what the repeal of fair pay agreements mean to them. So I come back to my Amendment Paper and why I’m specifically wanting to add a statement after the clause here around ensuring that that supermarket fair pay agreement is concluded.

Now, I do have another couple of Amendment Papers in relation to Part 2. The first one would insert new clause 5B, notwithstanding clause 5A, stating that any fair pay agreement currently under negotiation will have its term fixed by the Employment Relations Authority and will still come into force. The reason for my amendment of this nature is to reflect the work that has been done but reflect as well that many of these workers who are covered by the agreements that are currently being negotiated do represent vulnerable workers. And there will be real benefit to us as we’ve talked about bus drivers, for example. We’ve had a significant issue attracting people into working as bus drivers. In our region, Nelson-Tasman, we’ve had to bring in a number of migrant bus drivers to work for the new bus service.

One of the things that we can do is ensure that those fair pay agreements, which have been brought because there was a genuine, valid reason there around the need for higher wages—[Time expired]

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to speak to a number of questions that members of this House have raised, speaking firstly to the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s questions regarding why I haven’t specifically spelt out alternatives and different approaches going forward, and that is because my first focus has been to fulfil the Government’s commitment on our 100-day plan and our coalition commitment and then I will consider what else will be effective at improving wages.

I wanted to touch on the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s questions, of which there were a number, so please bear with me. The cover sheet does not have analysis or evidence to make decisions about what system is preferred, which is what the member was referring to, but of course, what the member is not taking into consideration is that this cover sheet is not the only evidence that’s provided to the member. There was an exemption from the regulatory impact statement requirements that was provided and you can find this in the cover sheet on page 2. It says because there is an existing regulatory impact statement from 2021 already providing analysis on the status quo, we would essentially be carrying out the exact same replica of analysis, so there was no need to replicate what we already had in the original regulatory impact statement. All of that evidence is still valid for the member to read.

She mentioned about a lot of the work having been undertaken by parties to the fair pay agreements already under the bargaining process, but forgot to mention that the agreements are all in their very early stages. So while this law has been in place for about a year, many of the bargaining sides have yet to actually meet. This is why we consider it’s quite important to repeal at this stage because we can repeal it quickly and save a lot of time, resource, energy from the bargaining process when the law would be repealed. It’s important for us to repeal this law before Christmas so people who may be involved in an elongated process don’t need to be because it will be repealed.

There was a question here about the percentage of women, for example, that are in coverage in specific sectors throughout the different types of bargaining process. Now, on the face of it, that sounds like quite a simple question, but it is actually very complex. And that’s because the law is not actually clear who is and is not within coverage within different sectors; which types of employees can and cannot be covered. While I acknowledge it’s a nice question, it is actually very difficult and it would have been difficult for any Government to even find the data for this statistical analysis. A good example for this is if you have a lodge in a very remote area where you have one worker that might be a receptionist, but then they also might be a cleaner and then they also might do waitering in a small restaurant at night, they might be captured by three different agreements under three different industries, and the employer might actually also be covered by a range of different processes too. So that statistical information isn’t available and it might not ever be.

Then there was another specific question there about how much expenditure we had spent on this process. To date, there has been $481,250 in funding been provided to bargaining sides that have initiated fair pay agreements, and there has been $750,000 provided to the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Employment Relations Authority received funding through Budget 2021 and Budget 2022 to operationalise and deliver the fair pay agreement system. That funding was $6.33 million in Budget 2021 and $9.226 million in Budget 2022, and for 23/24 the funding is approximately $16.209 million in operating expenditure.

To Kahurangi Carter; she raised some concerns about the gender pay gap—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What’s the productivity loss to not having fair pay agreements, is my other part of it.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Coming back to the member: because she’s asked for it to be specifically about statistical data in relation to those specific areas that we’d already touched on that does not actually exist, that question is not possible to answer. Kahurangi Carter raised concerns about gender pay gap. I want to note for the member that the Equal Pay Act already creates a framework for inequalities between gender if you are in an equivalent role, but I very much enjoyed her contribution.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is really good to be able to take this call and—if I can indulge, Madam Chair—there’s actually a number of items that I’m going to be covering across the various different Amendment Papers that have been tabled tonight in relation to this bill.

One of the first things that I do want to touch on is that, as the member knows, previously to this bill, we just had a bill that removed the maximum sustainable employment element to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. It was brought up in that bill, time and time again, and it is part of this bill that because we are not going through a select committee process, it is imperative that this side of the House, in the Opposition—and, of course, Government members, if they have questions as well—have sufficient time to be able to analyse this bill, to be able to provide contributions as well as speak to the various amendments that have been tabled today.

I just want to touch on, before going into my actual questions for the Minister, a couple of points that the Minister raised around the lack of evidence. So what we do know is this Government is hell-bent on making sure we have evidence-based policy. Now, I appreciate that every Government has their particular tenets and for this Government it’s evidence-based policy. But then what I look to in relation to evidence-based policy is that for us on this side of the House, the reason why we have the regulatory impact statements is especially—especially—when you have a bill going through urgency where you cannot seek advice from officials, you cannot have officials come to the select committee and brief the committee, and you cannot call for submissions, you are able to build, basically, an evidence base from the various submissions from the advice the officials provide you.

So I do acknowledge Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials who are in the Chamber tonight, who have provided a cover sheet, a regulatory impact statement. A really key thing about that regulatory cover sheet is it actually refers to the full impact statement that was provided to the House in 2021 as part of the introduction of the Fair Pay Agreements Act.

If we look to the actual full impact statement, and because it constantly cross-references it—why I am bringing this into the committee is because this is the evidence base in which we here, on this side of the House, not being able to have a select committee process; not being able to call for submissions; call for advice; even have our own independent adviser. I’m going to refer to a number of items within the full impact statement, because it’s been cross-referenced and because that is the only evidence base that we have tonight to be able to scrutinise that bill on the Table in which we form the basis of a number of amendments that have been tabled tonight.

So I look to the full impact statement, and if members like to be able to look at it, I understand the copies have run out on the Table—but we look to pages 58 and 59. Annex Two covers the best capable advice that was provided at the time for wages over time. The reason why I refer to that is because at the very start of that full impact statement, it talks about, “Part 1: The employment relations/employment standards system recognises there is an inherent imbalance of bargaining power in the employment context.” That is in relation to the problem definition, in which there was a Fair Pay Agreement Act, which was passed, and therefore the result of this Government—you have to argue against that problem statement.

But it is clearly set out in the evidence that was provided at the time that we had the Fair Pay Agreements Act that there is an inherent imbalance of bargaining power in the employment context. The evidence base that was provided by those officials is set out in Annex Two, and when you look at the wages over time—for example, figure A2, “Cleaners and laundry workers”: “Approximately 17 percent of cleaners and laundry workers are union members.”; that’s by the by. But then, when you have a look at the cleaners and laundry workers, you look at perhaps over the five-year period, the mean hourly rate is around $18.60 and then you look at the median hourly, looking five years out, to $17.50. Then you look at wages over time. Around 2018, the mean hourly was $18.35 and then the median hourly was $17.25.

So, then, I compare that to, say, figure A3, which is “Automobile, bus, and rail drivers”; “The union density for automobile, bus, and rail drivers is 36 percent.” Now, why this is important, Madam Chair, is because there is actually an amendment that has been tabled by the Hon Willie Jackson at 4.50 p.m. tonight, which says in clause 5 to insert after “repealed”, “except in relation to FPA 01-003-2022 - Interurban, urban, rural, and urban bus transport - Bus drivers, coach drivers, and cleaners”. So, therefore, you compare figure A2 and figure A3, the union density, and you look at the different mean hourly—[Bell rung] Madam Chair, if I can continue.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I call on the Hon Barbara Edmonds.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. So you compare the 17 percent of cleaners and laundries who are unionised to that of automobile, bus, and rail drivers, and that’s at 36 percent. Now, if the committee can remember, I said the five-year outlook: the mean hourly for cleaners was $18.60. In a sector where there is higher union membership, the mean hourly five years out is $25.30. There is actually a considerable difference which shows why having collective bargaining power is incredibly important. So that’s why this is the evidence base in which I support the Hon Willie Jackson’s amendment to this particular bill.

But then we also think about the wider context of why the fair pay agreements was brought in, and it is set to cover around 200,000 to 300,000 workers. Now, the Minister did talk about productivity costs—or perhaps that was the answer that she didn’t actually provide. So, again, going to the full impact statement, the actual cost that there will be—and this is where, for me, it is the worst thing about this particular bill going through urgency and why we didn’t have any evidence base. Back in 2021, it said that there’s going to be an estimated $150 million to $600 million per year total monetised benefits. That’ll be $150 million to $600 million—yes, that’s right—going to some of our lowest-paid workers.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How does that not help?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: How does that not help the cost of living crisis that that Government absolutely has sworn to try and attack? When this full impact statement in 2021—so there will be inflation on top of that. I’d be really keen to understand from the Minister: what advice has the Minister received in relation to the costs, which are therefore then passed on to the lowest-paid workers? There’s roughly 200,000 to 300,000 workers. So, again, the 2021 full impact statement estimated $150 million to $600 million.

I understand that there are some caveats within the full impact statement that are provided by MBIE; that they had to make some assumptions. But you know what? Forecasting of any policy provides some assumptions. As to their confidence in that assumption, I’m not quite sure because I couldn’t quite find it in the full impact statement. But that’s why it had to go through a consultation process. Again, the policy process: the full impact statement is the very start of the policy process.

So as that time progresses, therefore, you get more evidence to build a base as to actually, “Yes, this is true.” You might have a submitter who does say, “Actually, our median hourly for five years plus is actually more than $18.30 or whatever it is. It is actually around this amount.” Therefore, officials can provide advice to both Opposition and Government members to say to the select committee, “We believe this may actually cost more than $150 million to $600 million. That was at the time; there are rough estimates based on some assumptions.” But again, we are not able to have that evidence or advice at the moment, because we have not been able to scrutinise the bill within the full parliamentary process. That is the issue as to why you have so many members in this Chamber who are standing on their feet asking for time to be able to ask these questions.

For me, as a Pacific woman and a person who worked in an economic and finance place for a long time as my professional career—I come from a family of cleaners. I come from a family of hospital cleaners, who are some of the lowest-paid workers, but, thankfully, they’ve been able to collectively bargain to be able to lift some of those wages. They may not be the wages that they want to have, but actually the ability to stand together as a sector and to be able to argue for fairer pay is exactly what this particular Act tried to do.

So my question to the Minister—and it’s good to see that officials are here on site to be able to help—is: what advice has she received in relation to the costings as to what will be lost by the workers? If it wasn’t $150 million to $600 million—again, the range is variable, but I’m just going off the full impact statement that was provided in 2021. For me, it is clearly shown in the evidence that has been provided in the annex that there is a clear discrepancy by the amount of those who are unionised and by those that aren’t—just using the laundry and cleaners and the bus drivers. So that’s why I stand in support of the Hon Willie Jackson’s particular amendment.

I also want to quickly—while I’ve got the time—absolutely ask the Minister to put in a review. There are a number of amendments on that Table which seek that you do review this, and I absolutely urge the Government, given we haven’t had an opportunity in select committee, to consider a review for this bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I just tautoko the kōrero there given from the Hon Barbara Edmonds—one part of the kōrero she talked about. I come from a family of blue-collar workers, too. My mother was a cleaner here, actually, in the late 1960s-1970s. I know that’s probably an occupation foreign to most of the other side, who probably haven’t even cleaned their offices. But the reality is that, for us, it’s heartbreaking actually, as we put this forward, because, as my good friend Barbara Edmonds said, it’s the most vulnerable workers who are being targeted here—the most vulnerable.

As I said earlier, and I’ll continue to say with regards to this kaupapa, here we are, a week or so away from Christmas, and we’re putting up this bill. Here we have bus drivers, cleaners, and coach drivers, hospitality workers, security officers, commercial cleaners, early childhood education workers, and supermarket workers all being targeted with this bill. So that’s the reason why we’re supporting bus drivers in this particular instance.

Being a bus driver is not the most glamorous job, Madam Chair—well, you wouldn’t know, of course, probably having everyone drive for you! But the reality is that it’s not a glamorous job. My good friend here Helen White has represented bus drivers in Auckland as a lawyer in former times, and they’ve had a real push in terms of their conditions. Axing fair pay agreements will shave up to $10,000 a year off a bus driver’s salary—that’s just according to the Council of Trade Unions, who are a very reliable source, as we all know. They said that on Checkpoint today, and they also said that the Government’s plan, in terms of getting rid of the policy by Christmas, is really threatening the lives of so many people.

There seems to be an inability to understand that, and an inability to understand also that bus drivers keep quitting—and have been quitting for the last couple of years. It’s normal for four or five bus drivers to quit each week because the conditions are just too much for them. They’re saying that they never see their families. The new recruits are not lasting long. They’ve said the hours are just far too strenuous. So, in terms of what’s been happening with regards to the drivers, the question I have for the Minister is: what’s her consultation been with the bus drivers?

With us deciding to not have a select committee process, obviously that would have been an opportunity not just for drivers but for workers right across the spectrum to have put a few questions up, to discuss their future. What sort of consultation has the Minister had? Is she still considering consulting with bus drivers? Because the reality is that the right thing is not being done by this Government, and these workers deserve respect, deserve to be treated in the right way. As I said, it’s not the most glamorous of jobs, but a job that’s being filled by immigrants, Pasifika, Māori, people who make contributions in our community, and the consultation process has been a huge priority for us.

So the question is: has there been any consultation? Will there be any consultation? Is there any process? Or will you just walk all over these workers, like National and National Governments always have done in the past? What is the strategy going forward?

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Well, I’m really pleased to be able to speak to the proposed amendment in my name, which is to add a new clause: clause 8. I think the bill would be really strengthened by adding new clause 8. New clause 8 specifies that the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment must undertake a specific analysis and report to the Minister on the particular impact of market flexibility. That’s really important, because in some of the debates we’ve heard in the first and the second reading of this bill, there’s been a lot of discussion around flexibility in our employment market and how important it is to have that flexibility.

One of the real points of contention that we are still not able to see eye to eye on is the fact that this side of the House has the view that fair pay agreements would improve market flexibility. It’s for that very reason—because if you have a bottom line in terms of employment pay and working conditions that operate in Gisborne or in in Southland or in Northland, and if you are a dairy worker, for example, in any of the different areas or a manufacturer in those areas, it means that you can uplift your family and go to a different part of New Zealand and you are guaranteed the same wages and conditions. So for employers in some of those parts of New Zealand that struggle to seek and get employees, that means that we have greater market flexibility if we have a bottom line in terms of conditions and also wages right across the board.

What my amendment to the bill proposes is that there needs to be that analysis for the impact of market flexibility on the New Zealand economy over the past 40 years, and also what impact this has had on the wages of New Zealand workers. It specifies in new clause 8(2) of the proposed amendment that this must be provided no later than one year after the assent of the repeal bill. So it’s really important if we’re going to be taking this step, that we need to be gauging what kinds of impacts this legislation does make not only to the flexibility of our labour market but, hopefully, it will provide some really helpful insights into the impact on productivity. That’s one of the key areas that I’m really interested in understanding, which is: if this legislation does go ahead, what is the impact on New Zealand’s productivity overall?

My fear is—my real fear is—with this bill if this goes ahead, that if we just have a race to the bottom, if we do just have this race to the bottom, what are the incentives for employers to innovate to provide new ways of doing things? Having a built-in ability to really assess what this is doing to our market flexibility for employment and the productivity generated from New Zealand’s small businesses, that’s an important way to do it, because we’ve already noted that—actually, actually earlier in the House today it was mentioned that about 80 percent of New Zealand’s business is small businesses. It’s more like about 98 percent of our businesses are small businesses, and a lot of those ones are in fierce competition.

As a Government, would you not be thinking that you would want to gear that competition to innovation, to bright ideas, to be able to market ourselves offshore, not to race each other to the bottom—like, who can pay out our workers the least possible amount of wages in order to mark up your profit margins? Would you not want to be creating something new and innovative that would actually be able to drive your profit margins in a different direction, that wasn’t just focused on milking what you can out of the workers? I think if we build this part into analysing what the flexibility is, I think that would be a huge improvement. I think by having that review, by having that review in place, I think that that would really improve and strengthen the current legislation.

I’d just like to point out that there’s a third part in terms of clause 8 of the new proposed amendment, and it says that the Minister must—“must”, which is a strong word, I agree; “must” is a big word, but we’ve got it in there—within 60 working days of the day the review is provided, the Minister as required to present it back to the House of Representatives. So it provides this House with another opportunity, just like this one right now, where we can have this discussion about where we are progressing and how we are factoring in—[Time expired]

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): I hardly believe my ears. Thank you, Madam Chair, and congratulations on the new role, and congratulations Minister. I want to also acknowledge the Opposition for their support for this important discussion; it’s really, really heartening actually to have that support from the opposite side.

One of the things that I’ve really come to love about Wellington is the great public transport. It’s not perfect, and we do need more cycle lanes, and we do need to get Wellington moving, but public transport is going to play a really vital role in our lives in the years ahead, and it’s vital to our economic and environmental future.

It was also really nice to hear about Katie Nimon’s family bus business during her maiden speech. I know that we have some common interest in public transport across the Chamber, but buses won’t move without skilled and considerate drivers to drive them—they won’t move. Buses are no good if we don’t have drivers.

I live in Ōtepoti—Dunedin—and for years bus companies have been engaged in a race to the bottom in terms of wages, with drivers working split shifts and often engaging in second jobs just to put food on the table. Dunedin bus drivers have even had to pee behind bushes and limit their water intake—not like in the Chamber—so that they can keep at work because there are no toilets. So the Minister might argue that repealing fair pay is just tidying things up, but I’d argue that it’s far tidier and healthier to provide good conditions and support bus drivers in Aotearoa rather than encouraging them to head to Australia.

So my question to the Minister is: does the Minister acknowledge that bus drivers in Australia, who have benefited from sector-based bargaining, are paid 40 percent more than here in New Zealand, and, if so, how will she bridge the gap without sector-based bargaining here? And does she have any evidence to back how she aims to close the gap? Kia ora.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to go right back to the question from Rachel Boyack. She has a number of Amendment Papers that she’s brought to the committee—specifically, one she touched on would allow the supermarkets to conclude their fair pay agreement. While I acknowledge she may have brought this in good faith to the committee, we have made a commitment, as a Government, to repeal the fair pay agreement legislation. Allowing the system to continue for one sector would go against the commitment that we brought to this House, but also our commitment to New Zealand voters, who are expecting us to deliver on our commitment from the campaign.

I’d like to touch on the question from the Hon Willie Jackson about consultation that’s done with bus drivers, and I’m loving the questions about bus drivers, who are wonderful people. We discussed the repeal of the fair pay agreements with the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, who represent unions across New Zealand. The bus drivers had an opportunity to comment on the introduction of the fair pay agreements system during the consultation of the original fair pay agreements system. Based on what we heard, there were people who were for, and people who were against, and as a—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, please, Madam Chairperson. My apologies—we can’t hear. Sorry, but we can’t hear you, Minister.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Thank you very much, Debbie. I will speak up for you. So talking to the consultation that occurred when the original Fair Pay Agreements Act went through, we heard comments in opposition and comments for. That was quite extensive, and, at the time, the National Party and the ACT Party opposed that bill, and we continue to oppose it now. We went into that election clearly indicating that we would repeal this law, and the voters responded in kind.

To the questions from the Hon Barbara Edmonds—she talked about things specifically in pages 58 and 59 of the regulatory impact statement from 2021, speaking about an inherent imbalance of bargaining power. I’d just like to remind the member that the Employment Relations Act provides a legal backdrop for all relationships between employees, employers, and unions. She also then touched on what costs we’d received advice on—to do with the repeal. The cover sheet refers to the costs and benefits described in the 2021 regulatory impact statement. So I’d refer the member to the tables on pages 42 to 50 of the 2021 regulatory impact statement.

To the question from Ginny Andersen, specifically taking about the amendments that she would be looking to take about market flexibility and studies, I’m delighted to tell the member, I expect to do my own advice and information on the market, independent from the member, and that does not need to be in this bill.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Mr Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just hold on, to that member. I have been watching the debate for the last hour, so I’m well aware of where we’re up to. Just the presence of a new person in the Chair doesn’t actually change much. So carry on the way you have been. Start the clock again, please.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Thank you very much Mr Chair. Well, just to pick up where I was likely to continue previously is that I’ve actually got another proposed amendment. There’s another proposed amendment, and that is a new clause 6, which has been presented to the House. So the new clause 6 that is proposed to amend this bill is that the Royal assent of the bill is contingent on a review by the International Labour Organization (ILO), ensuring that New Zealand is compliant with all international obligations including ILO conventions and free-trade agreements. So, it’s really important that we take into consideration those ILO, which will ensure how we’re complying.

One of the points I’d like to pick up is the fact that one of the things alleged in the first and the second readings is that fair pay agreements would actually result in strikes. I’d like to clarify that point right now that there is no ability with the proposed fair pay agreements that would result in strikes. So that’s actually misinformation and it’s one of the points that the ILO picked up. They actually felt that we should have fair pay agreements that would enable workers to strike. So that’s something that we did not comply with in terms of what those ILO specifications would have been.

So there’s been a lot of discussion in this Chamber and allegations from those members opposite that the introduction of fair pay agreements would not only introduce the opportunity for more striking but it’s actually been alleged by, in fact, Nicola Willis, when I was on Newstalk ZB with her last week, that it would make all those who were part of a fair pay agreement required to be part of a union, and that’s just not true. That’s not true at all. It is true that unions would negotiate these agreements, but all workers would benefit from the negotiation that takes place, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that the workers who benefit from a fair pay agreement would have to be a member of a union. So I think it’s really important that we specify those differences and it’s really important that we understand the benefits of what fair pay agreements would have actually done for New Zealand in terms of workers’ rights and also by, I guess, rewarding and encouraging and supporting good employers.

We’ve heard many stories from members opposite about what a good employer looks like. We’ve heard from Mark Patterson tonight about—was it 16 years that a manager has worked for him? And we know that there are good employers out there and we want to encourage people like Mark Patterson, who has had a manager working for him for 16 years.

So how do we do that? We do that by encouraging good wages and good working conditions right across a sector and we don’t do that by having a race to the bottom of who can pay their workers the least and have the most restrictive working conditions possible. That’s not how we encourage market flexibility for our labour force and that’s not how we increase productivity. Because at the heart of the Employment Relations Act is the fact that there is an employee-employer relationship, and that is based on good faith and that is based on having a good working relationship between an employee and an employer. And fair pay agreements seek to extend that over a whole sector so we can work well within our working environments and we can both have mutual benefits out of that

So what this bill does, what this change does, is it takes away that good faith. It takes away that across a sector, and it means that there will be big differences with bus drivers, with manufacturers, with hospitality workers, with a whole range of different areas where we have poor and bad employers who exploit their workers. We’ve seen this in New Zealand recently with immigration—those who exploit them. Those good employers are dragged down for the fact that poor employers drag their name down. So that’s the loss in this legislation. The loss in this legislation is those good, hard-working employers who have employed people for many years and supported many people off their own shoulders. Those are the ones that are also penalised.

But we should not forget that the ones that are most penalised in this are those people that clean our floors, that look after our children, that drive our buses, that will be earning less this Christmas, that will afford less on their table, fewer Christmas presents. They will have less money because of the selfishness and the self-interest that this bill inflicts upon New Zealanders.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I usually allow a range of members to speak before I respond, but I must respond to that statement. Nobody will be worse off this Christmas because there have not been any fair pay agreements finalised. Nobody will be having lower wages because of the repeal of this Act.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I just remind members, particularly those on my left, that a presentation at this stage would generally end with a question for the Minister in the chair.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): I don’t want to make this debate about whether we are opposed to employers, because sometimes the value is that we should be about promoting and encouraging good employers to be great employers. We should also be making sure employees can be safe employees, and it is absolutely true what we’ve heard over here. We all know some really great employers; great employers which I’ve been part of since I was 18 years old, being self-employed. Our small to medium sized businesses are really critical to our economy, and I’m glad that I belong to iwi and to entities that are enjoying investing and being part of these types of businesses. However, unfortunately, that is not always the case. Some of this legislation is being drafted and created for the vulnerable, and that is really what we’re answering about and challenging about: our different views of where we see we belong in looking after the most vulnerable. So I do want to be really clear on what it is that we’re asking for.

I understand the debate and, actually, to be fair, I understand the Minister’s approach and what it is that she’s wanting to focus on. But I guess what we also need to remind ourselves of is that the protection of the vulnerable has come because of the work, the hard work, of the unions. What we saw today and what we’ve heard in a really short amount of time is that multiple unions agree on what it is that we’re looking at today. There is limited evidence that we’ve seen from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. They have told us that they were restrained or constrained because of time lines. They were constrained by the fact that there’s a Government in with a very—depending on where you sit—progressive or aggressive 100-day plan and this urgency kaupapa that we have.

New clause 8 in our amendment is actually about a repeal—to make sure that it is subject to a review. Now, I don’t think that’s asking for too much. What we’re simply saying to the Minister is that, look, let’s assume that it doesn’t go to plan and that we have a review undertaken in three years to investigate how the terms and conditions, particularly for those who are disproportionately affected—and we’ve all heard that; that’s not us making it up, those are facts. We have a disproportionate group of our employees, our workers who are often our whānau, Pasifika, Māori, wāhine who are affected. We see it often in the sectors across early childhood education, the bus industry, the security industry, cleaning, supermarkets, and hospitality.

What we’re asking is that there is a decency applied to this if it doesn’t go the way—and this 100-day plan—that the Government wants, and we have a pou, we have a measurement, we have a marker to say, “Is this going the way we want and how else can we ensure the terms and conditions of those who are disproportionately affected are going to be monitored?” If we get to a point and we say, actually, this hasn’t going the way we thought it was, it’s working really well in this area for those of us who have been and are business owners who are employers but in fact it’s made the gap worse for those who we didn’t want to see disproportionately worse through this period.

The other thing that I do want to ask the Minister again is what is the plan if it doesn’t work? Can we surely put aside the differences that we have fundamentally or philosophically tonight and look at why the Minister wouldn’t support our amendment to ensure that there is a review, that we continue to be proud to grow, as I said, good employers to be great employers; good employees, employees to be able to be looked after; and the most vulnerable are not targeted, because at times that’s how it’s coming across. Kia ora rā.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I thank the Chair. I wanted to respond directly to the question from Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. Talking about her Amendment Paper—she’s requiring a review of the repeal after three years, and for that review to consider the impacts of that repeal on the specific sectors within the fair pay system that were initiated. It just would not make sense in practice for that review because there have not been any fair pay agreements finalised. There is nothing to compare the impact of that review to. So the whole concept of the Amendment Paper does not work in practice.

To the question of Ginny Andersen asking for comment about Nicola Willis’s comments—I haven’t heard those comments directly—specifying that workers needed to belong to a union for the fair pay agreement. The fair pay agreement system does actually specify that the only entities who could represent employees in bargaining are entities, and not employees themselves, and so in effect, no, the person doesn’t have to join a union, but they can only be represented by a union in that bargaining process.

Where there was a bit of discussion about international obligations, the fair pay agreement system does engage our international obligations relating to strikes, freedom of association, and voluntary collective bargaining. But repealing the fair pay agreement system will actually avoid us engaging our international obligations.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that debate on this question be now put.

Hon Member: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): It won’t be in relation to my decision to put this question. I’ll take a point of order on anything else. Right.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, before we come to voting, I’ll inform the committee that we’ve received a number of tabled amendments on this part of the bill. Some are in order and will be voted on. A number of amendments would make repeal of the Fair Pay Agreements Act contingent on an indeterminate event—these are out of order. Others have been ruled out as contrary to the bill’s objects and principles. I remind members that the scope of a bill to repeal an Act is quite narrow.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 5 to exempt the early childhood education industry fair pay agreement be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 5 to exempt the grocery supermarket industry fair pay agreement be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe’s tabled amendment to clause 5 to exempt the security officers and guards industry fair pay agreement be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Willie Jackson’s tabled amendment to clause 5 to exempt the bus drivers’, coach drivers’, and cleaners’ fair pay agreement be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 5 to exempt the hospitality industry fair pay agreement be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 to exempt the commercial cleaners’ fair pay agreement be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 5 to retain bargaining support services be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Rachel Boyack’s remaining tabled amendments to clause 5 are out of order as inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.

The Hon Willie Jackson’s remaining tabled amendments to clause 5 are out of order as inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.

The question is that the Hon Phil Twyford’s tabled amendment to clause 5 to require fair pay agreements on a case by case basis if the Minister is satisfied be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Phil Twyford’s tabled amendment to insert clause 5(b) regarding union access to workplaces is out of order as outside the scope of the bill.

The Hon Phil Twyford’s tabled amendment to insert clause 5(b) regarding actions in progress relating to fair pay agreements is out of order as inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.

The Hon Phil Twyford’s tabled amendment to insert clause 5(b) regarding consultation is out of order as relying on an indeterminate event.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to insert clause 5(b) to allow fair pay agreements on a case by case basis be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to insert clause 5(b) to replace “FPA Act” with “Minimum Pay and Minimum Standards Act” is out of order as contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.

Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 5 to make repeal contingent on minimum wage matching CPI is out of order as relying on an indeterminate event.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert clause 5(b) to retain paid union meetings be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 5A to continue FPAs in areas where Māori, Pasifika, young workers, disabled workers, and women will be disproportionately impacted is out of order as contrary to the objects and principles of the bill.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 5A prevent discrimination against workers involved in fair pay agreement processes is out of order as outside the scope of the bill.

The Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 5A to make Royal assent contingent on ILO review is out of order as relying on an indeterminate event.

Helen White’s tabled amendment to clause 7 to make repeals subject to a right for employees to raise a personal grievance in relation to fair pay agreement processes is out of order as relying on an indeterminate event.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 8 regarding a requirement for the Minister to seek advice on improving worker terms and conditions be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Ginny Andersen’s, Helen White’s, and Arena Williams’ tabled amendments to insert new clause 8 to make the repeal subject to a review on worker terms and conditions is out of order as relying on an indeterminate event.

The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 8 to require bargaining sides to continue to discuss industry issues be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 8 to require a ministerial report on market flexibility be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come to Schedule 1, where there will be no debate. The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Debbie Ngarewa-Packer’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 3 are out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 stand part.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We come to Schedule 2—again, no debate. The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2, Part 1, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on the title and commencement.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on the title and commencement clauses. I do have two amendments to speak to tonight. The first is on the title clause, and I will speak to that amendment, which is to replace “Fair Pay Agreement Act Repeal Act 2023” with “Worker Protections Clawback Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Act 2023”. This is a clawback bill. This bill, to repeal the ground-breaking fair pay agreement legislation in New Zealand, is a clawback for workers, and I disagree wholeheartedly with the Minister’s statement earlier that workers will not be worse off. We have from multiple submissions, from evidence overseas—and I’m just noting that this Government has said it will be evidence based—and from the full impact statement that we saw when the first piece of legislation came through this House that workers will be better off with the protection of a fair pay agreement.

Let me speak to that in terms of some of the processes that actually apply in order to do that. Through a fair pay agreement, we have initiation from one of the bargaining parties—it would usually be the union to make that initiation—following which we agree terms and conditions through a bargaining process. There is a whole series of steps that occur prior to that in order to identify the coverage—to identify particular occupations that are covered. That work is undertaken, and then, finally, there is bargaining between the parties—those who represent the workers and those who represent the employers. That bargaining occurs with support from Government officials as needed. This then leads to—hopefully; if things have gone well—an agreement between the parties. It then goes out to be ratified by both sets of parties to the agreement.

If it doesn’t result in a fair pay agreement one of the components of the fair pay agreement law is that it does ultimately have the opportunity to be fixed. Fixing an agreement already exists in employment law—so collective agreements can be fixed. Having been through that process myself I know there’s a very long-winded process that requires facilitated bargaining, a whole lot of tests to occur, in order for an agreement to be fixed, and I’ve seen that take years and years and years.

What is so good about this legislation that the Labour Government was so very, very proud to put in place to protect vulnerable, low-paid, and middle-income earners in New Zealand is that it would allow that fixing process to happen much faster than what we currently have in law. For example, one of the agreements that I have been working on was with a supermarket in Nelson and it has taken eight years to get a collective agreement in place. It was ultimately going to lead to the point where there would need to be a case made—an expensive case made—to have that agreement fixed after years and years of delaying tactics by the employer.

So this is a clawback bill. It takes away rights of workers. It takes away the opportunity for workers to bargain properly for sector-based agreements that set a minimum entitlement for wages and conditions in that sector. There are multiple examples that we can point to internationally that have sector-based bargaining. The closest one is Australia. Those on that side of the Chamber—and in fact many New Zealanders—love to make a lot of noise, a lot of statements, around the fact that if you go across the Ditch to Australia, people will earn more money. The reason for that is that they have sector-based bargaining. It’s called enterprise bargaining.

Hon Member: No, that’s not true. They’ve got a stronger economy—they’ve got mining.

RACHEL BOYACK: Oh, they don’t like that. Apparently, it’s only to do with productivity. Well, it’s actually both of those things, because there’s a connection between higher wages and productivity. Again, having studied employment relations at university, I like to look at the evidence. Coming back to the clause, Mr Chair, this is a clawback bill, because it will take away the opportunity for workers to get decent wages and conditions in those sectors—sectors that are overrepresented by women, by Māori and Pasifika, and young workers. So my question to the Minister is: will she support a proper title for this bill that properly reflects what the Government is doing here, which is a clawback. Will she admit that what this bill is doing is clawing back the rights and opportunities for working people in this country who are doing it tough. This Government has made many, many statements about wanting to address the cost of living. Well, this is the opportunity to address the cost of living. The biggest issue that we have in New Zealand in terms of the cost of living is inequality, and it has lasted for decades. It is inequality that has gone back into the 1990s. That is why this is a clawback bill and why it is so important that the bill’s title properly reflects what the legislation is actually doing. From my perspective, this is clawing back those opportunities for workers.

I’m going to talk now about the other amendment I’m putting forward, which is to the commencement date. My amendment to clause 2 will replace “on the day after Royal assent” with “three years and one day after Royal assent”. The reason for this is that I believe that the other side of the committee needs to see how this will operate in practice and understand it properly before they actually decide that the legislation needs to be repealed. They haven’t had the evidence of it operating in practice and seeing the benefit it can make to workers.

So giving the legislation three years to breathe, three years to play its part in terms of delivering for workers means we would have three years to make sure that we introduce an agreement for supermarket workers. We would have three years to ensure that we could bring in a fair pay agreement for bus drivers. We would have three years to make sure that we could bring in a fair pay agreement for cleaners. We would have three years to make sure that we could bring in a fair pay agreement for early childhood workers.

Again, I spent time on Friday with early childhood workers who have been working through multiple processes. They’ve been working through pay parity with other teachers. They’ve been working on pay equity claims to ensure that their female dominated workforce is properly paid. Now they have a claim for a fair pay agreement, and I think we need to give this legislation three years, which is why I have put forward this amendment to replace “the day after Royal assent” with “three years and one day after Royal assent.” It would give the opportunity for early childhood teachers to be able to properly negotiate a fair pay agreement.

And I want to pay particular credit to these workers because they look after our youngest tamariki, and they have struggled to attract people into the industry. For so many years we’ve said in our society that if you’re a primary school teacher or a secondary school teacher, your value is greater than those who work in early childhood education. But we know that those first thousand days leading into someone going to primary school are critical for a small child, and to have quality education is critical for those young people.

This is why I want to see this Government actually listen to the voice of workers, which they haven’t done by operating this legislation through an urgency process, and listen to those workers around what they need to ensure they can continue to attract people into the early childhood sector. I predict that if this legislation passes and we don’t allow the original legislation to have three years to operate fully so that perhaps we can convince them across the House, through some evidence—and a little bit of evidence might get them to change their minds if they’re going to be an evidence-based Government. The point of evidence is that you might have a position and you might see the evidence and you might just change your mind.

I think that three years would give the other side of the House the opportunity to understand that evidence and to see the benefit of a fair pay agreement for early childhood workers so that they could attract more teachers to deliver quality education into that sector. Three years would give the opportunity to have a fair pay agreement for hospitality workers, who, as I think all of us can understand, are often some of the lowest paid and vulnerable workers. It would give, as I’ve already mentioned and as has been well spoken about tonight, the opportunity for us to have a proper fair pay agreement for supermarket workers and bus drivers.

So my question to the Minister is: will she support my amendment tonight? Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Speaking to the member’s question, no. The policy intent is quite correctly captured by the title of the bill. It’s pretty plain and simple and we have a coalition commitment to repeal the fair pay agreements by Christmas, which is what we intend to do.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to also support the amendments of my colleague Rachel Boyack, and, also, I have an amendment in my own name in relation to this part. My amendment really goes to the heart, I think, of the Government’s justification for this bill, which is, essentially, that we’ve had an election and the Government wants to implement their commitments from during the election.

I think that that’s an interesting proposal. I would also say that another option could be—if, truly, there is generally a feeling within New Zealand that this particular piece of legislation must be introduced—to adopt my amendment to the title and commencement clauses, new clause 2. My amendment says that this Act comes into force the day after Royal assent following a public referendum in which 50 percent plus one—

Hon Member: Are you going to pay for it?

CAMILLA BELICH: —of New Zealand public votes in favour of the wording of this repeal bill.

Hon Member: Waste some more money.

CAMILLA BELICH: And it’s interesting that people on the other side are bringing up who’s going to pay for it, because I think it’s quite clear who is going to pay for the repeal of this bill, and it’s the vulnerable workers in New Zealand. So that is my amendment, and I seek the Minister’s comment and support for that amendment to truly guarantee and prove that there is a mandate for introduction.

I would also support my colleague Rachel Boyack’s amendment to the commencement clause, clause 2, and the reason for that is: often in New Zealand, we introduce legislation which takes time in order for the benefits of it to be obvious to people. It’s regretful in this situation that we haven’t had the opportunity to see a fair pay agreement in place. We think, on our side of the House, that there’s a lot of evidence that they would be very successful, and I, in my next contribution, will speak to some of the elements that were raised in the part that we voted on in the bill. I think that there are actually some benefits to employers and employees working together and looking towards a different way of working in New Zealand. We can look at the wages that we have now and the productivity we have and we can see that the status quo is not working.

In terms of the title of the bill, I and many of us on this side of the House are fundamentally opposed to this repeal bill and of its name—opposed to what that title suggests. We do not consider that the Fair Pay Agreements Act should be repealed, for the arguments that we’ve raised in previous hearings only today, and also in the arguments that we’ve raised in the committee of the whole House as well. So I would encourage the Minister to respond to that. I also wanted to support my colleague Rachel Boyack’s amendment to the change of the title, which I believe is more correct in the nature of the bill.

I did have a technical question, and it may be that this is not the part for it, but I couldn’t find the correct section of the bill as to where it’s expressed, so if you would indulge me until I can get an answer for that, please. It could be that it is in the commencement and the title section. The explanatory note on the repeal bill states that the one area that won’t be repealed is the Employment Court 2000 fair pay agreement amendment regulations in relation to “the technical amendment to express the figures for [the] Employment Court fees in [a] GST-exclusive form”. I couldn’t locate, in the section that I expected to find that in—and that may be my error—exactly where that was, and I did look through the bill a number of times.

I wonder if the Minister could point me to exactly where those retained amendments are. I can see it clearly in that section; I also saw it in the cover note, so I do know it’s obviously the intention to retain these particular regulations, which I don’t think are particularly controversial. But I wasn’t able to speak to that in other parts of the bill. That could be my error that I haven’t been able to see where that was.

So those were the main things that I wanted to ask the Minister: does she agree with the amendments that myself and my colleague have put forward in relation to clarifying that there is a mandate to repeal this legislation, and could she point me to the place in the legislation where those GST-exclusive amendments are included.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in regard to the title, I appreciate the amendments put by the Labour Party around the change of name. I would probably propose something around “Vibes-based Unfair Pay”. But, in relationship to the commencement, reflecting on some of the previous contributions from the Minister, I hear that she has been saying that this is part of the coalition agreement and that the intent is to pass it before Christmas. Throughout the debate there also has been a lack of ability to produce evidence as to why this must be repealed; yet there’s a sense of urgency around the commencement—basically, this Act coming into force on the day after the Royal assent. I just wondered if, at any point, the Minister had considered delaying the introduction of the bill to actually then do some evidence gathering. Or I guess I want to test whether Brooke van Velden, candidate for Tāmaki, had presented or researched any evidence during the campaign trail. Because, if there was no exercise in evidence, documentation gathering, consultation with workers—I guess, whether the people who campaigned did any of that exercise and whether she as Minister is leaning into that.

Otherwise, what I’m reading here is a rush to put in place this repeal without having any ability to produce any evidence in relationship to the impact that it will have, other than the limited stuff that we have had from the leaked documents that have come out. So, once again, I’m just checking if there is going to be any intent at all from the Minister to produce evidence on how this will benefit the economy. She has otherwise stated, predominantly, the words “I believe” over and over and over and over—not “I know” or “as the evidence points out” or “evidence shows”. It’s “I believe”. And I think the hundreds of thousands of workers impacted by this bill, who won’t have the opportunity to then see those fair pay agreements come to fruition, deserve more than a Minister telling them “I believe”. They deserve a Minister who can back a piece of legislation with evidence, with solid arguments, and so this is why I’m testing whether she would be open to delaying the commencement of the bill to allow for her arguments to be backed up by actual solid figures and facts rather than just vibes.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to support the last speaker but also my friend Rachel Boyack’s amendment which was to delay the bill coming into fruition. I think the point needs expanding a little bit because what we have in this situation is very, very little evidence, a lot of hunch about what will happen next. And while the Minister might be sceptical, this is our perfect opportunity to do an evidence-gathering exercise. If we had three years of watching this and the Minister watching this and being the guardian of it, then that would play out in that time. You have industries that have already opted for this option. So we have identified industries that have come forward and said that there’s appetite for this solution. They are halfway through bargaining, and it would be amazing if those industries could go through a process that a lot of work’s gone into getting going. In three years’ time, if it’s a failed experiment as you suspect it will be, you will see, and you’ll be able to prove that on the basis of evidence.

But if, in fact, it turns out that it makes a big difference to the kinds of workers who are engaged at the present time, if bus drivers are on better money, if they are safer, if they in fact can get their toilet breaks, if our younger workers and our women are in situations that are more flexible and work for them, if our disabled workers are better off, then you’ll know that too. Because you’re right, this is a tailored situation that has been created. The work that has been done has been not exactly like Australia, or not exactly like anywhere, and wouldn’t it be really such a sad thing to throw all that away when, if we just did move your repeal out for three years and one day, we’d have time to find out whether it worked or not, and what worked and what didn’t and improve on it.

In fact, this is something we should be doing much more with legislation—actually allowing ourselves to test things and see if they work and not being beholden to dogged ideology. That’s actually a big deal, because what I have heard from the Minister is that the reason this has to go ahead is because a commitment has been made, and there is a belief in what has been an ideological position. We’re basically back to trickle-down economics. We’re back to “eventually these workers will be better off”. Well, my experience is they are not better off.

Just one example of this: I’ll go back to the bus drivers because I know that situation very well. My Green colleague talked about the bus drivers having to pee behind a tree—right, that’s real. That happened. I actually had to prepare a strike notice for the bus drivers in Auckland, and do you know what the strike notice threatened to do? The strike action was taking the toilet breaks. That’s what the strike action said. They were going to take the toilet breaks. And do you know what the result of that was, Minister? The company locked out the bus drivers. At that time they were on $17 an hour. They had split shifts where that meant that they were in the Auckland depot. So they came in the morning, and they had come before the buses were starting, so they had to be there and they had to do that work. If we gave these bus drivers three years of this regime, we would see what happened next. Together with the work that’s been done on the Public Transport Operating Model and changing it to a sustainable transport model—together with those things, we ended up with bus drivers on good money in this country, good terms and conditions, safer work. We ended up with a sustainable situation for our bus drivers and imagine the impact if we just give them that time and we delay this for three years and one day. Imagine the impact that it could have on things like the children. Thank you.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I’d just like to make the point that the last three contributions have little to do with the title and commencement of this bill. Helen White, I don’t think I heard anything there about the title and commencement of the bill. To the member Ricardo Menéndez March, quite similarly: nothing to do with the title and commencement of the bill. Camilla Belich, there was a question about GST changes with the employment courts—once again, not relevant to this particular section. However, you might wish to note that while it’s not in the bill specifically in this section, we are retaining the provision. So we are reversing all other changes but retaining this one, so it’s not in the bill. So being silent on it, it’s retaining the fact that changes to the forms are GST exclusive, so it’s not in this bill.

But to the point that was actually about this section, I heard a lot about delay, but this is not a Government that delays; this is a Government of action.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, and congratulations on your appointment to the role. I appreciate being able to speak on the name of this bill. It seems to me that the most appropriate name would be the “Poor Pay Promise Bill”, because it is indeed the fulfilment of a commitment to industry that they will be allowed to continue to exploit workers, continue to not guarantee basic wages—livable wages—and fair pay. The name of the Fair Pay Agreements Act speaks for itself—the name of the legislation that you are repealing—and you’re making it, through this repeal, the poor pay promise.

I want to speak specifically to the impact on our disabled community. We want our disabled community to live dignified, rich, and satisfying lives. What we know is that currently, under the status quo, they do not. The thing that the fair pay agreement would have done is it would have improved conditions for all workers, including our disabled.

One piece of evidence that was not presented in the case made for this repeal is how does the supposed flexible labour market, which I would say is a synonym for the flexibility of employers to exploit workers—how did you seek evidence on the impact on disabled workers, who currently have three times the unemployment rate of non-disabled workers and an average median income of $255 less per week than non-disabled workers?

It is the poor pay promise to all workers—a promise, a commitment to those in industry and business who are willing to exploit for their profits.

Hon Scott Simpson: Tell us about the title.

STEVE ABEL: The “Poor Pay Promise Bill”—that is the title. It is a commitment to industry who wish to exploit, and we will oppose it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair; I appreciate that. I’ve actually only had the one opportunity to speak to Part 2, so I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the title and commencement. I would like to know if the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety would consider a change to the name of the bill to “Back to the Status Quo”, because that is, essentially, what it does. It is not a critique of the content of the bill, for I know that one cannot do that when proposing an alternative name; that would be a breach. But this is a fair description regardless of how one looks at it, whether you look at it from the arguments of the Government or, indeed, from the Opposition, because the Act that this bill seeks to repeal brought in a new provision by which workers can seek to improve conditions and improve wages. By repealing that—what this bill proposes—we go back to what things were before the Fair Pay Agreements Act came in. So “Back to the Status Quo”, I feel, is a fair alternative name, and I would be interested if the Minister would consider that.

Before fair pay agreements came in, people were left to themselves, on the whole, to negotiate for improved wages and improved conditions. Now, if we consider where we were before fair pay agreements came in in comparison to Australia, who had the equivalent of fair pay agreements, their wages and their conditions, over a period of roughly 30 years, improved considerably; New Zealand’s did not. In this, in repealing fair pay agreements, we’re going back to that situation, which was, before they came in, the status quo, and that is why I’m proposing that it be called “Back to the Status Quo”. It is fair, I think. It is fair from our perspective, because it’s very clear tonight that we’ve been critical of this approach, because we don’t believe that the situation before fair pay agreements came in—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I am waiting for the member to come back to the title and commencement.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The title and commencement—I’ve mentioned my proposed title on three occasions.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You have; I’m waiting for you to come back to it.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Again, I’m proposing that the title of this be “Back to the Status Quo”, which is my proposed amendment to the title of the bill, Madam Chair, and one which I would like to hear from the Minister on as to, if she doesn’t support it, why not? And I was explaining that from our perspective, this goes back to how it was, and from the Government’s perspective this goes back to how it was, before fair pay agreements came in. I don’t propose this to criticise; I propose this as a fair reflection of what this bill, in proposing to repeal fair pay agreements, is doing.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. Can I just say, before we take another call: in Speakers’ ruling 127/3, “debating the preliminary causes at the end, members should have some latitude to summarise”. Now, I’m not going to take too much leeway. I want it to relate to title and commencement, but there is an opportunity to summarise, and I’m going to be watching very closely. The reason we’re letting it move a little bit broader in terms of timing is around the fact that there was no select committee. So, with that, Arena Williams.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Chair, thank you so much for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. This is a brand new point, and if you will allow me, this will be a short call because I hope that the Minister can give me an indication of what her thinking is. Then, perhaps, I can propose to her some amendments which may help the situation that the House finds itself in now.

So the particular part that I’m talking to is clause 2, the “Commencement” in the new bill, which is the Act “[coming] into force on the day after Royal assent.” This is not a point about the commencement date, which my colleague Rachel Boyack has raised; it’s a point about the Royal assent itself. Those two things are different: the commencement and the place of the Royal assent in our constitutional framework.

So the questions that I have for the Minister, which I will flag first up so she can consider them: when will the Royal assent be sought? How many proceedings are under way that the Royal assent will cut across? How have participants to the proceedings been notified that the Royal assent will extinguish their proceedings and any legal rights that ensue from those proceedings? What natural justice issues does the Minister anticipate, given the Royal assent will cut across those proceedings? And how will parties be compensated for costs of the proceedings under way?

Now, let me take the House through how we end up in this situation that we’re in now with the proposal to grant this bill Royal assent. Royal assent is a recognition by the Governor-General, as the representative of the Queen, that a bill has come into effect and that it has gone through the processes of this House to give it the effect of law. So the situation that we find ourselves in is that we have a bill here which hasn’t been through the ordinary processes through the House, through a select committee—and we acknowledge on this side of the House that there will be certain situations where the Government has a prerogative to take things through urgency; that’s not at issue here.

What the issue is is that because we haven’t been through the ordinary public process, we haven’t had the benefit of the regulatory impact analysis, and we haven’t had the benefit of time that would usually be given to the sort of legislation where a Government might consider cutting across proceedings that are under way currently, parties to those proceedings haven’t had time to adjust and to change their approach.

So what we see here is that the fair pay agreements were a new piece of law enacted in 2021 that allowed parties to come to the table to renegotiate longstanding issues which had been in court before or they were party to mediations that were already under way. They then came into a new process set out by that Act in good faith, knowing that they would have to give up their court proceedings; knowing that they would have to give up their mediated processes, but entering into a new format in good faith and working with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment that was facilitating the process through mediated proceedings.

So here’s the scene: we have a group of, say, cleaners, who are represented by their union E Tū, that give up their other proceedings in the court to come along to this new set of proceedings. And they are investing in this because they think it’s a process that they should be participating in because that was the Government’s intention at the time. They are paying lawyers, they are paying representatives, they are paying mediators. At the same time, we have a number of commercial firms who employ these 35,000 cleaners around New Zealand, who have also engaged their own representatives and have come to the table in good faith to bargain around a floor for conditions, be it pay or—in the case of cleaners—training. Extra training in the industry for cleaners was a particularly important part of their claim. That was something that also came out of their original proceedings and into the new proceedings that fair pay agreements (FPAs) allowed them to take.

So we now have this situation where they are, in this example, parties that have come to the table: on one side, cleaners represented by their union, over 1,000 of them, to enter into this process; and then multiple commercial parties.

My questions to the Minister are around whether those commercial parties have been given notice of this so that they may prepare themselves for an extinguishment of the process which is going on currently, and the potential of further action being taken by those cleaners’ representatives in another judicial body.

Because we acknowledge, also, that with FPAs not being able to be used by these commercial parties, that we then have much more costly proceedings that will need to be re-entered into in some of these cases. Some of these cases go back 20 years. They have been litigated and relitigated on things like conditions, but particularly training because this relates to the training that cleaners might need when they are alone and dealing with chemicals. They also relate to health and safety issues—and there are a number of health and safety proceedings also on foot which this will impact. So my questions to the Minister—Madam Chair, may I have more time?

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I wanted to take the opportunity to answer the member’s question. My understanding is that Royal assent will happen as it does for all other bills that leave this House in the normal process, but I also want to make it very clear that my purpose in bringing this bill to the House is for all bargaining processes to stop and cease, and that the law itself ceases and the bargaining process thereunder ceases.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call. It’s the first opportunity that I’ve had to take a call since the election and I want to acknowledge you on your elevation to the role of Deputy Speaker. I know that you are someone who is fair handed. I’ve had the pleasure of working alongside you in my first term with the Governance and Administration Committee—a very good committee—and I know that you will do an excellent job and so I congratulate you on that.

I do want to just reflect on the response that the Minister has just given around her expectation that bargaining and the like would stop and cease. I think it is premature of the Minister to outline that expectation right here, right now, when in fact the bill has not been given Royal assent, and I think it is an important point and distinction to make. I’m delighted that my colleague Arena Williams has touched on some of the legal ramifications and matters that are currently before the committee when considering this bill. I do think that she has touched on a really important point that the Minister has still failed to respond to, I think, adequately, and that is around proceedings that are currently in place. Compensation—that also is a question that may currently be in place or actually may not yet be finalised. I think that this is a very interesting and important point around the rights—not just the rights but the legal rights that those who are currently engaged in those proceedings actually don’t currently have but continue to have, and will have, if at some future point this bill does receive Royal assent.

Not just that but the fact that Royal assent, at some stage of this bill, will be given—it’s interesting, I reflect on my time just recently at Government House, where, often, Royal assent is given, and that was for the swearing in or the confirmation of the Speaker. But, of course, some who might be sitting at home listening to this at this late hour might think “Well, why have we suddenly gone from introduction of a bill, first reading, all the way through to considering when the title and the commencement date for this bill might happen all within the course of less than 12 hours?”—it is because members of the community have not had an opportunity to submit on what they think might be an appropriate title for this bill. They have not had an opportunity to think about what they think an appropriate commencement date might be for this bill, because it has not been subjected to the normal scrutiny process that all other bills generally are expected to go through. Not even a truncated select committee process where those for whom this bill will have a significant impact can have their views aired and make their views known on what is an appropriate title for this bill.

Now, we have had a number of suggestions already. The Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill, as it currently stands, is fairly basic really. We’ve heard about the “Poor Pay Promise”. We’ve heard from Mr McAnulty about the “Back to the Status Quo” as the title of this bill. This bill needs to be reflective of what it actually seeks to do. It is a clawback bill. It is a clawback bill and perhaps that should be specified in the title, but we have not had the opportunity to hear from members of the public about what the appropriate title will be.

Let’s just reflect on who those members and organisations may actually be that want to share their views with this House and members of this House about when an appropriate commencement date would be—those who are engaged in sectors such as security, early childhood, bus drivers, and cleaners, the very people that make this particular House tick over day in, day night. When we all leave here in the space of 45 minutes, they will still be here, far beyond it. Those are the very people who should have the opportunity to reflect on and submit on what an appropriate title will be for this bill. Because remember, Madam Chair, this is the title for which the Act, if it is given Royal assent, will be forever known as, so it’s not something that should be just treated lightly. And I think that the Minister does deserve to have—for those who have not been able to participate in a scrutiny process or a select committee process—the opportunity to share with them why the bill as currently drafted in its title and its commencement date is appropriate for the circumstances. Because certainly what we’ve heard in this House today, all of those circumstances, all of the aspects of debate do not lend itself to the current commencement suggestion in terms of date or title. So I expect a response from the Minister.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on the question now close.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not an objective description of the bill.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Rachel Boyack’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to require a referendum be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The committee has considered the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Point of order, Mr Speaker. There’s no question before the House. My suggestion to you is that you refer this bill back to the beginning of the Order Paper and that we move to the next bill forthwith.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Brooke van Velden.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Mr Speaker, thank you—

Tangi Utikere: Sorry, point of order. My colleague Ms Williams has raised a point of order, but there was no response to that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Well, the response, I would have thought, spoke for itself, since the member was here on her feet and has remained on her feet and is now in a position to actually begin. Had she done anything other than be on her feet and been sitting down, it may have been a different story.

Tangi Utikere: Point of order. Seeking your clarification, Mr Speaker, is it that a member can be on their feet but making their way to a Chamber desk which is in order, or is there a strict requirement that a member has to be on their feet but in place in order—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): You should finish; go ahead.

Tangi Utikere: Yes, I just thought there were some comments from other members of the House, and last time I checked, points of order were heard in silence.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That’s all right. I’ll just take some advice on that, and, yes, you are right about having it heard in silence. As I have said, the Minister was making her way to her seat. I was watching her, and the mere fact that she could actually have turned around where she was and actually answered or begun her speech and continued on the way to the seat—so, Brooke van Velden.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill be now read a third time.

This bill repeals the Fair Pay Agreements Act and the associated amendments to other Acts and revokes associated regulations. Once the Fair Pay Agreements Act is repealed, bargaining for initiated fair pay agreements will cease as there will be no legislative mechanism to bring any agreements into force. My clear intention with this repeal bill is for the fair pay agreement system to stop and that the bargaining stops as the law ceases.

Fair pay agreements were never about fairness. They forced a minority of union workers’ views on all affected workers and businesses, and this Government opposes the views that were put forward by the previous Government and that law. The previous Government introduced legislation in 2022 for the fair pay agreement system. Under that system, unions and employer associations could bargain for employment terms and conditions that covered all employees in an industry or occupation. The Fair Pay Agreements Act and associated regulations came into force on 1 December 2022.

Both the National Party and the ACT Party opposed the development and introduction of the fair pay agreements legislation at that time. This repeal has been well signalled for a very, very long time. We have a clear mandate from the voters from the 2023 general election and this Government is delivering on that promise. This Government has committed to repealing the fair pay agreement legislation by Christmas 2023 as part of our coalition agreement between the National Party and the ACT Party, and I am committed to acting as quickly as possible to remove this legislation before any fair pay agreements are finalised and the transition arrangements become more expensive and complex. To reiterate, my clear intention with this bill is that the fair pay agreement system stops and for all bargaining processes to cease. We are doing this to send a clear signal to businesses that this Government understands the pressures that businesses have faced in an environment of increasing inflation and a Labour-led Government that has piled on regulations. Today, this Government is providing certainty to businesses so they can get back to focusing on what they do.

The fair pay agreements diminished the fundamental right to freedom of association, which includes the freedom to not associate. The fair pay agreements risk harming New Zealand’s already dismal productivity growth. The best and most sustainable way to increase the wages of workers and to lower prices for consumers is to improve productivity and reduce the regulations holding businesses back.

We are a Government that wants to see higher wages for workers and a thriving economy, a thriving, competitive business sector. We want more and better jobs here in New Zealand, and we want to ease the pain of the cost of living crisis. But the fair pay agreement system would not have helped. It would have done so much damage to our economy and to our labour market. Far from being fair, the fair pay agreements risked harming the very workers it was aiming to help. I commend this bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don’t think I’ve ever been more disappointed in this House than I am right at this moment. It’s almost Christmas, and the one Act that would transform our industrial relations system in New Zealand to allow workers to have good pay and conditions, fair pay and conditions, fair health and safety conditions at work; to allow us to have a competitive economy but not based on people’s terms and conditions—

Hon Scott Simpson: There weren’t any—not a single one.

CAMILLA BELICH: Well, I think it’s a good point that there isn’t a single one, and wouldn’t it have been better to accept some of the amendments that we had put forward on maintaining some of these fair pay agreements?

As we’ve said a number of times, these are the most vulnerable workers in New Zealand. We have fair pay agreements—the one for bus drivers is actually quite far progressed, and as much as the Minister says it’s her intention that everything stops, I’m sorry, Minister, but that is up to the law. If there is an existing right, as mentioned in the departmental report under the Legislation Act, that allows some people to continue, then that is what will remain. It is not a dictatorship where Ministers get to decide what goes and what doesn’t. It will be decided under the legislative framework that we have.

The people that would have benefited from fair pay agreements, as I was saying, are the most vulnerable in our country: our bus drivers, our hospitality workers, our security guards, our commercial cleaners—some of the people that clean this very building that we’re in—early childhood education teachers, and our supermarket workers. Some of these—not all of them—were essential workers during the pandemic we just experienced. They do not have, as I’m sure most people in this House would accept, terms and conditions that are favourable or fair. Something has to be done.

What those of us on this side of the House did is look to the evidence around the world. What do the countries that do have fair pay and conditions for these types of workforces have in common? And the answer is quite simple. They have industry awards very similar to the system that would have been initiated under the fair pay agreements. These are countries we like to compare ourselves to, like Australia, like Italy, like France, like Germany—sophisticated economies that have fair pay and conditions for working people.

Interestingly, even since that work was initiated in New Zealand, more and more evidence is coming to light about how a flexible labour market, which has so long been something that those various commentators on the economy have called for, is actually not the way to have a highly productive, fair workforce. I want to note some of the evidence I haven’t been able to touch on in the debate so far. It’s actually work done by the OECD and institutions like the Economic Policy Institute. I just want to read an important quote which I think signals the way that most economists see the way to a productive economy occurring in 2023. So I want to just quote from the Economic Policy Institute. One of the most recent versions of the OECD Jobs Strategy reports came to a different conclusion on the flexibility of the labour market. It said, “countries with policies and institutions that promote job quality, job quantity and greater inclusiveness perform better than countries where the focus of policy is predominantly on enhancing (or preserving) market flexibility.”

So fair pay agreements work, and they don’t just work for the workers who are covered by them; they actually work for the entire economy. That is one of the most disappointing things about what is occurring today: the fact that not only do we lose the ability for these vulnerable workers to participate in fair pay agreements but we did not have a select committee process where we could have gone through some of the evidence that is emerging around how beneficial industry awards and these type of arrangements are. It is incredibly disappointing.

I just want to note for the record that we started debating this bill only this afternoon and we are still in the House here at 11.35 at night.

Hon Simeon Brown: It’s so good.

CAMILLA BELICH: It’s not good. It’s disappointing and it’s not, in my view, a correct use of the urgency procedure or fair—

Hon Member: From your experience.

CAMILLA BELICH: Well, some of us have been here a little longer than others. It’s frankly unconscionable that these fair pay agreements are being taken away from these workers just before Christmas.

I want to address some of the comments that the Minister has made, or many comments that have been made in this House, that this is a blunt tool. It is the exact opposite of a blunt tool. The way fair pay agreements are negotiated allows employers and employees to get together—

Carl Bates: Even if they don’t want to.

CAMILLA BELICH: —and design a nuanced arrangement—

Carl Bates: Even if they don’t want to.

CAMILLA BELICH: —that applies to their specific industries.

Carl Bates: Even if they don’t want to.

CAMILLA BELICH: I’ve heard the member Carl Bates interject repeatedly that people will have to join fair pay agreements even if they don’t want to. I ask the member to reflect on his time in the past, being an employee, if in fact that has been his experience. When you are presented with an employment contract, are you given an option of not accepting that employment contract? Most of the time you are not. You are told, in most industries, when you get an employment agreement, that this is the agreement. Take it or leave it. You know, negotiate around a few tiny things. The same thing can happen with fair pay agreements, as long as those negotiations are in addition, are better, than the fair pay agreement minimum. It is a flaw—

Hon Scott Simpson: This is union gobbledygook.

CAMILLA BELICH: —as I’ve said before, and not a—I think it’s expressed very clearly that it’s a minimum standards agreement, and I’m sorry if the member doesn’t understand it, but we have been covering it for a period of time.

I also want to talk about something that I mentioned in the first reading of this fair pay agreements bill, and that is the incredible amount of work that so many people have put into getting us here—well, to the getting the Act in place, and unfortunately now to being here. I also, before I do that, want to reflect on the legislative process and how sometimes these things do happen and they are incredibly disappointing for people. It’s personally very disappointing for me and it’s also disappointing for our party to have these repealed.

It makes me reflect on an area that I used to work in a lot before I became an MP, and that was in the area of equal pay. There was an Act to allow equal pay to occur, and it was passed I think in the 1990s and repealed very shortly thereafter by the National Government. The Labour Party was incredibly disappointed by that, but, as you would have seen, we have brought back equal pay. There is now a mechanism accepted by both sides of the House, and I acknowledge the work done by those in the National Party in relation to equal pay. It’s an idea whose time has come, and it’s accepted on both sides of the House that people should be paid equal pay for work of equal value.

I know that the time will come when fair pay agreements also are in force again under the next Labour Government. And I know that at that time it’s very likely that those who are protesting and interjecting and opposing this will see that the type of labour market that we want to have in New Zealand, one of high wages, one of fair conditions, one of industry awards that allow our productivity to increase—and that’s actually one of the major findings of the OECD: that it increases productivity. I think we all need to have policies in place in New Zealand that increase our productivity. So that’s one of the main things that I’m really disappointed about—that we won’t get the opportunity to see what I’m sure would have been proven: that industry awards do lead to greater productivity and will address one of the key problems that we’ve had in New Zealand over a very, very long period of time.

I also want to thank the public sector for all of the work that they did in putting this bill into place. Many of the people that worked on this bill are now working to repeal it, but it just shows you their professionalism and their integrity—that they can work with any Government, no matter what side of the House, to do the work that needs to be done.

In conclusion, I just want to look back to our Labour values. Looking at high wages and fair conditions was something that Michael Joseph Savage talked about. He said that “reduced wages will not help trade or bring about prosperity. When workers have money and sufficient qualities, trade, industry, and production are buoyant. But the moment wages are reduced, the very reverse is the case.” I do not commend this bill to the House, and I suggest that the House rejects this backwards bill.

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

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In my speech, I want to acknowledge all the bus drivers; the cafe workers; the people who service our restaurants where many of our families may be going out for a Christmas dinner; our security guards who may be keeping an eye as we do our Christmas shopping; the commercial cleaners who will be keeping our gyms, for example, clean as we stay well; our early childhood education (ECE) teachers, who will be looking after tamariki, and no doubt many politicians will be visiting those centres for photo ops; and our grocery supermarket workers, who we lauded as essential during the pandemic. Many of those workers could have had better working conditions, better pay, safer working environments should fair pay agreements have actually proceeded and continued.

I also want to pay tribute to the union movement. Because through their organising, through actually being in touch with the community, through using evidence, they have put forward really sensible recommendations to ensure that actually we centre the wellbeing of the hundreds of thousands of workers who we often talk about in this House but who the Government has chosen to turn their backs on.

Throughout the debate, there was no—absolutely no—mention of evidence to back up this repeal. There’s plenty of evidence to support why having a minimum standard across a sector is good. There’s evidence overseas from the OECD. Our counterparts in Australia are a great example of why this kind of legislation does work and has endured over time—in fact, over several conservative Governments, while this conservative Government has repealed one of the biggest opportunities to improve working conditions many, many times in less than three weeks, and in a country like this one, where we actually experience a really big number of work-related injuries and deaths.

So the message that this Government is sending is that, “It’s OK. People can continue experiencing poverty wages and unsafe working conditions, because so long as we enable the market to do its bidding then they’ll be able to live good lives.” , because that has worked really well over the past few decades, because this country apparently is at the top when it comes to people’s living standards when it comes to wages versus rents and versus the cost of living.

This Government thinks that the trickle-down economics will deliver change for the workers, and it’s vibes-based politics. The Minister should be ashamed that she has been unable to substantiate the arguments. She has been unable to present evidence, and instead of being able to back up her belief as to why the legislation has to be repealed, she has continuously stated that she believes that this is the right thing to do. Why? Because they campaigned on it. Did they campaign on this based on evidence? No they did not. They were not even able, during the election, to call fair pay agreements what they were. They call it every other name to be able to justify their position based on a house of cards, based on absolutely zero evidence. [Interruption]

If the members there are getting heated up and angry about this, then I suggest that next time they visit an ECE centre for a photo opportunity, the next time they do their shopping or take public transport, that they look those workers in their faces and they tell those workers that they deserve the poverty wages that they have and that they don’t have a plan; they don’t actually have a plan to improve the working conditions of those workers.

Carl Bates: Lower cost of living is what they deserve. Lower inflation.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Yeah. Mate, you can’t lower inflation by keeping workers in poverty wages. Get a grip on reality. For some of you who may have entered into this place, you’re so eager—they’re very eager; sorry, Madam Speaker. They’re very eager to turn their backs on the communities that they campaigned on, and those members should be ashamed. For a Government that likes to claim that the left doesn’t own the workers, they surely like to think that they do, and they’re obsessed with this individual ownership. What they believe is that the employers own the workers; that, actually, the workers should not be able to have power.

Hon Andrew Bayly: What garbage.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Garbage? The moment that we hear from this Government, after this repeal, that they have a plan, that they have a plan to lift wages, that they have a plan to guarantee safe working conditions, I will believe those words. Because right now, the only thing that we have heard is vibes. It’s unsubstantiated arguments where they have just told us that they think they have a mandate. But you know what? We’re seeing a rising tide of workers organising to oppose the vibes-based policy that this Government is proposing.

This Government should be concerned that by undermining working conditions, by continuing to keep the workers who serve them—who literally serve them at restaurants, who serve them at the public transport—they’ll be rising up against them. And this Government should not take their support for granted. Because in a few years’ time, what they’ll realise is that their continuous vibes-based policy based on zero arguments will result in poverty wages continuing while the cost of living continues to go up and people are unable to pay their rent and are continuing to work multiple jobs just to survive. If they continue to turn their face away from the streets, away from people living in poverty, what they will see is the continuous people being failed by successive Governments.

Carl Bates: I was at a food bank on Friday, food bank on Monday. Serving food on Monday. Don’t tell me we’re not looking at workers. We’re here.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: So I encourage those members—yeah, picture these workers. Because clearly the Minister chose to not engage with any of those workers when it came to the substance of this bill. In fact, what we’re seeing is a Government that wants to diminish scrutiny on the proposals that they’re putting forward, both in process and in practice.

This Government could have centred the voices of those most impacted, by having taken submissions. They chose not to. They didn’t give a reason for it. So the Green Party will be committed to fighting every step of the way to ensure that our workers continue to be valued; to ensure that our workers continue receiving the wages that they deserve; and that, in fact, we improve those conditions so that the workers that we are supposed to serve have livable wages, not the poverty wages that this Government has guaranteed them for years to come.

So, in closing, I want to remind the Government members that they don’t have a plan to actually address the cost of living crisis, and that fair pay agreements were one of the things in place to guarantee improvements to the working conditions of those workers. They claim that they will give flexibility to those small-business owners, but they don’t want to talk to the business model that some of these businesses they claim to talk to have. Because if those businesses can’t actually afford to pay their workers decent wages, they don’t deserve to then claim to be business owners.

We do have small businesses who do their work to guarantee good wages, and, actually, the research shows that those working environments do lead to higher productivity; they lead to higher satisfaction. If they think that the flexibility of poverty wages is going to lead to any of those outcomes, I suggest that they go back to school and read up on basic economics. Because the economic illiteracy that they have presented with this bill is, frankly, a disservice to the 200,000 to 300,000 workers who would have benefited from fair pay agreements.

So as we head into Christmas, I want to remind the Government of the cancel culture that they continue to engage with: cancelling the fair pay agreement, cancelling the clean car discount. This is not a Government with ideas. This is a Government that is here to take us backwards, turn the clock back to the failed neo-liberal ideology that has caused rising inequality in this country, and I look forward, in terms of this Government, to be proved right in three years. Our people actually do not deserve this. Our people do not deserve a Government that does not care about inequality, that does not care about poverty, and that does not care about working people.

Shame on this Government. The Greens will ensure that this is a one-term Government and that the workers take back the power in this Chamber.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Today is a great day. It is the day of the liberation of New Zealand from the Fair Pay Agreements Act (FPA). The FPA is simply a mandated union bargaining tool and we will not stand for it. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): New Zealand First supports the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill for the reason that the Fair Pay Agreements Act is bad legislation—it’s the reason why we put the handbrake on it when we were last in Government and didn’t let it see the light of day. Despite the protestations of the members opposite, these are highly complex agreements that severely disadvantage regional employers.

It was actually illuminating that Minister van Velden notified the House that very few of these agreements were actually started. That shows that either it is not a priority or they were just too hard to get off the ground. Make no mistake, though, New Zealand First has always been in favour of steady rises to the minimum wage. Every time we have had a chance to be in a coalition agreement, we have always used that leverage to advocate for our lowest-paid workers, and we believe that as a Government, we should put pressure on the lower end of the market. But we have a track record of delivering for those workers, and we are proud of that. Camilla Belich inadvertently let the truth slip out in her second reading speech, when she reflected that unionised workers were actually unlikely to benefit from this, because they could already collectively bargain—so mechanisms are already in place for workers in those industries.

Arena Williams: 80 percent are not unionised. What about them?

MARK PATTERSON: Well, that’s the union’s problem; it’s not the Government’s problem to deal that out. These are overly complex agreements and they are superfluous. Those of us that have been out in the real world know that anyone that is a good worker is highly valued at the moment. We have low unemployment and employers are screaming out for those good workers, and if not here, we have the competition from Australia. So market forces are actually fully in action. This was a solution looking for a problem; it would stifle flexibility in our labour market, it would decrease the appetite for employers to take a risk and employ people. This is bad legislation and we are proud to put it to bed. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call, and Te Pāti Māori has five minutes.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, tēnā koe te māreikura. I find it infuriating but not surprising that this House and this Government can move a piece of legislation through like this in one day without any accord or regard or consultation with the Tiriti partner. No regard to the Māori economy—no regard to the Māori economy, and without any understanding of the profound impact that this bill will have on the vast majority of Māori who are employed in the low to minimum wage segment of this economy.

Those families have kids, youth, rangatahi—they live in Aotearoa. They’re the principal partner into Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I haven’t heard them talked about or even given regard to have their opinion counted once, and this is all pushed through in one day. And this team over here, they have the capacity to draw this. I know it, it’s in their team, but they have failed to do so.

So it’s not surprising the words I used earlier this morning from one of te ao Māori’s leading economists of this generation, Whatarangi Winiata. Hey, Māori had consistently been the shock absorber of the New Zealand economy—the last to be gainfully employed, first to be dismissed, and this will ensure that that’s their fate for three more years. And when you compound that with a cost of living crisis and an attitude from a Government that seeks to give no voice to their partner, then you can expect them here, outside.

Dan Bidois: Why do you set such low expectations for us?

TĀKUTA FERRIS: The expectations set in the Māori economy and within te ao Māori are anything but low—anything but low. But, hey, we’ll be back tomorrow, and we can talk again. I’ll leave it at that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time has come for me to vacate the Chair. The House is adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 11.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

TUESDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2023

(continued on Thursday, 14 December 2023)

Bills

Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Mōrena. The House is resumed and we return to the third reading of the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill. I’ll call the next speaker, and that’s from call No. 6, which is a split call No. 2, the Green Party, a 5-minute call.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): It really suits you up there in that seat, Mr Speaker. I’m never going to get tired of saying that.

My third reading speech is to our workers, is to our unions, is to our whānau and community members of workers who are feeling pōuri, are feeling the mamae from the signal that is sent out from this legislation, the message that is sent out from the repeal of the fair pay agreements legislation, which was for the first time in decades—in decades—going to finally address the particular inequities, including for those industries and sectors that are overrepresented by Māori and by Pasifika and by women and by young people and by disabled people and others. Those systemic inequities, despite best efforts over years to improve the conditions, the pay, the value of workers—those systemic inequities have been stubborn, have been stubborn to get recognition for fair pay, for fair conditions, for valuing workers in particularly precarious work situations, workers in lower paid industries, getting safety recognition, getting their voices included and valued in decisions that are made, getting training and advancement and development settled across those industries, those areas and sectors that we depend on, that we depend on to be able to go about our normal lives.

I mentioned in my contributions that even though many of us can stand here and point to our own whakapapa and our own links with—for example, both of my parents were decades-long bus drivers here in Wellington, actually, when the old depot used to be down the bottom of Courtenay Place before it moved to Kilbirnie, decades of bus drivers, multi generations of cleaners and cafe workers. My nana actually worked for Lion—the old Lion, was it in Ōtara?—as a cleaner and as a chef. I myself have been cleaning motels, a supermarket worker, a retail and bar worker. Those of us who, yes, can have those reflections and those connections—why are we not trying to do the best for them? Every single one of them, every single one of us in here, whether we have those connections or not—whether we have those connections or not. Why are we not trying to do the very best for the people with the least power, the least influence, the least resource, the least wealth and power?

That’s what this legislation is. My message is to our workers, their whānau, to unions—we are here. The Greens are here. We always have been. We are bringing your voices into the halls of power. We have been, even recently, including, actually, Mr Speaker, with early childhood education (ECE). Can I do that with ECE rallies? OK, I can’t. I’ll write that off. Including the Green Party members who have been on the ground with strike action and union collective action—myself and Ricardo Menéndez March were at the rally outside the Epsom electorate offices early in the week; our Labour colleagues were there as well—to hear directly their voices, their experiences, their insights, and their love for supporting people in whānau and communities. That is my top aroha and whakaaro for myself in this third reading speech for the Greens and our commitment ongoing, sustained, enduring, and that workers can feel and see and know that they have support here with our party, with our members across the community, with our volunteers and supporters.

That is the commitment that I make in this speech. To be really clear, the repeal of this legislation is an absolute assault on workers. There are all sorts of guises and pretences based on belief—is what we keep hearing from the Minister: based on belief. It’s not; it is a direct assault on workers. The Greens will always support workers. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Mr Speaker, congratulations on your new role. This repeal bill is the freedom to decide on the relationships that you choose to have as either an employer or an employee. This year, I door-knocked and called over 9,000 people personally across the Whanganui electorate. It may surprise members opposite that this included thousands of workers and New Zealanders of every background. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, that those workers and New Zealanders of backgrounds across the range, overwhelmingly—overwhelmingly—wanted change, and in my electorate and across New Zealand, we delivered it. This repeal bill is part of that change and I commend it to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Tuatahi e mihi ana ki a koe.

[Firstly, I’d like to congratulate you.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Mihi mai, mihi mai.

[Congratulate me, congratulate me.]

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: E mihi ana ki a koe, e te hoa, rawe ki te kite i roto i te tūru. Pai tō āhua, tino whakahīhī a Ngāpuhi i tēnei wā. Nō reira e mihi ana ki a koe.

[I congratulate you, my friend, it’s great to see you in the Chair. You look good, Ngāpuhi is very proud at this time. So I congratulate you.]

Well, what a shameful day for the—I was going to say the Opposition. They should be the Opposition—they should be the Opposition after this disgraceful day.

Hon Melissa Lee: You were self-reflecting.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m always self-reflecting, Melissa Lee. But at this time here, Aotearoa New Zealand has seen what they have dished up: this disgraceful bill, this disgraceful legislation. I was listening to Marama Davidson, and for many of us, you know, we look at our families. I look at my mother; she used to clean. She used to clean across the courts, and when she used to come to Parliament, we used to look across and I’d go, “Yeah, you used to clean over there, Mum.” And my relations that are around town driving buses; my father, who worked on the wharf and drove taxis around here—these people are all very distant to this lot on the other side. They have no relation, they have no connection, they have no empathy in terms of what we’re talking about.

Hon Penny Simmonds: Say it like you mean it.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I absolutely mean it, because this is something where the vulnerable are being hurt—the vulnerable are being hurt. As Marama Davidson says, it hurts us, so the Labour Party gives its commitment, in terms of this fight for our people in the communities. For our people in the communities, it is a sad day.

I think so many people are now seeing this Government as a sort of far-right Government that’s very spiteful—very spiteful. There’s no reason this legislation should be passing. I’ve talked to some of our real strong activists and they just see it as the naked greed of the bosses who want to exploit and grind wages down. There’s no problems allowing unions to represent workers and push for better conditions and wages; that’s the cornerstone of enabling working people to get ahead, yet this new Government is only concerned with bosses’ interests. That’s what we’re hearing from the other side, in ensuring they benefit.

They talk about trickle-down economics. We hear that sort of kōrero all the time from the right, this trickle-down economics, which is a myth: pretending that bosses will pay workers decent wages out of the goodness of their hearts. That’s what we keep hearing: “Oh, look, I’m a boss and pay my workers well.”—normally just over the minimum wage, and that’s “well” to them. And what are you all moaning about? I’ll tell you, I was a former union president—

Hon Members: Ah!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah, yeah. I know that’s hard for the other side to accept, because they don’t even know what a union is, but I remember the great Helen Kelly—all of our members know. She put so much time into shaping these fair pay bargaining agreements before she died. She’d turn in her grave—she’d just turn in her grave, watching this legislation go through. She would have been a wonderful MP, probably would have been a wonderful Prime Minister, but that wasn’t what she sought. She sought justice for workers, she sought rights for workers, and I mihi to her for her mahi. I didn’t know her well, but when I did meet with her we used to have a few laughs. I always admired her absolute commitment to workers, and today she’d be turning in her grave. She put a lot of work into this.

Today, too—yesterday, how people can change, so I’d hope that some of that useless lot across the other side will one day follow the lead of the great Jim Bolger. I never thought I’d say that about Jim, you know. In 1991, I thought he was a mongrel, because he brought in—and I’ve told him this, and we’ve had a few laughs—his union-bashing Employment Contracts Act, smashed us at ground level. But didn’t he change. What a good man: turned down knighthoods, and, as well as that, understood where New Zealand was going; understood where the working class were.

Carl Bates: Envious.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah, you’d be envious of him. I think it’s his strong Irish background. He actually understood the struggle, and so you saw him leading in terms of Māori issues, in terms of that useless National Government at the time. I’m getting mixed up about the times, the useless National Government then and the useless—I shouldn’t say “useless National” because, as we all know, it’s the New Zealand First - led Government by your relation Winston Peters. They just run around like puppies for Winston. But when you see Jim Bolger turning, maybe there’s a chance for him, and I mihi to Jim Bolger today for his work in shaping these fair bargaining agreements. And he’ll be here, probably shedding a tear today, saying “What happened to that pathetic, useless National Party that I used to lead?”

So shame on this party. Shame on this party in terms of the 90 days. So many whānau are reliant on their wages, but now their wages are going to be reduced as the cost of living crisis keeps biting, but shame on this new right—this extreme right Government that is being led by Winston and David Seymour.

The thing is, the Treasury already warned the far-right Government that repealing the legislation would hurt our most vulnerable workers: Māori, Pasifika, wāhine—our women, our women workers. You know, I’m a person who was involved, believe it or not, a few years ago, in the mid-1980s, in the northern clerical union. Our drive was equal pay for work of equal value—driven by some of your relations, actually, Camilla. You know, when I think about Evana Belich and all the great union organisers of the ‘80s and the northern clerical union—Linda Burrow, Sarah Murray—these were Pākehā women committed to the cause of supporting workers and Māori.

Hon Scott Simpson: A Willie Jackson history lesson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, I need to give you fools a history lesson because you don’t know anything about equal pay for work of equal value. Government policy is supposed to benefit the many; repealing this fair pay agreement benefits so few—so few. This new Government should be ashamed of the hollowness of this move, because if Labour regain the Government benches—which is going to happen in three years—our first hundred days will be about restoring mana and rights back to workers.

Tom Rutherford: Well, you won’t be here.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ll be here, but you may not be here. We will not allow this new far-right Government to undermine workers’ rights and water down collective bargaining. They refuse to understand why collective bargaining is so important.

Tom Rutherford: Yeah, “I know what’s best for us.”

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: They all think that individuals can all negotiate for themselves—no, no, here’s the thing: people go to work to do their mahi, to look after their family. They don’t go to work to negotiate with the boss. You can’t have the cleaners—you just can’t do this with our security or our hospitality workers all of a sudden being lumped with this job of being union delegates and union officials. That’s only for special people like our team here. That’s what we’re trained in. But our people just want to do their job, and these idiots, sadly, do not understand the whole line of collective bargaining. It all comes under market flexibility for them—“the individual can do this”. We’re not interested in that type of mantra; we’re interested in collective bargaining, teams, unions, people bonding together. That is something that is foreign to this far-right, useless Government.

ACT, National, and New Zealand First—they are bonded by their malice towards beneficiaries, renters, workers, and the environment. There’s no doubt about that. Now, a country that punishes them rather than supports them is a country that rules for the rich and not for the poor—that sums them up all again. Here’s one of the perfect examples just walking in: no aroha.

Hon Simeon Brown: I am a perfect example.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: They’ve got no aroha for the people. It’s a country none of us want to be a part of, and we don’t want to be part of that filthy right agenda. We want our people to come together, and I give a commitment that Labour will keep fighting against these right-wing fundamentalists.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I appreciate that members may have put too much sugar on their Weet-Bix this morning, but let’s try to keep the debate focused on the bill and less insults.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Firstly, congratulations on your new role, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): You too.

GRANT McCALLUM: Thank you. Today is a great day for small-business owners around New Zealand. For those that are out there on the farms doing the work and actually risking their livelihoods and employing people and having great relationships with their employees, and for the people of Northland and all the small-business owners round Northland and the tourism businesses in the Bay of Islands—it’s a great day for them, because this is one less layer of bureaucracy they have to worry about and deal with. I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today is a day where a whole lot of New Zealanders lose a brighter future. What had been established over many, many years was that we had a problem. We had a problem of a low-wage economy where a whole lot of people were sinking, and we have the consequences of that, which we see every day. I used to see that in my office, because I worked in this area, and it sent me to Parliament because it was utterly tragic, what I saw.

Now, last night I told a story to you about that, on the other side of the House. I told you about how the comment that we’d had earlier about bus drivers, about them stopping to pee on the side of the road because there were no toilets, was true. I knew it was true because I had been in a situation where I had written a strike notice which simply insisted on toilet breaks. The response I got wasn’t the quiet I’m getting this morning; it was cackling. It was cackling and dismissive. But that’s a real story. What happened in that situation—and I’ll repeat it for those who weren’t here—was that I wrote a strike notice which simply said that the Auckland bus drivers would go away and take their toilet breaks as a form of strike action. The response of their employer at the time was to lock them out, because that was enough—that was enough—for them to tip all those workers out on the street and not pay them. We ended up with it going into the Herald as an editorial that perhaps on this occasion those workers weren’t to blame and, in fact, their employer probably deserved a little bit of criticism over this.

So when you talk about good employers, you’ve got to remember there are some ratbags out there, and the good ones are actually in a position where they’re harmed by those bad ones. Let me take that example a little bit further, because those bus drivers were in a situation where we had set them up, as a Government, as a Parliament, where the employers of bus drivers were constantly racing to the bottom because they had to compete with others who were willing to do that. So there was a competitive process between different bus companies, and the one that could pay the lowest wages won. That’s how we had set things up, because of the ideology that I am watching in the House this morning pass this bill. It was seen as a good thing for us, a good thing for New Zealand, to have the lowest-paid workers that we possibly could, because that would somehow bring about equality and wellbeing and growth to our economy. Well, it didn’t. What it did was it sunk people, sunk people to the absolute bare minimum, and we have terrible child poverty as a result. That is what you are reinforcing again today in the Government. That is a problem, because you are sinking people, in the Government today. You are sinking their hopes and their dreams and the dreams of their kids, and that is what is going on.

So we know we’ve got a problem. We know we’ve got a problem with all those sectors that have just asked for the bargaining that they have. One of them is bus drivers, but there are others. There are early childcare workers, there are hospitality workers. Those groups of people haven’t flourished in our society; they’re not paid enough, and the solution that was crafted was just to give them a minimum floor. The 80 percent of people who aren’t in unions were going to have a minimum floor. That’s all that we were doing. That wasn’t something that we should be afraid of. That was something that put employers on a level playing field so that we could get on with doing what we need to do best, which is paying people a decent amount, because growth means nothing if it’s all going to the multinationals overseas, which it was with the bus companies—they were all based overseas. These companies were making money and taking it out of the hands and the families in this actual society.

So that’s who we owe an obligation to, and we need a future. Today, we’re taking a step way back, and there’ll be consequences, but we’ll be here in three years with a future and a solution that is positive and that is all about growth and real growth and real wellbeing of New Zealanders, not this ridiculous hark back to the past.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Disability Issues): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll take this brief split call on the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill.

The public of New Zealand voted for change in the last election. They voted for change because, unlike the previous Labour Government, they knew what a mess our economy had been put into and they knew that we had to have change to get maximum flexibility in our businesses to get our country out of the mess that it had been put in by the previous Labour Government. This is a small part of making that change. I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s not a privilege to take a call on this bill today, because, as I said in my second reading speech yesterday, it is a dark day for workers. What has concerned me a lot about the debate—and it’s happening again—is that when those of us on this side of the House who are proud to have worked alongside some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable workers are telling stories about bus drivers having to take a pee in the bushes, the other side have laughed.

I just find it so offensive that people on the other side of this House actually think that stories about workers being mistreated in the workplace, having to go to the toilet in a bush, having to argue why they need to keep their job because they’re an older woman without savings and they just can’t stack a supermarket shelf that quickly—again, I’m seeing smirks. Please don’t do that.

This is why I’m so proud to stand here today on this side of the House—because these things aren’t funny. They’re not funny. I’ve sat with workers in tears and with, unfortunately, mental health challenges as a result of what’s happening in the workplace. I’ve heard claims of sexual harassment of women by their managers that are not being taken seriously. I say to the other side: maybe put yourselves in the shoes of some of those people just for 10 minutes, would you? This is a serious matter for New Zealand workers.

Back in 1991 when the Employment Contracts Act was brought in, it took away the ability for us to have sector agreements. And during this debate, they’ve been talked about as being some kind of weird thing. My colleague Helen White talked briefly about what they actually are, which is minimum standards, and I might just talk about some of the really basic minimum standards that could have been introduced into the retail agreement.

If you’re a retail worker, if you’re a supermarket worker, or you work for Bunnings or Farmers or one of those big-box retailers, quite often people will have rosters from Tuesday to Saturday, which is very normal. It’s expected if you work in retail that you will work a Saturday or Sunday and it’s reasonable to have that expectation as they are the busiest days for retail. But if you work a Tuesday to Saturday roster, given that most of our public holidays in New Zealand are on a Monday, you miss out on about six days of public holidays. It’s actually a whole week of leave that you miss out on. And just recognise again that these retailers are multimillion-dollar businesses. They’re making significant amounts of profit. One of the things that we built into collective agreements with retail was that if you worked a Tuesday to Saturday roster, the Tuesday would be treated like a Monday. It’s pretty reasonable. It’s a pretty basic minimum standard.

We have minimum standards in law already. We have the minimum wage, we have our annual leave, we have public holidays, we have sick leave, we have bereavement leave. But one of the things is that across each sector there are actually specific things relevant to each sector that don’t get covered by that, and this is what we were doing. We weren’t looking to achieve a gold standard agreement necessarily. That is actually still the opportunity between either a union and an employer or an individual and an employer—to get to gold standard. We just wanted bronze standard, you know, for a lot of these workers.

Take that bus driver example again. We’ve seen split shifts across the country. There are examples in Auckland of bus drivers starting their day in South Auckland ending up in central Auckland for a four-hour break before starting their shift again. So they’re not actually able to get home to spend time with their families or maybe pick the kids up from school. They’re expected to have this four-hour break hanging around in the Auckland CBD.

What a fair pay agreement would have been able to do is deal with that specific issue and set a minimum standard around it. It wasn’t about saying we’re going to pay people 100 bucks an hour or anything outrageous that the other side’s kind of scaremongering about. It was about saying what are the minimum standards that are relevant for that industry.

I think what’s really fascinating about this is that when Jim Bolger worked on this law in the 52nd Parliament, one of the things he noted in 1991—and we can talk about what happened in 1991. I think the Government at that time expected the union movement to push back harder than it did, and we all know from history that it didn’t. He has now accepted that they went too far.

So if you look at our history around employment law, the fifth Labour Government brought in the Employment Relations Act. It brought back collective bargaining. It brought back multi-employer collective agreements (MECAs), which are actually really similar to what we are trying to achieve with fair pay agreements. What we saw with those MECAs was that that only worked mostly in the health sector when the Government of the day instructed those departments to agree to a MECA. It was still a voluntary process. We didn’t see MECAs roll out across the country as we had hoped to through the Employment Relations Act. So it’s the missing piece of the employment puzzle that needed to be brought back in.

It’s really common overseas. Everyone in New Zealand, economic commentators, business leaders, unions—we all talk about how things are.

Simon Court: They’re all wrong.

RACHEL BOYACK: They’re all wrong, apparently—even business leaders, according to Simon Court. He just said they’re all wrong. So business leaders, economic leaders, Simon Court from ACT thinks you’re wrong. They talk about Australia. We have so much evidence to show that there are higher wages over in Australia. One of the reasons, as I’ve said in previous contributions, is that they have what they call enterprise bargaining, which is the comparable sector-based bargaining that we were looking to achieve. The sky hasn’t fallen over there. When you look around at where they have this type of bargaining, the sky hasn’t fallen. All it does is ensure that we have minimum standards that reflect the needs of that particular industry.

I’ve talked a lot in my contributions about supermarket workers and I’m going to continue with that theme a little bit. There are two submissions that have been sent to me that I want to read out. The first is from wonderful Connor, who was really brave and spoke on the forecourt of Parliament yesterday. He told me that fair pay agreements are important to him because they would lift the pay and conditions that essential workers could achieve. He said they would put an end to the status quo of those workers being undervalued by the most greedy and exploitative employers in the sector.

I want to talk a bit about that because we have a duopoly. We have Countdown/Woolworths, owned by an Australian company and all the profit heads back to Australia. Then we have Foodstuffs New Zealand, which is split into Foodstuffs North Island and Foodstuffs South Island—actually, a nice union of employers.

If you look at Foodstuffs employers, they are part of a collective and I’ve been on the other side of bargaining with a Foodstuffs supermarket, a multibillion-dollar one where they try to say, “No, no, no, we’ve got our own approach to this.”, yet they put the exact same terms and conditions from each supermarket into the negotiating space. So they try to pretend that they’re somehow unique and individual but they all come up with the exact same option for an agreement. So, you know, they can say one thing but the actions show something quite different.

As I’ve said in previous contributions, during COVID it really was wonderful to see people thanking supermarket workers. We saw art competitions from children in primary schools, and they sent beautiful art to say thank you to our essential workers during COVID. People dropped off cards and chocolates and thanked them in newspaper articles, but what they really need is actually to be treated decently in their employment and paid properly. Thanking people is all very nice, but a thankyou and a box of chocolates doesn’t buy your supermarket shop for the week. It doesn’t pay your mortgage or your rent.

I’m going to finish by reading the submission on the original legislation from my friend Jenny Wells. Here is what she said: “When employers can make unilateral decisions regarding employment without consultation with employees, it is unjust. When employers declare that an employee is not allowed to share their pay rate or employment conditions with other people, it is unjust. When an employer can set a pay rate for a position arbitrarily, it is unjust. It is unjust because it sets people against each other. Then the only way to deal with workplace disputes is through the Employment Relations Authority. It is unjust because the authority takes years to make a decision, however just. As William E Gladstone said in 1866, justice delayed is justice denied. The purpose of a fair pay agreement is to have a consistent wage and consistent conditions across an industry. I work in the retail sector in a supermarket. Recently it has been revealed that all supermarkets are making excess profits. However, what is different between the different supermarket chains is that they treat their staff differently. There are different rates of pay. There is a different approach to how public holidays are dealt with. There are different approaches to staffing levels and to places considered to need an extra level of expertise. Having a fair pay agreement means that both employers and employees will know what to expect.”

As a Labour MP I said in my maiden speech that I would not rest until I saw a retail fair pay agreement. That is the commitment from me but it is the commitment from all Labour Party members—that when workers’ rights are under attack, we will stand up and fight back. We will make sure that these fair pay agreements become a reality when we are back on the Treasury benches in 2026.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Congratulations on your new role. Despite the rhetoric from the other side of the House over there, our business owners in the Wairarapa electorate take their responsibilities to their employees seriously, in good times and bad. If they’re forced to lay off staff, reduce production, or close their doors, everyone suffers, and the fair pay agreement will do nothing—nothing—to lift the productivity that New Zealand desperately needs. I look forward to seeing this Act repealed.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Fair Pay Agreements Act Repeal Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I present a legislative statement on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I move, That the Land Vehicle (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Today, I’m introducing the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Repeal) Amendment Bill into the House, which gives effect to the National Party’s commitment to ending the ute tax within our first 100 days. This piece of legislation is also part of our coalition agreement with the ACT Party, who made the same commitment: ending the scheme—which is reflected in our coalition agreement between our two parties.

This is good news for our farmers and tradies who have been hammered by the last Government and who were forced to pay exorbitant fees buying the vehicles they needed to be able to do their jobs. This bill ends the unnecessary, regressive, and fiscally irresponsible ute tax and Clean Car Discount Scheme. It is an important priority for the Government and it is one of our actions in our first 100 days. Axing the ute tax is one of the policies New Zealanders voted for and which they expect us to deliver, and which we are delivering on.

This bill does a number of things. Firstly, what it does is it repeals the legislation to ensure that the scheme ends on 31 December 2023, both for the discounts and also for the tax. It repeals the legislation which the last Government put in place, and requires that scheme to come to an end. This scheme needs to come to an end for three very important reasons: firstly, it is fiscally irresponsible. The scheme has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and it will only continue to cost taxpayers more and more money the longer it stays in place. Through to 30 November 2023, $579 million was paid out in rebates, $13.5 million was spent in cost to establish and operate the scheme, while $290 million has been received from charges. This has meant that taxpayers had to foot the bill by an eye-watering $302.5 million deficit paid to New Zealand Transport Agency via grants from the Crown—that is taxpayers’ money. Now, on this side of the House, we respect taxpayers’ money, and we know that money doesn’t just grow on trees. I think that’s the philosophy of the former Government—and that is one of the reasons why they are now in Opposition, because they had a view that money simply grew on trees.

So this scheme was fiscally irresponsible, and to address that, what the Crown would have to have done to continue with this scheme was do a number of potential changes: firstly, possibly lowering or restricting rebates to electric vehicles—effectively, not continuing with the high subsidies that were put in place by the former Government; secondly, increasing charges even more for ute buyers, making it even harder for our farmers and tradies who needed to purchase the vehicles they need to be able to do their job; or providing even more Crown funding. The former Government thought money grew on trees—that probably is exactly what they would have done, and thrown more taxpayers’ money into a scheme which is fiscally irresponsible. So by ending this scheme by 31 December, we don’t need to do any of those actions. Instead, we can ensure that this fiscally irresponsible scheme comes to an end.

But we also need to look at the inequities that this scheme was providing, and one of the key facts which I highlighted yesterday in question time was around how this scheme was taking money from people who had very little choice around the types of vehicles that they could use. [Interruption] I hear Grant McCallum, the excellent member for Northland, who is doing a great job in that electorate and who needs his ute to get around his electorate and his farm. The reality is it was taking money from people like him—people who don’t have the choice around purchasing an electric vehicle for their type of work and then subsidising people who do have the choice. In fact, over $122 million was provided as subsidies to people purchasing electric vehicles worth over $70,000 in the last 18 months. Taking money from people who have little choice—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Oh, well, anyone who didn’t like it can pay it back.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I hear the former Minister for a lot of things—emphasis on “former”—complaining about this bill. I look forward to her speech a little bit later. But the point is, this policy was taking from those who didn’t have a choice and giving it to people who could afford to pay for those vehicles, and so by ending this scheme we are ending the reverse Robin Hood scheme. I thought the party opposite were the party for workers—I thought they were the party for workers. They’ve tried to spend the last two days trying to tell everybody in this House how much they care about the workers. But actually, what they are the party of is—they want to subsidise people who can already afford to buy a very high-end electric vehicle and provide them more subsidies; that is actually who the party is, over on the other side. And so by removing this scheme, we remove the inequities that it was providing.

Finally, by removing this scheme, we’re able to actually focus on what is required to actually improve the uptake of electric vehicles in New Zealand, which is what will make a real difference, and that is investing in the electric vehicle charging infrastructure that we need across New Zealand. On this side of the House, we are the party of infrastructure, we are the party which gets things done, and we will be rolling out policies to implement 10,000 electric vehicle chargers by 2030 to actually ensure that people purchasing electric vehicles have the confidence to be able to charge their vehicles and travel around New Zealand. Because what we know is that car manufacturers around the world are switching to electric in all of their production chains; we don’t need to be providing very expensive subsidies to make them do that. In fact, we are such a small part of the car market in New Zealand—what we do makes a very little difference.

In fact, those cars will be coming here—and I note even Ford announced yesterday that on 1 January, the day after this scheme ends, they are reducing the price of their vehicles by $5,000. And so the car industry will be keen to make sure the vehicles they are manufacturing around the world will be coming to New Zealand; that New Zealanders will continue to have the choice and the range of electric vehicles, and we’ll provide the electric vehicle charging infrastructure so that they can have that uptake so we can electrify our fleet here in New Zealand—we have a positive plan to do that. We don’t need an inequitable scheme which is fiscally irresponsible, which is what the past Government did. I commend the bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Can I firstly congratulate you on your ascension to the high office that you now hold. I heard the Hon Marama Davidson say that you look good in that seat. I agree with that sentiment. It’s good to see that half of the New Zealand Parliament’s Cook Island caucus is represented in the presiding officer’s seat.

It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill. As we progress through the many hours ahead today—in terms of progressing this bill at various stages—we’ll be having some conversations about the appropriateness of what this bill is called, amongst other things. But this is very clearly a step back into the future—a step back into the past. That is not the direction that any country in this world needs to be heading when it comes to meeting the needs of tackling climate change.

Now, members opposite might be quite comfortable with that, but let’s not have any confusion around this: for members on this side of the House, that is not the case. We have already dealt with the Reserve Bank. We have disgracefully passed the piece of legislation that, effectively, removes the rights of hard-working Kiwis here in Aotearoa New Zealand. Now, we are considering a bill that will, effectively, roll back steps towards meeting our obligations when it comes to addressing the immediate and near need around climate change.

We heard from the Minister of Transport—my breakfast TV buddy—who I have said previously is leadership material. I thought he was going to be the Deputy Prime Minister, and I stated that on television. I have to say that his pathetic attempt at addressing the House with this piece of legislation has meant that all of those aspirations, that he might still hold, no longer exist.

We heard from the Minister that he’s had an opportunity to focus on this regressive and fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation, as it currently stands. He’s talked about fiscal irresponsibility. He has talked about how we would be taking the money from hard workers and, effectively, giving it to the rich. How fiscally responsible is it, then, for the Tesla-loving Prime Minister’s household to be able to access the very rebate that his Government seeks to remove? The question that many of us will be asking: is he going to pay it back? Are other members opposite, who may have benefited from this—given they are the very ones who want to remove this piece of opportunity—are they going to be paying it back? I bet you they won’t. I bet you, Mr Speaker, that they won’t. Because it’s all about, actually, taking from others, but when it concerns themselves, it’s a different consideration, as far as they see that.

I don’t think taxpayers think it’s right for a Government to want to focus on removing a rebate—the very rebate that the Prime Minister has benefited from. I think that, as we progress through this piece of legislation over the coming hours—and perhaps coming days; who knows?—there will be some contributions about the relevancy of this piece of legislation, particularly where leaders in the current Government have, effectively, benefited from this particular rebate.

Now, there’ll be plenty of opportunity to talk about this rushed process. Those who may have switched on their telly on a Thursday morning, or listen to the radio, might be thinking, “Why is the House sitting at this particular point in time?” Well, we can share with them that it’s because the House is, unfortunately, in urgency. Urgency is utilised for what the House considers to be the most pressing issues, for the most pressing needs. What we’ve heard from the Government is that the rationale for progressing this piece of legislation is that it is to give effect to key elements of the so-called 100-day plan that they have. It’s interesting, isn’t it? Because I think members in the House—and, certainly, I think, lots of people all around the country—will be thinking, “My, my, how has the Government prioritised this over some of the many other things that they went into the election indicating that they wanted to roll back or do?” What is it that they are purely focused on when they identify this piece of legislation which is focusing on actually removing something that is going to make a huge difference, and it has proven so? So on this side of the House, we will vehemently oppose all stages of progress for this particular bill.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I have to say that I am so proud of what we achieved with the Clean Car Discount over the last 18 months. This was a policy that I worked on as Associate Minister of Transport in the first coalition Government from 2017 to 2020. What we can say is that it is now the single most effective climate policy implemented by any Government in New Zealand so far. It has made a concrete difference to the amount of carbon emissions, but not just that: the amount of money that New Zealanders are spending on fuel to get around the country.

We have saved two megatons of carbon already. This is a very technical point, but I think I need to—yeah, this is a technical point. I’m going to go on with it. I think members opposite are confused about a letter which is absolutely public, and you can see it any time, and I’d love to talk you through it, because the National Party is missing out on the opportunity to get a more productive transport system while reducing emissions and pollution. It is possible to do both. This was a genuine solution that did both.

I have to address the misinformation in the Minister’s—basically, the Minister has a bunch of culture war talking points that have no evidence or basis in reality. The reality is that the Clean Car Discount programme is fair and Kiwis support it. The polling shows only 20 percent of New Zealanders oppose it. A majority of New Zealanders support it—52 percent. A majority of National Party voters support the Clean Car Discount. Why? Because it’s fair and we’re all in this together. This is a practical solution.

Now, if the members opposite want a genuine solution to climate change, they need to realise that sitting back and doing nothing will not work. We have to work together to make the change, and every New Zealander can be part of this solution. The beauty of the Clean Car Discount was that even the people who need to buy the highly polluting vehicles for whatever reason: they’re choosing do that, they have to do that—they also contribute to getting more zero-emissions and low-emissions vehicles on the road. So while they’re driving their big ute, they are also helping to ensure that somebody else is able to get into an electric vehicle, and overall that reduces our emissions together.

The National Party does not care about equity. Do not believe what they say when they say that they care about equity, because they are giving tonnes of money to the wealthiest people through tax cuts back to landlords. So they’re giving money back to the richest New Zealanders in a way that does nothing to reduce emissions. The point of this policy is reducing emissions, and it has. If you care about equity, let’s see it in your tax proposals. Let’s see it in your benefit proposals. If you cared about equity, then the National Government would not be proposing tax cuts for landlords and the super-rich.

Finally, this Government has suppressed the climate analysis. There was a regulatory impact statement prepared on the repeal of this Act that says exactly what the estimated impact will be on our carbon budget, and the Government is refusing to release that as we repeal the bill. So the public and those of us in the House have not got the official information that should have been released to us that tells us what the climate impact of repealing this bill will be.

The members in the Government are going to have to confront reality at some point. The Prime Minister has said that he’s committed to meeting the carbon budget, and yet they have zero plan to actually achieve that. We know that relying on the emissions trading scheme (ETS), fuel being in the ETS, does nothing to help New Zealanders get into lower-emissions vehicles. What it does do is it means once people are already in high-emitting vehicles, they have to pay more to drive around. So that is what the National Government is going to have to be relying on.

The beauty of the “feebate”—which, by the way, has been extremely successful in many other countries. France has had one since 2008, and the highest fee now has gone from—it started at €2,000, then it was €30,000, now it’s up to €50,000 on the highest-emitting vehicle. The price incentive at the point of purchase of the vehicle is what influences the vehicle importers to offer those low-emission vehicles to the market. It’s what saves New Zealanders’ businesses and households money when they need to drive around.

We will go through this in more detail during this debate, and I look forward to the members opposite engaging in evidence.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party is proud to support the repeal of the clean vehicle discount scheme, a scheme which submitters to the 53rd Parliament’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee said was completely unnecessary. Vehicle manufacturers said, quite clearly, between 2025 and 2028 they’re going to completely retool manufacturing in Asia, South-east Asia, and Europe to produce almost nothing but EVs and hybrids. So if you currently drive a Ford Ranger turbo-diesel, you’ll be able to get one—according to the manufacturers—in a hybrid in the next couple of years that will be very, very low with any emissions.

Now, the previous Government, having heard that, proceeded to introduce a scheme which applied a whole lot of costs to tradies and farmers and large families who wanted to replace an older vehicle with a big van. They applied all of these costs and absolutely ignored the impacts on families and the productive sector. They were told this scheme was unnecessary and that all of the emissions reductions would be delivered between now and 2030 by a complete retooling of manufacturing and supply of light vehicles into the market.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Then why did the vehicle industry want the policy? The vehicle industry supported the rebate.

SIMON COURT: There was a market-based solution available. Now, to that member, Julie Anne Genter, heckling irrationally from the sidelines, the member said it’s time to confront reality. Well, it is. This wild scheme has led to a $300 million deficit, Julie Anne Genter—a $300 million deficit—between the amount of money recovered from long-suffering tradies, farmers, and big families who needed to replace a vehicle with a petrol diesel vehicle, and the amount of money paid out to people who receive subsidies for Teslas and other very expensive EVs.

Over $120 million was paid out to people to buy vehicles worth more than $70,000. That statistic alone confirms what ACT, what National, and what submitters to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee told that committee. The scheme was unnecessary. It was fiscally irresponsible. It would lead to a massive transfer of wealth from some taxpayers and consumers to a very few who could already afford to spend $70,000 on a new car and would receive a subsidy of up to $8,000 from other taxpayers and consumers.

It was bad policy, it was bad law, and the ACT Party is proud—proud—to see the end of the Clean Car Discount, the ute tax, and restore some sanity into climate policy and transport policy after the last three years of frothing and boiling nonsense from the Green Party and their woke mates in the Labour Party. It ends today. Goodbye, Clean Car Discount. Goodbye, ute tax. Goodbye, Labour and Greens.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to also support the Land Transport (Repeal of Clean Car Discounts) Amendment Bill.

Nothing—nothing—signals how out of touch the modern Labour Party is with its working-class heritage in this deeply regressive tax on working-class New Zealanders that sees them subsidising those in the leafy suburbs to buy their Teslas. It shows a lack of understanding for the necessity of utes in particular, and the importance for our farmers and our tradies, and the critical roles that they play in our economy. They simply do not have the alternatives at the moment, as Simon Court has just outlined. Those alternatives are coming. The manufacturers are scaling up; they will become the tool of choice when they are available, but they simply are not at this moment. Of course, those big families that may have to get a van or whatever to get about, they’ve also been heavily, heavily punished by this. The answers are actually, Mr Scott Willis, in the macro, and getting the amount of renewable energy coming through that actually drives the innovation, it drives the uptake of the technology that is coming through in terms of electric vehicles and the like. That is the role of the Government, not micromanaging and nanny-Stating this. It hugely disadvantages rural New Zealanders who simply don’t have the option due to range to take up an electric vehicle.

These reasons are why New Zealand First, in our last term at Parliament, pulled the handbrake on this. We didn’t support it then, we don’t support it now. We support repealing this scheme. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Mōrena e te Speaker, tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to speak to this first reading of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill.

As kaitiaki of this whenua it is our responsibility to ensure that the health of our taiao is maintained for our mokopuna, and it is for our mokopuna that Te Pāti Māori oppose the bill. The climate crisis threatens our culture, our identity, our marae, our whānau, our hapū—tangata whenua katoa. It has been a slow-moving crisis, and depictions of rising temperatures and melting glaciers means that it often feels distant and abstract and therefore misunderstood and unrealised by many in this House. However, the storms that ravaged my rohe of Te Tai Tokerau and other rohe across the motu this year tells us that this distance has now closed and the taiao now, more than ever, is loud and clear in alerting us of their pain and mamae.

The reality is Aotearoa is currently not on track to meet its climate targets. Repealing this policy will increase carbon emissions and it will represent a backward step in terms of acting on climate change. Mokopuna will suffer due to backwards thinking of those in power who are focused on capitalist profit over healthy, functioning, green, wonderful, blue taiao, particularly in Te Tai Tokerau.

The protection of Papatūānuku and a stable global climate cannot be achieved without indigenous leadership and knowledge—tā te Māori tēnā [that is the purview of Māori], in case you needed clarification—or the recognition of indigenous rights. Tā te Māori tēnā. [That is the purview of Māori.]

There are always reasonings behind the tracking of environmental indicators to ensure our taiao remains healthy and in balance. In Aotearoa, that means whānau, that means hapū, that means iwi must remain at the forefront of climate action, and the solutions must be our own. We are the first conservationists; I made that point yesterday and I repeat it this morning.

The Climate Change Commission advised that the domestic transport emissions must be halved by 2035, for, as it stands, our transport emissions are one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Aotearoa katoa. This bill repeals the clean vehicle standard, which already saw a large increase in the purchase of electric cars since the policy was first announced. This has begun to slowly bring down the cost of clean vehicles as it increases numbers in the market, including for second-hand sale. While incentivising clean car purchases, it is not the complete solution to the climate crisis. It is 1c of the dollar that is our country’s carbon-neutral target by 2050.

For a moment of candour, this policy does not have much of an immediate impact on whānau Māori. Affordability and accessibility remain as barriers to purchasing any car, let alone clean car vehicles. As an MP from a largely rural electorate, we know that for electric vehicles to be a lasting solution, we need to invest massively in infrastructure. As technology advances, it will become more and more a viable option for our whānau and our hapū and our iwi. However, our mokopuna will be the ones to reap the benefits of the seeds we plant today. Therefore, the repealing of this policy is a matter of principle, not precedent, and we are sitting by, retracting any form of climate action. Te Pāti Māori are deeply concerned with this Government’s ram-raid speed at which they are reversing policies that will reduce emissions and protect our taiao—just want to let the words “ram raid” sink in.

We owe it to our mokopuna to challenge this short-sighted mentality and fight for their future. As tangata whenua, we don’t think a year ahead, or even seven years ahead; we think seven generations ahead, and that is why we expressly reject this ideology and we cannot support this legislation today. Tēnā tātou.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I rise in support of the repeal of this ute tax. As a farmer, we have been punished by this ute tax, because we had no choice. We had no choice. What did the Government of the day think—that we were going to put the dogs on the back of a pushbike; we were going to cart the fence posts around the back of the Prius while we actually did our work and actually earned this country an income? We were punished for actually trying to do our job, and we didn’t have any choice at all. But, of course, because they don’t own businesses and have to work on farms, they don’t understand that, do they?

I also compliment the tradies of this country. They were the ones also with little choice. They need their utes for their job. And the other thing: I come from an electorate called Northland. Believe it or not, in Northland our roads are rubbish, and in Northland you need a ute to get around. So many people in Northland have had to park up their cars and drive utes so they can get around without blowing out tyres. Please go and check all the newsfeeds you like—you’ll see that.

So I would say to you here now: farmers want to do their part to help with climate change. This is not one of them. This was unfair. I rise now and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Overnight, world leaders, including a representative of New Zealand in the form of our climate change Minister, Simon Watts, agreed that the world and the globe needs to have stronger carbon-cutting plans in place by 2025. That agreement—that global agreement came in the same week that our Climate Change Commission released its 2023 advice on the direction of policy for the Government’s second emissions reduction plan.

What that report says in a nutshell is that New Zealand will meet emissions budget 1 because there have been a series of policies put in place by a Government over the last six years which will mean we meet emissions budget 1, but emissions budgets 2 and 3 are going to require acceleration of some policies. And what is the response of our newly elected Government? It’s to repeal measures that are doing the heavy lifting on removing emissions from our economy. What the risk report says is we have to do all those things that were planned and more, but here’s the rub for the Government, because they signed up to legislation that says that you must produce emissions reduction plans, and if you’re going to take out measures that decrease emissions, you have to replace it with measures that will make that up.

So I am calling on those members that are barracking with their best climate denial sledges that we’re hearing across this side of the House to actually front up and tell us what they are going to do to reduce emissions. Because what members opposite cannot avoid is that this was an incredibly successful scheme. We’ve heard it being described as a scheme in deficit. This is a scheme that was set to be self-funding in 10 years. It needed a $300 million upfront cost, but its success is that it has overshot expectations, and for all New Zealanders that is a win. Something I think those members and the seats opposite need to start realising is that unless New Zealand cuts its emissions, we will have to go out and buy international credits of other nations and pay for their decarbonisation.

Now, on this side of the House, we will back New Zealanders every day of the week, and we will rather do that than pay other countries in their efforts to decarbonise. Drive Electric has put out, in response to this measure, some pretty good data around this measure that the Government is legislating today. It will result in between 100,000 and 350,000 fewer electric cars on New Zealand roads by 2030. And that is a significant problem in terms of the emissions reduction plan, which the Government is now going to have to tell us in detail—down to megatons—what its substitutions are.

Throughout the course of this debate, we will be asking those questions. What are those substitutions going to be? If not this, then what? And that is what the Government has to tell us, because transport has some heavy lifting to do in emissions budget 2. Transport makes up half of our energy emissions, and in order for us to meet the carbon reduction budgets that are in place, our light vehicle fleet is absolutely critical to that.

So I am going to look forward to, over the course of this debate, knowing what measures are being put in place to make up for the 900 to 3,000 kilotonnes of carbon that is going to increase in our economy as a result of this measure. I note that the Minister won’t release the regulatory impact statement and there’s a reason, and we will be asking questions about that during the course of this debate. It is being rushed through under urgency—no select committee process—and to make it even worse, a Minister that is sitting on a regulatory impact statement. This will be an interesting debate.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m proud to rise in support of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill. Firstly, I’d like to commend the leadership of the Minister of Transport, the Hon Simeon Brown, for bringing this bill so quickly to the House to back the rural sector here in New Zealand, our hard-working farmers who that last member, Megan Woods, is out of touch with. She’s spending too much time here in Wellington and needs to get out into our communities and understand what it is like for our rural communities and how they are experiencing it under this ute tax. I’m proud to be part of a party that is going to back our farmers and back our rural sector and ensure that we get back to what we need to.

This scheme is financially unsustainable and fiscally irresponsible, and taxpayers are currently footing the $302 million deficit. Shame! We have plenty more to say but I’d like to commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I’m very pleased to take a call on this piece of legislation. It is another classic backtrack—not back-on-track; backtrack—legislation. [Interruption] Yeah, backtrack—that’s it exactly. At a time when—as my colleague has just said—we’ve just concluded internationally at COP a commitment to move forward on lower-emitting technologies and efforts across the globe to try and reduce the effects of climate change. It is a little ironic that we pass a piece of legislation that’s going to reverse the direction of travel—pardon the pun.

I was certainly in the firing line when this was introduced, and I’m very aware of the limited number of options around commercial vehicles across the country. Although, in a discussion and further investigation, at the time it was introduced, one little story the member might be interested in: the Ford Ranger, which was a very popular selling—still is popular selling—vehicle, basically runs a Euro5 motor. If Ford had chosen to be selling the Euro6 motor in New Zealand, the $8,000 or thereabouts tax that was being charged and had been charged would have been significantly lower because of the emissions profile of that vehicle. The point being that there is technology around the world to reduce the emissions and reduce the impulse that the previous legislation brought upon many people who were purchasing or needed to purchase utes and commercial vehicles like that. This was an incentive to move us in the right direction, and, indeed, the uptake of electric vehicles and hybrids in this country is a measure of the success of this piece of legislation—that’s now been backtracked.

Can I ask one question? If it was that bad, I ask every single National Party and ACT member of Parliament that took up the subsidy, as they call it, and claimed it for the electric vehicles they purchased to pay it back. Pay the money back. Pay the money back—

Tom Rutherford: Pay the taxpayer back for all the money you wasted over the last six years.

Grant McCallum: Pay the money back to the farmers.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Pay the money back if you think that it was a bad scheme. Mr Speaker, there are a few calls over there—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Look, interjections: short, sharp, and preferably witty. You’re failing on all counts.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’ll just talk about agriculture, for example, and farmers. Yes, it was an impost on those who had to buy.

Grant McCallum: Yes, here we go!

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’m acknowledging that. But there’s a lot of them also. In fact, we help a farmer buy an electric vehicle as well, a car. So they paid somewhere; they picked it up somewhere else.

Can I just say the hundreds of millions of dollars that the taxpayers have paid across to the agricultural sector—a good investment, but it is a subsidy by some people’s measure. We call it good investment—we did when we were in Government. Good investment. A billion dollars in one Budget alone for the rural sectors. Eight hundred million dollars from taxpayers to help eliminate Mycoplasma bovis, which, if it had been let run, would have imposed huge additional costs on farmers. We saw the value in that investment, just as the legislation for the Clean Car Discount we saw as a good investment in the future decarbonisation of our economy.

My colleague Megan Woods pointed out that if we don’t move to reduce our carbon emissions, we do have a legal obligation in 2030 that will require the writing out of cheques. We thought that early investment in this area, encouraging more electric vehicles into the market, is a smart way forward. Indeed, people like myself who were somewhat cynical about the effectiveness of an electric vehicle but was forced to have one by the Prime Minister—can I say that they are really, really smart vehicles. If you live in a city, everyone should have an electric vehicle. Everyone.

Tom Rutherford: What about the rural areas?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Yeah, of course there’s a difference in rural areas. We are now starting to see—be it Rivian, be it Ford—a Ranger that is a hybrid vehicle coming on to the market next year. We’re starting to see movement in that direction. We had the vision. This Government is a backtrack Government with a backtrack piece of legislation.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Mike Butterick.

Cameron Brewer: No. Cameron Brewer.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Cameron Brewer.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, Mr Brewer.

CAMERON BREWER: I rise in support of this bill and perhaps the biggest revelation this morning that we’ve heard has come from one of the most seasoned operators in the Labour Party, Megan Woods. She said in her call that this scheme was supposed to be self-funding in 10 years. Well, yesterday, the Minister of Transport revealed that the Clean Car Discount has become fiscally irresponsible, with taxpayers now footing a $302.5 million deficit.

The Ministry of Transport has also admitted that the ute tax in the electric vehicle subsidy scheme is fiscally unsustainable. And even in our explanatory note here, it notes: “The scheme has challenges that are likely to intensify the longer the scheme is in place. … it is difficult to make financially sustainable and self-financing; it possesses ongoing equity and fairness concerns; it will become less effective over time as electric vehicle prices fall … it requires constant changes to its rebates and charges”. Subsequently, I rise in support of this on behalf of hard-working Upper Harbour taxpayers that the Government has decided to discontinue this mad scheme. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This bill is set down for second reading immediately.

Second Reading

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I move, That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I move that this bill be read a second time and I commend it to the House. I’ve just been listening to the debate from the members opposite who have been trying to tell this House how amazing the scheme was, but they don’t have an answer to one of the key questions here: how are they going to pay for it? There’s a $300 million hole that has been created by that Government—$300 million hole created by that Government—of rebates being paid out over the top of taxes being collected, and they have no answers as to how they’re going to pay for it. That is just—

Hon Tama Potaka: Show me the money.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Show us the money. They don’t know where the money is coming from, and it just shows the New Zealand public how much they don’t care when it comes to fiscal responsibility. That is why, on 14 October, New Zealanders voted for the National Party, the ACT Party, and the New Zealand First Party to get this country back on track, to fix the fiscal situation facing New Zealand. And this is only one of many fiscal holes left behind by the last Government.

So, as I outlined in my first speech on the first reading of this piece of legislation, the amount paid out in rebates has been $579 million, $13.5 million to administer the scheme, while only $290 million has been received from charges, leaving a hole of $302.5 million for taxpayers—hard-working taxpayers—to foot the bill.

I ask the members opposite when they make their next speeches: what would their plan be if they were to keep this? Would they be increasing the taxes even further on utes? Is that the option they’d be taking? Is that the option they’d be picking?

Scott Willis: Yes.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Would they say, “Oh no, we’re going to”—the Greens say yes. The Greens are very keen on more taxes on utes. They want to tax our farmers and tradies. They hate the farmers. The Greenies hate the farmers. They want our farmers gone. That is exactly what the Green Party wants. They hate our farmers here in New Zealand. They hate the productive part of our economy, which is absolutely appalling. On this side of the House, we back our farmers in New Zealand. That’s why we’re passing a range of policies to help support our farmers here in New Zealand.

So what they’d do—well, the Greens, they’d increase the ute tax. They think, what, $10,000, $20,000 for a ute tax? They’d probably go higher. The Labour Party—would they reduce the electric vehicle subsidy, which would make the scheme more ineffective, or would they just say, “We’ll put more taxpayer funding into it”? Well, I’m sorry to tell the Labour Party, but they have left the Government books in an absolute mess. But their answer would be to borrow more money—borrow more money from future generations to subsidise people who can already afford to buy these cars and who will continue to buy these cars and who don’t need a subsidy. That would be the choice that the Labour Party would be facing.

On this side of the House, we see this as a fiscally irresponsible scheme. It is inequitable for our farmers, our tradies, people with larger families needing to buy larger cars to be able to transport their children to and from school and do the things that they need to do. We actually think this scheme needs to go, and that is what this piece of legislation does.

But we’re also confident that there will continue to be an increased uptake of electric vehicles in New Zealand, and that is because car manufacturers around the world are switching from internal combustion engine vehicles to electric vehicles and hybrids and other low-emission technology. Battery technology is continuing to advance rapidly and at pace, and those are the types of vehicles which will be imported to New Zealand, and the choices will be made available to New Zealanders. We are confident that that uptake will continue, and we will support that uptake by continuing to invest in the electric vehicle charging network, which New Zealanders need to have the confidence to be able to buy these vehicles, to be able to get past the range anxiety, which is one of the biggest inhibitors for people actually purchasing an electric vehicle. And we’re going to supercharge that investment by supporting the private sector through deregulation where there is regulation with barriers which get in the way, by providing support to ensure that we can actually get that supercharging going.

That is what the role of Government is to do: invest in the infrastructure that we need rather than just in subsidies and cash being paid out—

Grant McCallum: Ideology.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —which is the ideological approach—the failed ideological approach—of the former Government on the other side of the House.

So this bill gives effect to what was committed to by the National Party, ACT Party, and New Zealand First Party in our coalition agreements. I acknowledge all of the coalition partners in their support and I thank them for their support so far in the passage through this House and their continued support as we progress this legislation through the House, and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Well, that was a concession speech if ever I heard one—that was a concession speech if ever I heard one. In my first contribution on this bill I talked about the leadership aspirations of the Minister of Transport. They are well and truly down the road, gone, because that was just a pathetic attempt from the Hon Simeon Brown to justify this Government’s attempt to move in this particular direction.

We had heard that this is about going back to the future. It is back to the future. This is a Government, whether it be a three-headed monster or something else, that loves to use the word “back”—backwards-focused; back whatever. This is something that clearly is back to the future.

Again, let’s also remind ourselves that it comes at a time when the House again is sitting in urgency to progress legislation that this new Government thinks—

Grant McCallum: Important legislation.

TANGI UTIKERE: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I note that Mr McCallum was objecting whilst he was on his feet. I appreciate that the member may not have been here for some time, but it’s a well-established convention that members need to be in place.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I didn’t see that. If that is the case, you’ll stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Grant McCallum: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): And just a reminder, Mr Utikere is dead right. You cannot improve your position to improve your voice contribution, and you certainly cannot walk around like you’re in a pub on a Friday night yelling. So, thank you. Mr Utikere, you can—did you stop the clock for that?

TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The House is in urgency to progress legislation that this new Government clearly thinks is a priority because it sits within their 100-day plan. But it’s very clear that this piece of legislation is a roll-back on climate. It is an absolute roll-back on climate.

Now, the House is under urgency. That’s one thing. But the other is that this bill has not had the normal process of going through a select committee, and the Minister of Transport should hang his head in shame that members of the community, the hard-working folk around this country, organisations and other groups within and outside of the sector, have not had an opportunity to submit on this particular bill. The select committee process is often set aside for things that are extremely rare, and, actually, I will point out that there is not even a truncated select committee process. Members will know that, in terms of the history of the House, there have been opportunities to have—even if it’s a one-day select committee process, it still provides the opportunity for organisations and individuals, even if it was selected individuals or organisations that would be asked to submit. So the Minister of Transport has clearly indicated that he is not interested in listening to the hard-working folk of this country; he is not interested in listening to the various organisations that exist within the sector; that he knows best. And I think Kiwis around the country will judge for themselves whether they think the Minister of Transport, who is new in the role, is on to a good thing. If that is how he intends to go about engaging with communities of interest in his portfolio, it is an absolute shambles and a shame that that is the approach that he has chosen to take.

It’s also interesting that this clearly is a Government that is very prepared to simply pull up the ladder from under them after households, like the Prime Minister’s household, have benefited from this very scheme that has been put in place. I also think that many would think about whether or not it is appropriate for that to be the case; perhaps there are some members who have a conflict of interest in relation to this within the Government. You know, it’s a sad day when this House has to set aside other time to spend focusing on removing the very rebate that the Prime Minister’s household himself has benefited from.

We hear from members opposite that it’s about, actually, not benefiting the rich. It’s not about that at all; it’s about making sure that it’s a fair process. So members opposite I think will be interested to see that when we move into committee stage, it’s the intention of this side of the House to put forward some amendments that might provide an opportunity for members to reflect on, indeed.

Since we haven’t had an opportunity to have this bill go to select committee, I think it’s important that the House, whether it’s in committee or not, is aware of some of the concerns and some of the feedback that certainly I have been made aware of since this announcement was made to progress this piece of legislation. I’m sure that other members will do the same. You know, we’ve heard from a number already, including my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor, who simply said that this has been, when we reflect on this particular scheme, a very good investment in reducing our emissions. And it’s very clear that the Government doesn’t have alternative plans. I look forward, actually, to putting questions to the Minister around exactly that: what are the alternative plans that they seek to put in place to, effectively, meet the needs of climate change to reduce our emissions as we are required to do in terms of our global responsibilities? I think that is something, not just as a global citizen, that many people around Aotearoa New Zealand would expect that the Government turns its mind to. So I look forward to hearing from the Minister around that.

It’s also very clear that this is a scheme that clearly has encouraged people to reflect, I guess, on their personal responsibility, but also those in corporate sectors to think about what change they can take, what change they can make, and this is clearly a scheme for many that has been a positive opportunity.

Yesterday, alongside others, I’m sure, I received some information from a number of organisations. One I just want to start with, and that’s from Drive Electric, which is a not-for-profit organisation—I’m sure this was circulated to other members as well. But they start out by indicating that there is a compelling case for electric vehicle (EV) incentives, and just at the very start of what they’d sent through, “New research shows that the new Government’s policy to remove the Clean Car Discount and weaken the Clean Car Standard could mean between 100,000 and 350,000 fewer electric cars on New Zealand roads by 2030”—fewer cars by 2030—“and increasing emissions by between 900 and 3,000 kilotonnes.” But, also, that it will “also increase costs to the economy by between $900 million and $3.5 billion”—that’s right; between $900 million and $3.5 billion, mainly due to an increase in importing fossil fuels. So this is a Government that is wanting to pursue this with that particular screenshot as the background to it, that particular cost to our economy, that particular cost to the globe as well.

They also, in terms of a further document that they sent through, which relates to some work by Concept Consulting, indicate that if policies and initiatives such as this are actually removed, then there is absolutely an expectation that the EV percentage of the sales mix to fall to similar levels to actually prior to the incentive coming in, prior to this scheme coming into place. That’s really quite an indictment on the Minister of Transport wanting to lead this piece of work for communities and for NGOs, for businesses, for individuals, for families as well, because we don’t have the select committee process. I’ve had a number of constituents from my own constituency of Palmerston North, but also around the country, who have indicated that, actually, this does make the difference for them in making the choice between whether they are actually able to transition to a lower-emission household or not. For many families, this is a big thing in terms of encouragement to making that decision easier.

One of my constituents said for them, they’re going to have to save up a little bit longer. That means that the closer they are to a lower emissions future for them, their household, and their family is just one step further away as a result of this Government wanting to take limited to no action on climate change. And let’s also be very clear that this is happening at a time where the globe is just coming off the end of COP28, where the focus is on the need to take responsibility. What sort of sad particular view does that send from our country where our Government is saying that an incentive that encourages people to take the choice for them and their whānau, which is an easier choice, is actually no longer going to be an option? It is no longer going to be an option.

So, on this side of the House, we will be focused over the coming hours on, yes, scrutinising this bill. Our fundamental view is that this is a bad piece of legislation, but, none the less, we will be putting questions to the Minister because he is accountable to this House in terms of explaining why it is that he has brought this dire piece of legislation at this time, in urgency, without any reference to a select committee process, without any opportunity for our wider community to submit and for their views to be heard. So it will be dependent on members of this House to reflect and share with others the views that have been articulated to them, because there is no other option for the community to participate in this process.

They say, “People voted”. Well, should we talk about smoke-free legislation? You know, where do you stand on that? Oh, they’re all silent now, aren’t they? All silent waiting for the smoko break, probably. Well, I tell you this: it’s one thing to say that we went to an election and they told us this; well, there are many things that this Government went to the election on and they have failed to deliver, because they are a Government that has not been able to deliver. They took their time trying to actually form one and now they’re in a sad state of affairs—many of us will continue to hold this Government to account. We oppose this bill.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): I reiterate that we are all in this together. We have to tackle the climate crisis together, and that requires us to look at the system. It’s very easy in politics to frame everything in an individual way and talk about individuals, but we have to look at the system and how we can tweak the system to get better outcomes for all New Zealanders in a way that is fair.

That’s why I would ask members in the Government benches to listen carefully to my speech. Because I’m going to lay out the rationale for the Clean Car Discount and the evidence that it actually was reducing emissions in a fair way; that it is popular and supported by New Zealanders despite the misinformation attack ads perpetuated by the National Party and the ACT Party over two years, mischaracterising the policy so that New Zealanders didn’t get the full opportunity to understand just how beneficial this policy was to our country.

But no matter what, despite the repeal today, we’ve saved 2 megatonnes of carbon, we’ve saved 70 million litres of petrol a year, there is $100 million a year that New Zealand is spending less on imported oil, and it would have been more if they’d carried on the policy. So this is a policy that not only reduces emissions, it saves New Zealand money as a country, it reduces our reliance on imported fossil fuel, and it did something that was considered impossible before it was brought in: our average carbon emissions per kilometre of the new vehicles coming into our fleet—this is not the existing fleet. We have a massive existing fleet of over 4 million vehicles that was not affected by this policy; over 400,000 to 500,000 utes, probably, that were not affected by the policy. But the new vehicles coming into New Zealand emitted 186 grams per kilometre on average before this policy, and within two years the average was down to 121 grams per kilometre. That’s on par with European countries that had been far more advanced than we were at having fuel economy standards, at having price incentives like the Clean Car Discount, and that was a 35 percent reduction. So not only did we reduce carbon emissions and pollution but we reduced the amount of money we were paying to power our vehicles, collectively, as a country. That’s a direct productivity and economic benefit to “New Zealand Inc”.

So that’s why it’s a really good policy. The numbers don’t lie, and I know that this graph isn’t as big as I would like, but what you can see is the impact of the policy; that we’re importing fewer fossil fuel vehicles than we were importing low-emissions vehicles—not just electric, but low-emission. So one of the problems that New Zealand was facing—and this is a problem for business and for households in New Zealand—was that we had no fuel economy standards. We’re one of only three countries in the OECD to not have fuel economy standards—along with Australia and Russia—and we had no price incentive at the point of purchase. So the vehicle industry was not prioritising low-emissions vehicles to our market, so New Zealanders didn’t even have the choice. There was, for example, more fuel-efficient utes on the market in the UK that were not available in New Zealand before this policy.

So this isn’t just about influencing the choice that New Zealanders make when they go to purchase a vehicle—and by the way, over 50 percent of all brand new vehicles purchased in New Zealand are purchased by businesses, not by households. The vast majority of households, and I would tell you: there is not a single low-income household in New Zealand buying a brand new vehicle in New Zealand. So the entire market for new to New Zealand vehicles is wealthier than average as individual households or as businesses.

So what the price incentive did is it let the vehicle manufacturers and vendors prioritise low-emissions vehicles to our market, and I have an anecdote about this. So my friends, in 2021, wanted to buy an EV. They were talking to Hyundai. They said, “We want the new Ioniq.” and they were told they were going to have to wait at least six months to get one. The day after the Clean Car Discount was announced, they said, “We can have it within four weeks.” So this policy, the Clean Car Discount, changed the market of vehicles that were available to New Zealanders.

The highest-emitting vehicles are the most profitable for the vehicle manufacturers—that’s why they like to prioritise high-emitting vehicles and that’s why they spend most of their money advertising SUVs and utes as lifestyle vehicles, not work vehicles. They advertise them as lifestyle vehicles and they try to sell as many as possible because they make more profit off that. But that’s why you need fuel economy standards and you need the price incentive at the point of purchase.

So this number doesn’t lie, OK? This number doesn’t lie. If the new National-ACT Government actually has any way of achieving the carbon budgets that they’ve signed up to, they are now going to have to rely on increasing the price of fuel. Now, that affects not just the vehicles coming into New Zealand—it really doesn’t affect the vehicles coming into New Zealand—but it affects every single person using a fossil fuel - powered vehicle in the country. So now you’re saying, “Oh, we need to reduce emissions, we have to put up the carbon price in the ETS.” People have no choice but to pay more or drive less. So that’s why trying to do it through the ETS isn’t a good idea: because now the farmers are going to have to pay more for fuel because we haven’t imported more zero-emissions vehicles to reduce emissions.

So I know maths is hard for the National Party—that is obvious—but the maths says that you are going to make it easier for farmers and easier for those tradies who need to drive utes to do their job and not be affected by the high price of fuel if you have a policy like the Clean Car Discount, which results in more zero- and low-emissions vehicles being brought into the country. That is the truth, and the policy is fair. We have polling that shows, despite the misinformation attack ads that have been out there waging a culture war instead of trying to constructively solve a problem that affects everyone, that will affect our farmers probably more than anyone else—the climate crisis is going to affect our farmers. It has already affected our farmers. It has already affected our rural areas: billions of dollars in damage because of storms that are directly caused by human-caused climate change, and those are going to keep flowing in. The world is looking to us, New Zealand, just like every other country to pull our weight and do our bit, and we are capable of doing that.

When I presented this policy to the imported vehicle association, the VIA, I talked to them about how my grandfather went to World War II—and I’m sure many of your family members did as well, and they made a huge sacrifice to do the right thing. When it comes to the climate crisis—something that is affecting the whole world—we will all have to make changes. The question is: are we willing to do our bit? And from the National and ACT parties, the New Zealand First Party, the answer is, “No, we’re not going to do our bit. We’re going to wage a culture war rather than constructively looking at practical solutions that will actually achieve the outcomes we want, that will improve productivity, that will reduce cost.”

The reality is they’re either not going to make any attempt whatsoever to meet our carbon budgets, and therefore we’re not going to play our part on the world stage and we’re going to be penalised in our free-trade agreements where we’ve committed to those targets; or they’re going to have to put up the carbon price so much that everyday New Zealanders, when they go out to try and drive around because they don’t have more fuel-efficient vehicles because we’ve imported hundreds of thousands fewer electric vehicles as a result of repealing this bill—

Simon Court: I haven’t had enough coffee to understand this.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —they’re going to have to pay more to drive around the country. Because you’re relying only on the ETS.

Simon Court very accurately says he can’t understand, and I can see members opposite are having a difficult time following me because it is a little bit complex. But that’s why it’s so important for New Zealanders. It’s our responsibility—it’s the responsibility of Government—to do the work, to look at the practical solutions, to look at the system and say, “What is going to reduce the average emissions coming from new vehicles imported to New Zealand?” The answer is a combination of fuel economy standards and a price incentive at the point of purchase—exactly what this Clean Car Discount was. The Clean Car Discount was a huge success, and this Government will never take that away from the Greens or from New Zealand: that we saved 2 megatonnes of carbon through this policy; that we kicked off a massive increase in the market for zero-emissions vehicles, for electric vehicles.

But the truth is that they are going to slow down progress now. They’re going to slow down progress, and that means it’s going to be more expensive later, it’s going to be harder for New Zealanders to access second-hand electric vehicles, because without the price incentive, we’re going to import fewer electric vehicles, which means there’s less vehicles in the second-hand fleet for New Zealanders to access.

It will be worse for farmers because they’re going to have to spend more money on their utes when the carbon price goes up, and they’re going to be hit again and again by storms and our fair-trade—sorry, free-trade agreements; I wish we had fair-trade agreements. In our free-trade agreement with the EU, we’re going to be penalised. Our farmers are going to be penalised because we’re going to be seen to be pariahs on the world stage, and not doing our bit when we could have done something that was good for the economy, that was good for the climate, and that was fair. That is the reality of this National - ACT - New Zealand First dinosaur Government taking us back into the dark ages with their culture wars.

SIMON COURT (ACT): I would like to invite that member, Julie Anne Genter, to nominate what kind of dinosaur she thinks I am. Some days I come to work, I fancy myself as a pterodactyl, soaring high above the forests of ancient New Zealand. But today, I feel like a T. rex, smashing and stomping—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Dinosaurs are real and right there.

SIMON COURT: —stupid policy passed by the previous Government—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ms Genter—Ms Genter. Just—hold on, stop the clock. Return to your seat, stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No. Sit down—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: I’m leaving.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Then stand up. Now, withdraw.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Thank you. Please do not yell as you’re leaving the Chamber.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, that’s what happens when you mess with the T. rex or the Speaker.

Now, to those New Zealanders listening to Parliament or watching on Parliament TV today, we are proud, in the ACT Party, as part of the coalition Government, that the National-ACT coalition agreement commitment to repeal the ute tax will happen before Christmas. It is on the 100-day plan; we’re going to get it done. We’re just a few weeks into Parliament and we’re already making a significant difference in New Zealanders’ lives.

Now, what we’ve heard from the Opposition—that previous group of political parties that passed the ute tax bill—is that this bill will lead to some kind of climate catastrophe, that our emissions will go through the roof, and that only with this policy would New Zealand’s transport emissions be reduced. Well, it ignores one basic fact. The previous speaker, Julie Anne Genter, could not explain why this policy was necessary; she gave an overly complicated description of why it was necessary and how it would work. There’s a much simpler solution: the emissions trading scheme. Every single vehicle that fills up with petrol or diesel in New Zealand pays for their emissions under the emissions trading scheme—somewhere between $9 or $10, maybe $12, for a 50-litre tank of petrol or diesel. That is an incentive to reduce fuel and move to a more efficient vehicle. Now, that is the most simple solution available to New Zealand consumers and businesses.

This policy, the clean vehicle discount, or ute tax, was completely unnecessary. It ignored the trade-offs that were obvious to the ACT Party when we were in Opposition proposing that this bill wasn’t necessary. The trade-offs? A $300 million deficit, now, between the revenue collected under the scheme and what was paid out to people to subsidise them to buy electric vehicles. That $300 million deficit is a terrible trade-off. We have all kinds of infrastructure in New Zealand desperate for investment, and yet the previous Government chose instead to invest taxpayer money into supplying electric vehicles to New Zealand’s wealthiest people, as the former speaker, Julie Anne Genter, pointed out.

We’re pleased that this bill will repeal the ute tax, and we look forward to stopping the transfer of wealth from consumers and taxpayers to others who don’t need it, and restoring sensible, practical, public policy.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Mr Speaker, thank you. New Zealand First continues to support the repeal of the clean vehicle discount scheme. May I just endorse the fine speech that we’ve heard from Mr Court—one of the more brave speeches I’ve heard. Starting out with an anecdote about being a dinosaur, he did well to pull that one round.

The last point that he made, and that’s been introduced to me since the first reading, is the $302 million fiscal hole that this scheme was running into. This is a time when we’ve got a $3.4 billion Budget deficit and a huge infrastructure crisis, but yet the Labour Government chose to subsidise Teslas—absolutely unbelievable.

Where I would take issue with Julie Anne Genter is she talked about how we need tweaking solutions—well, this is kind of what that was. We actually don’t; we need step changes in decarbonising. This is why the electrify New Zealand programme—that big picture stuff to massively scale-up our generation of renewable energy, wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro. If you’d listened to Minister Jones yesterday or the day before, you would have heard about the new fast-track planning legislation which is going to make this stuff happen. We’ve lost all ability to build things in this country, and this Government is going to turn that around. We are going to build stuff, and this piece of legislation will do far more than taxing tradies and farmers who might want a ute, or low-income families that may want a people mover. I cannot believe how out of touch the Labour Party is with their core working-class base.

In fact, I will give an exception, Mr Speaker, to your good self. I had the pleasure of accompanying you, recently, to your electorate and going to the Johnsonville working men’s club, where you were well received by your—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): We don’t bring the Speaker into these debates, do we, Mr Patterson, as an experienced member?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: Apologies, Mr Speaker. I accompanied the member from Ōhāriu into his electorate, where he was well received. In the car park, I did not see Teslas; I saw utes. We did talk to tradies. The president of the club is a painter and decorator. Those are the people that you are punishing. It’s no wonder that that the member from Ōhāriu was one of the few Labour MPs to retain an electorate seat.

We have committed to putting some certainty around the emissions trading scheme, which the Labour Government tinkered with to the point of absolutely trashing it—against James Shaw’s recommendations. And we have sent clear signals to the market.

We’re doing other things, too, in the macro. Low-methane genetics and blue carbon have the ability to solve a lot of our problems. We’re doing this sensibly, not with nanny State micro-managing solutions that disadvantage some members of our public over others. So New Zealand First continue to support the introduction of this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Darleen Tana: Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Certainly. Now, I’m going to have to consult my list here, unless you offer me your name—it might be easier.

Darleen Tana: I’m Darleen Tana for the Green Party.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Darleen Tama.

Darleen Tana: Tana—as in ton of awesome. Kia ora.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Go ahead.

DARLEEN TANA (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Whare for this chance to take this call. I stand in opposition to the repeal of the Clean Car Discount scheme, and I stand on the basic tenets of—well, firstly, actually, New Zealanders want to engage in their personal responsibility to significantly reduce their carbon emissions, and, frankly, if it ain’t broke, then don’t fix it.

Having a look at the submissions that came in on the original legislation, one thing stood out for me. It was recognition amongst the submissions that countries and car manufacturers around the world are all doing their thing, and we need to protect ourselves from being a dumping ground from receiving the dirtiest cars or the dirtiest vehicles. I am a business person too. I like things to be efficient. I like a good business case, all right? When I had a look at this, what I saw was that—in terms of efficiency and performance—when we have the combination of the Clean Car Discount and the Clean Car Standard and applied them at the level of the supply into the country, because we gave the market the very clear dual signalling, we saw the vehicle importers encouraged to bring a greater choice of electric vehicles into the New Zealand market. We saw them coming in faster, just as the Hon Julie Anne Genter referred to earlier. So for me, that’s a win for the people in exercising their personal responsibility, and with two megatonnes of carbon dioxide saving, it’s a win for the planet as well.

When I come to the matter of costs, I’ve heard the kōrero from that side of the House that a loss or a fiscal hole of $300 million is there, and this is the reason why they are pulling the plug. The clean car rebates and fee scheme was designed to be reviewed and adjusted regularly, so that the fees could generate enough revenue to cover such costs. What I’ve also observed is that there was actually an implementation delay in the period between when rebates were granted and when the fees were applied. That’s an implementation issue. The scheme is not broke. It just requires that that side of the House read the user manual and use it as per design. Fiscal neutrality was designed over a 10-year period, and here we are, not even 18 months before they are withdrawing early.

I just want to also offer a perspective. In France, they introduced rebate 20 years ago. It was costing around €2,000-3,000, and that’s evolved to €30,000 between 2008 and 2025, so over a 20-year period. The largest fee here in New Zealand is $6,900 on the most polluting vehicles in New Zealand, which, let us be clear, only the rich fullas can really understand at a retail of around $50-60,000.

Frankly, if the Government is truly concerned about the workers in this country, then maybe, just maybe, you might want to consider actually implementing higher corporate taxes, or introducing a capital gains tax. Now I hear that the Government is wanting to put everything back into the emissions trading scheme. But come on. Members on that side of the House: truly, we know this will not do anything or send any signals to the market. What it will do, though, is impose further costs on to the oil suppliers who will pass that on to the average people.

We’ve heard about blunt mechanisms a lot in the last couple of days, but jeez, this takes the cake. We are in a climate crisis. Two megatonnes of carbon dioxide is nothing to smirk at. We need fuel economy standards and pricing incentives at the supply end to move us forward. Tēnā tātou.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise again to support this great change today from our transport Minister. January 1st is going to be a great day for those of us who need to buy utes to run our businesses. It’s a day we can finally go into the local dealer and purchase a ute that we need so we can help drive New Zealand’s productivity and, therefore, get on with life without the restrictions of the previous legislation.

I’ve noticed with interest the amount of attacks that have been sent on the farming sector about our commitment to emissions reduction. Well, I’ll just point a couple of things out that a few people on the other side of the House might not be aware of, one of which is that Fonterra recently announced that we’re going to have a 30 percent reduction in our carbon intensity on-farm emissions by 2030. That is our goal. And Nestlé, one of our biggest customers, are very happy with that. We understand our obligations. We’re doing our bit. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Well, this certainly is an interesting debate and I’m very much looking forward to the committee stage where we get to ask the Minister some very detailed questions, because there are a lot of questions that we have on this side of the House. But what we do know is that this is yet another piece of legislation that this Government is putting up which is about dragging New Zealand backwards.

Now, I’ve heard speakers in this debate ask why we need this. Well, I think it shows something when members on the Government benches are asking why we need it. So let’s go back to the very basics. New Zealand has signed up to something called a nationally determined contribution (NDC) in terms of our climate change targets. This is something that was agreed by the John Key Government. In order to reach that NDC, when we came into Government, we needed to put together a plan because there was no plan of how to reach our nationally determined contribution. What that resulted in was multi-partisan agreement on an approach to climate change, which was that we would have carbon budgets and that we would have emission reduction plans sector by sector that would show what work that sector had to do to reach New Zealand’s targets.

Now, transport has some work to do. Transport is responsible for a large number of emissions and, therefore, there are a number of emissions reductions that are needed. Light vehicles are a critical part of the contributions to our vehicle emissions. In order to do that, people either need to stop travelling in cars and mode shift or they need to switch the kind of cars they are driving and that is to electric cars. In order to do that and to get the kind of uptake that is required—and let’s be very clear, because, Madam Speaker, this is a debate about specifics and I am yet to hear a member on the Government benches venture into the realm of specifics and tell us what they are going to do to substitute in the emissions reduction plan (ERP). There is a legislative requirement to do that, Madam Speaker.

The ERP sets out the target to reduce transport emissions by 41 percent from 2019 levels by 2035. And the ERP also sets a further target to increase zero-emission vehicles to 30 percent of the light fleet by 2035. Now, if there is not to be a Clean Car Discount, how are we going to achieve that? We have heard from Government members that the emissions trading scheme (ETS) will do that. I am looking forward to contributions that tell us at what price does the ETS have to be to drive the behavioural change that will cause the switch. Because every piece of research that has been produced has said that it currently is not enough. So I want to know from members opposite: what will the ETS price be that will be required to drive that behavioural change?

It hasn’t happened in any other jurisdiction. We have our independent Climate Change Commission, and the report released just this week tells us that there needs to be supplementary measures to the ETS in order to drive the behavioural change. They’re very clear on that. So that is something that I am looking forward to us getting into the nitty-gritty and the detail. I’m sure the Minister will come armed with the details, because, of course, this is a Minister that thinks he doesn’t have to release the regulatory impact statement (RIS) before the legislation is passed. He’s told New Zealanders they can request it under the Official Information Act and read it after the legislation is passed. So I’m sure he’s got the details, because a Minister that is that confident must be all over every detail of the policy, and we’ll see that when it comes to committee stage.

Then the other argument we’ve had is, “We’ll let the ETS do it.” So I’m looking forward to knowing the modelled pricing of the ETS that will be required for that. He’s telling us, “We’ll build it and they will come.”, that there will be a charging infrastructure, and this is part of the National Party commitments. There’s only one thing: this is a throuple, and in the coalition agreement with the ACT Party—and I read—they poured some cold water on it. They haven’t said they can just get on with the roll-out of the 10,000 public electric vehicle (EV) chargers by 2030 that the National Party promised in their manifesto commitment. They’re saying: show us the business case—show us the business case. So I look forward to the Minister telling us, when he’s in the chair, what the time line is, how many there’ll be, are they AC chargers, are they DC chargers, where will they be—all this kind of detail. Because if this is the kind of policy we are relying on to get the kinds of upticks that I have talked about in my speech, we’re going to need to see some detail.

Then we have heard the crocodile tears of the Government benches over the equity considerations of this policy. The problem is those members need to go and look at some detail. And again, I point those members to the very fine document released by the independent Climate Change Commission this week on advice on their second emissions budget that reports on the equity provisions of this policy. Because that was something that we thought about as a Government when we implemented it, and is the very reason that we made the Clean Car Discount apply to New Zealand new second-hand vehicles. I know, and I do represent an electorate—I represent an electorate of people who would never dream usually of buying a brand new car. They buy their cars second-hand, and it is the very reason that we included New Zealand new second-hand electric vehicles within this.

Let’s put some facts into this debate, and I’m going to read you what the Climate Change Commission says around the equity provisions of this. It says, “The second emissions budget presents opportunities for the Government to ensure more equitable access to EVs. Second-hand vehicles have been a major portion of imported vehicles, accounting for approximately 40 percent of light vehicles registered. For many, these vehicles are more affordable than new vehicles and have provided a critical means of transport. During the second emissions budget, supply of second-hand EVs may be constrained” and goes on to say that more work needs to be done.

I take you also to the work that was done on the previous policy, when we looked about for what we were going to do to amend the policy. It said: “While there is evidence that wealthier New Zealanders are more likely to adopt EVs—and by implication benefit from the Clean Car Discount—purchase data suggests that ‘average New Zealanders’ are likely to have benefited most. To date, markedly more buyers of used-imports received rebates (56.2 percent) than buyers of new vehicles (38.5 percent). At the same time, fewer buyers of used-imports paid charges (14.7 percent) than buyers of new vehicles (39.7 percent).” Unfortunately for the members on the Government benches, their claims to finally be standing up for working New Zealanders, despite cutting employment as a Reserve Bank consideration and removing fair pay agreements yesterday, fall on deaf ears when you look at the evidence, when you see how the discount has been applied, who’s been benefiting from it, and who has been paying it.

So I think it is time, given that we’ve got a Government that is so confident in itself that it’s passing this under urgency—no select committee process and a Minister who has the RIS locked in the safe in his office rather than releasing it to the people of New Zealand—that we get down to some details on this, because details matter. And I look forward to the Government being able to answer the plethora of questions that we will put to them in the committee stage, because listening to this debate has only led me to write down more and more questions. We have a Government that is taking New Zealand backwards; it is done for no other reason than “You guys did it, therefore, we want to reverse it.”

Look around the world—to those on the Government benches—and you will see conservative Governments around the world have implemented similar schemes. This is not something that should be about the political divide. This should be about how we as a nation meet our commitments and our targets to reduce our climate emissions. I want to see what the Government is going to do to meet that. They are scrapping—and make no mistake about it—one of the most successful schemes we have had to reduce our domestic emissions and they are signing New Zealand up to pay other countries to decarbonise rather than backing New Zealanders.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Just following on from that contribution from the member Megan Woods about stating some facts, I point her to the departmental disclosure statement, which says, “The scheme has challenges that are likely to intensify the longer the scheme is in place. The main challenges of the scheme are as follows: it is difficult to make financially sustainable and self-financing: it poses ongoing equity and fairness concerns: it will become less effective over time as electric vehicle prices fall, battery technology improves, and model variety increases: it requires constant changes to its rebates and charges that impose significant costs to vehicle suppliers and consumers.”

I say to hard-working farmers, tradies, and all-round good New Zealanders who need their utes for everyday life that common sense has returned to the Government benches and help is on its way. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is my first opportunity to speak in this 54th Parliament. I’m obviously disappointed that it is on such a regressive piece of legislation, but I am delighted to congratulate you on becoming a presiding officer.

Now, we just heard the last speaker referring to the departmental disclosure statement, and I would note there it does say under “Regulatory impact statement”, Cabinet has decided “to suspend the requirement for regulatory impact statements for decisions relating to 100-Day-Plan proposals (taken within the 100 days) [which] solely involve the repeal of legislation.”

We know, in fact, that the departments involved in this legislation had already prepared a draft regulatory impact statement (RIS), yet we have not seen it, despite its existence. The Minister made a cynical interjection before and made cynical statements to the media that “Oh, well, the Opposition can OIA it.” Of course, the Opposition can OIA it, but the point is, and the point of why that comment is cynical, is that we are doing, in urgency, all stages of the bill. All stages. That is very different from urgency of one stage, sending a piece of legislation to select committee so that people can, even in a shortened time, make submissions on it. This is all stages. Soon we will be in the committee stage of the bill. All here on a Thursday morning when of course the date says the 12 December.

James Meager: Do RMA reforms ring a bell?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m hearing about Resource Management Act (RMA) reform. Well, that’s interesting. That is an interesting interjection, because the RMA reform had a very full submission process. In fact, when submissions were open over Christmas, there was much debate from the Opposition about how it was so unfair to have a six-week submission process that was over the Christmas break. So, of course, that was extended time and time again to enable a very good process for some very fine legislation.

Arena Williams: So it wasn’t even truncated. It wasn’t even a truncated process.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: It was not truncated. There were periods during that large process that were in urgency, but they were stage by stage. That is totally different from this bill, which is every single stage all at once. Of course, there are arguments for doing all stages of a bill at once, if perhaps there has been a natural disaster. But even then, it is not good practice, and we should always do things like having a short submission process at the very least—none of which we have here.

But, of course, the irony is—and we had the last speaker, Tom Rutherford, read out that statement from the departmental disclosure statement—we don’t even need to be here debating this legislation, because the legislation sets up regulations, and all that I’ve heard from the other side saying so far about, “Oh, this scheme, it needs reviews. It’s not working perfectly.”, that can all be done through the regulations. We will be asking the Minister questions about this in the committee stage.

Going back to why that we had this piece of legislation in the first place—this very sensible Act—it is because, as the Hon Dr Megan Woods said before, we need to do things to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. This is very specific to our carbon emissions, and you will see all through the Act and the repeal legislation that we are talking about the pollution, the pollution of the carbon dioxide from some cars, and how we cost that pollution to incentivise behaviour so that people have low-emitting vehicles. We want that, because we have signed up to international agreements. We have trade agreements.

If farmers are worried about the future of farming, they need to be worried about their carbon pollution and to reduce it as much as possible—and for the whole country to reduce our carbon pollution as much as possible. One of the ways of doing that—it is no means the only way—but one of the ways of doing that is to electrify our fleet and to have these electric vehicles (EVs). And we know that because of this scheme, we have many more EVs on the road than we would have had without this scheme. And that is progress, and it’s about to be taken away. Shame.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill. Electric vehicles are a great thing for New Zealand, they’re a great thing for our environment, and I’m proud to drive one, but I didn’t claim a discount on it. We don’t need that. There are plenty of incentives to make this shift. What we don’t need is this ideologically driven policy that we’ve been stuck with that is punishing everyday New Zealanders—that is punishing the taxpayer as they subsidise people that don’t need the help.

Members opposite have asked for some specifics. Well, let me give you some. The tradies in my electorate, in Ōtaki, the good people of Horowhenua and Kāpiti—they don’t have another option. They don’t have another option. They don’t need to be forking out taxpayer dollars to support Tesla owners. The farmers that need to drive up the western faces of the Tararua Ranges, they don’t have an electric option and they don’t need another ute tax, and neither do the growers that are providing 30 percent of our leafy greens for New Zealand.

I’ll tell you what’s happened to the cost of living crisis. You think it was bad enough before this came in—we can tackle that, and we need to make sensible changes. That’s why I’m commending this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I was on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee when we heard the submissions on this bill and I remember the fear of many people about what would happen as a result. The manufacturers told us that they wouldn’t be able to get enough vehicles in. We were told that there wouldn’t be alternatives to the kinds of vehicles available. All of those things turned out to be rubbish. We’ve done good; this has been an extremely successful scheme and as a result there are less poisons flying around the electorate of Mt Albert, because there are real issues with the kinds of emissions.

It’s actually one of those schemes that is neutral as to who it affects because, actually, if you’ve got a really good petrol low-emissions vehicle it got the discount too. So there are all these vehicles that are going to be brought in that do harm versus vehicles that are actually not even electric but do good. Those will no longer be available to ordinary New Zealanders when they become second-hand vehicles. Now I just want to explain that for the public because they don’t necessarily know what the point of the scheme is or how it works, and maybe that needs to be something that the new backbenchers in the Government understand too. This is a scheme that’s not about the person who buys the vehicle in the first instance, because they’re wealthy. Like, let’s face it, if you can buy a ute that was new, you’re not your hard-struggling tradie or your hard-struggling farmer, because it’s a new vehicle, right? Actually, those people buy second-hand vehicles. So if you front-foot it with the new vehicles, what you get is the moving into the second-hand market. So about now we’ll start to see those vehicles turn up in the second-hand market and be available to people much cheaper because we’ve created a pipeline and that’s what Government does well, right? It creates a pipeline and encouragement. This had a carrot, this had a stick, this had all the things that would work, and it did.

I wonder if that’s why we haven’t seen the RIS. The RIS, by the way—for the normal public who don’t use words like “RIS”—is a regulatory impact statement. So it looks at what the effect of the legislation would be. And this is not a situation where you wouldn’t want to see one of those on repeal. It’s not a situation where there is nothing to be seen. In fact, there’s a lot to be seen; there’s the evidence from the last year. It would be really interesting to see what’s in that regulatory impact statement, because there’s been a year of something people said was not going to work, and guess what! It’s worked and it’s worked really well and we would be able to see that.

I actually think one of the best things about this bill is that we had a bill and an Act in Parliament which had regular review, which was nuanced, which allowed people to tweak it and change it as the climate changed to balance the amount that people were paying. It was a fantastic thing—it’s not a bad thing, that’s a good thing—and I think that one of the things that the new Government is finding hard to swallow is that this was something that worked. There is nothing inconsistent about this and putting chargers all around New Zealand—if that ever happens—because you can do both. You know, you can probably chew gum and walk at the same time, people, and you might need to learn to do it.

So it’s time to actually look at that RIS, isn’t it? It’s time, and I challenge the Government to give us that impact statement so we can have a look, because why are they so afraid that the public might see what the impact of this is?

Arena Williams: What might be in it?

HELEN WHITE: I wonder what might be in it? I wonder what’s in it. It’s an interesting thing for a new Government to suppress such information, isn’t it? Hot into Government and already suppressing information to the public—quite shocking really, and I’d be really interested in that if I was a journalist. I’d be interested because it shuts down the debate in this country, it shuts down information, and it allows myth-making.

Now, I really enjoyed the process of being involved in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and I enjoyed being part of the process of listening to the industry, listening to the farmers, listening to the New Zealand public on this. I really enjoyed it, but I also learnt some lessons: sometimes people do act out of fear, sometimes they act out of their own self-interest, and some people just don’t like to move with the times. Some people don’t like to change. So, yes, we heard that manufacturers would never be able to supply us with enough vehicles. Well, we have been able to get vehicles into this country; it was a much greater number than we expected that were bought in the time, and yet we don’t seem to have a problem with the pipeline of vehicles coming in. So we’re actually helping move car dealers and car manufacturers into a new greener economy.

We did really good here, people, and what a shame it is to see what’s going on now. I hope that those people who were in the Opposition at the time and were on that committee watched and listened and learnt and at least learnt to take some of those self-interested groups with a grain of salt, because they are very convincing when they tell you that they won’t be able to supply the vehicles, that it is too quick, that we should wait for the rest of the world and then do it later. All of those things are lessons that you need to learn, and I learnt during that process. I learnt what happens if you’re a bit steely, if you stick to your principles and you actually wait and see and let something play out. But you allow yourself, in the legislation, the capacity to change and to get nuanced, to actually fix any problems that come up, that you’re a bit humble about the way that you draft things, so you’ve got some flexibility in there.

I learnt a lot of good things which I intend to take into Government in the next election. I know now how to be a good Government as a result of being on committees like that. I know what works and what doesn’t and it’s such a shame to see a bunch of people listening to lobbyists who are self-interested and taking such a backward step for New Zealand, because what our young people want desperately is a future that involves less pollution, actually an addressing of climate change, actually some basic equity in this country. They want a grounded approach, and this is not grounded. This is way from grounded. This kind of reactionary policy and the suppression of the evidence—that’s the opposite of grounded. That is a Government that’s running on myth. That’s a Government that’s running on very, very old ideas of how things run.

We have this wonderful process in New Zealand in our Government that we should be guarding jealously. We have a process in Parliament where we have select committees where we don’t think we know everything when we come in here. We don’t think, “We’ve got it, just ignore everyone.” We listen to people, we take account of people’s views; it’s called the select committee process. We send something—we get a regulatory impact statement so we can see what our officials are telling us. We don’t necessarily take on board everything that they say—that’s our job, we get the ultimate judgment, but we listen first. We let those groups and those voices come through and that engages the New Zealand public. You know, I go into little primary schools and I talk to the kids in those primary schools about how great our system is in New Zealand, that we actually do have a say. And if they want to write a submission on the Clean Car Discount, and some seven-year-olds probably do, then they can. They can write one of those submissions, and we as a Parliament will listen to them and we’ll engage with them. And I have been so impressed with that process. But where is it today? Why is this so urgent? There are no roll-outs of other things at the moment. There is no actual positive response at the present time. That’s all in the wind. But we’re going to get rid of something that’s working without even looking at the evidence, without sharing the evidence with the public, without engaging with the public—without engaging with anyone, we’re going to get rid of it.

Tim van de Molen: We just engaged in an election.

HELEN WHITE: We’re not engaging here, Mr van de Molen. This isn’t engaging; this is the start of an engagement. Usually this would be the very first thing we would do, and then we would send things off to a select committee and then we would look at the evidence and then we would respond. And in fact, in that way, we’d probably be able to work together, Mr van de Molen, instead of this approach, because that’s actually the best of us.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

Debate interrupted.

Business of the House

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker—congratulations. I seek leave, notwithstanding that the House is in urgency, for there to be oral questions at 2 o’clock, as has been agreed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Bills

Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): What a great day for this coalition Government, that promised a 100-day action plan. We just heard “What is the urgency with this?” The urgency is this was one of our big campaign promises and over a million people supported it, and to think that in the first few days of this Government we’re coming out and backing businesses, small businesses, farmers, New Zealand taxpayers.

The member over there, Megan Woods, asked for numbers and evidence. Well, if a $302 million deficit on taxpayers is not enough numbers, then let’s have a look at this. What did the subsidy do? What did the tax do to on-farm inflation? The year that it was introduced, on-farm inflation for sheep and beef farmers rose to 16.3 percent, up from 10.2 percent, and Dairy New Zealand says on-farm inflation for the last three years has been at 33 percent. So, under Labour, inflation soared for our small businesses and farmers, and yet they just whacked on another tax, the ute tax, for good measure. Land prices are the lowest they’ve been in 15 years. Fertiliser, fuel, machinery, insurances, and rates have all soared under Labour. So I’m delighted to support this coalition Government’s urgency on whacking this tax, axing the ute tax. I commend the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The result corrected after originally being announced Ayes 70, Noes 51.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill.

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998 and Land Transport Management Act 2003

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. There is objection, so we will continue with Part 1.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Chair. This debate here on Part 1 makes amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Land Transport Management Act 2003. It repeals the definition of the “clean vehicle discount scheme”, it removes the regulations imposing fees and charges for purposes of the clean vehicle discount scheme, and makes a number of other changes in relation to the repeal of those definitions. It’s pretty straightforward, and I look forward to questions from members in the committee.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister of Transport for his opening remarks. There are a number of Amendment Papers that have been tabled, and we’ll certainly be working our way through those on this side of the Chamber, but the Minister has just referred to some of the pieces of legislation that this bill seeks to amend. I note from the departmental disclosure statement, which seems to be one of the only documents that appears to accompany this bill, that it is an omnibus bill. That does come to the Parliament from time to time. But I see that it amends a number of pieces of legislation.

In Part 1, in terms of reference to the Land Transport Act 1998, that is there, but also the Land Transport Management Act is in that part too. But the subsequent amendments that follow to the Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing) Regulations of 2011, the Energy Efficiency (Vehicle Energy Economy Labelling) Regulations 2007—I think it’s important that we do go through these. The final one is the revocation—as we understand it—of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Charges) Regulations 2022.

My question to the Minister is whether he is comfortable with the reference to those pieces of legislation, whether they be primary or secondary, and whether there may be other pieces of legislation that may subsequently require amendment. The genesis of my question is really around the fact that there are implications for the position of our country when it comes to climate change and whether or not there are other pieces of legislation that the Minister might be aware of that might require subsequent amendment, and, if so, what they are—if he is aware of them.

The other is just in relation to whether or not he is satisfied with clause 5, which, it seems to me, is the crux of it in terms of the repeal of section 167A of the Land Transport Act, and whether that in its entirety is what is being sought there. It would seem to me that perhaps it is, because it’s simply around the regulation-making power to impose some fees and charges purely for the purpose of the vehicle discount.

Now, there are a number of other questions that I certainly would appreciate the opportunity to put to the Minister. I guess my other question at this stage is around the involvement of officials doing work in relation to this piece of legislation and the drafting components behind that in light of no regulatory impact statement being made available to the House, and whether the impacts of this course of action in Part 1 have been well thought through, given that we are in urgency, and given that there may have been some aspects that perhaps the Minister was unable to turn his mind to that he may be in a position to be able to do so now with the benefit of time—albeit a short period of time—because, surely, there must be some consideration about some of these things not being able to be done in isolation. It may be that there is a view that they can be done in isolation, but there really needs to be some reference, I think—well, I’m interested in a response from the Minister about whether there needs to be a reference to some of those other components as part of the omnibus bill.

Then—and I guess this is more related to Part 2. But it does have an impact on the Land Transport Act, which is around the resourcing requirements being foreshadowed around the potential wind-down of the particular scheme.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is a very fundamental one for the Minister and goes to why we need any legislation at all. Of course, we could all think about what those reasons might be that we are here in the House under urgency when, of course, it is not mandatory to have these regulations.

Clause 5 of the bill repeals section 167A of the Land Transport Act 1998. Now, section 167A is “Regulations imposing fees and charges for purposes of clean vehicle discount scheme”. Obviously, this was introduced by the previous Government. This is in context of the part of the Land Transport Act that relates to regulations. There are many different regulations processes within that legislation, so this one is specifically for the clean vehicle discount scheme, and it says, without limiting those other regulation purposes, “for the purpose of promoting the transition of New Zealand’s light vehicle fleet to zero- and low-emission vehicles and reducing vehicle carbon dioxide emissions may”—and I stress that word “may”— “be made under that provision providing for fees and charges to be paid”. Then it goes on and says, at subsection (3), “Regulations made … may”—this word “may” is used again, and, at subsection (5) of section 167A, which is the one of the sections being repealed: “Regulations … may be made only on the recommendation of the Minister in accordance with subsection (7).” So, again, this is the Minister’s discretion. There is a lot of “may”.

These regulations can of course be changed, and there are some constraints in subsection (7) in that “The Minister must not recommend the making of regulations unless the Minister is satisfied—(a) that the fees or charges are appropriate to sustain a scheme designed to increase consumer demand for zero- and low-emission vehicles and decrease consumer demand for high-emission vehicles:”—a good aim, I would say, of course—“(b) that the imposition and level of fees or charges are appropriate, after considering—(i) the variety and availability of zero- and low-emission vehicles expected to enter the New Zealand light vehicle market in the following 12 to 24 months; and (ii) the market behaviour of consumers, including the nature of any continued demand for high-emission vehicles; and (iii) international and domestic climate change ambitions”—that’s a good word, isn’t it?— “and commitments; and (iv) the anticipated impact of the fees and charges on the market; and (v) whether the estimated revenue to be received from the charges is sufficient to meet the costs and expenses of the clean vehicle discount scheme funded under … the Land Transport Management Act”.

So my question is: why do we need any of this repeal legislation today? All that the amendment did at some time during the Labour Government—I was not on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and I can’t remember exactly when the process happened. But all that they did was set up, under these pieces of legislation, the ability for regulations to do this clean vehicle discount scheme. So it appears that there is no need to do any of this primary legislation and that we can just rely on the secondary legislation and the processes that the Minister can determine.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I call Camilla Belich.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): It’s Arena Williams. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Oh, sorry. I’m so sorry—my apologies. I call Arena Williams.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very glad to take a call, and I’m happy to be confused with my excellent colleague Camilla Belich. Thank you, Madam Chair—thank you.

I also acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simeon Brown. Congratulations on your role, Minister. I look forward to discussing this with you. It’s of importance to Manurewa, the place we both grew up in in South Auckland.

The question I have for the Minister relates to the purpose of elevating some of these decisions to primary legislation. My colleague has touched on a more general point, but I want to focus specifically on the Minister’s views around making these decisions in primary legislation, and perhaps he can give us some guidance on his view around regulations within the transport sector as to whether this will be a trend of the Government to use primary legislation tools—indeed, within urgency or out of urgency—whereas the previous Government would have used the secondary legislation, or the regulations, to make those sorts of decisions.

As the committee has heard, the legislation that this bill seeks to amend allows for the Minister to make the kinds of policy decisions which he has indicated to this House that he would like to make around the Clean Car Discount scheme within that legal framework already. It’s important to give that proper consideration now because when Ministers have a legal framework set out already to make those decisions and they have been road-tested before, it gives the Government some level of comfort that those are able to be made in a sound way and that they don’t expose the Minister to a level of undue risk and open up the Government to further legal challenge somewhere down the line. So it’s good to follow established legal frameworks and to use the powers within primary and secondary legislation that we have and that we are used to, generally.

My question is about the decision by the Minister not to issue a decision under the regulations around the use of the Clean Car Discount. As my colleague has said, why is that not being made when we have the tools within the primary legislation to do so?

I am considering putting forward a number of amendments to help the Minister to use this piece of legislation, were he wanting to use an established legal framework to do so. But I do want to hear his answers on the place of secondary legislation in his view, given that we’ve also heard this Minister and the other Ministers of the Crown give us a sense of where they are going with the cutting of regulations. That is secondary legislation, often, that is things within that secondary legal framework, and so it is really useful for us to know, and the members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee who are here—excellent committee; hard-working committee—would like to know if the Government is planning, in its cutting of regulations, to actually start removing more pieces of secondary legislation from the statute book in the way we are doing here. That is very significant to the transport sector, in particular, because we have a number of agencies that operate almost entirely through secondary legislation and in reference to their Ministers’ decisions through those legal frameworks that have been long set out and have a long legal tradition in New Zealand. So if this is the way we’re heading, we need to know that.

Now, the amendments that I’m considering making to Part 1 are around the functions of the agency, given that a number of the regulations to inform the way that the agency operates—perhaps there are functions within this bill that we are debating today that need to be kept on the statute book somewhere.

So those will be my questions to the Minister, and whether he will support those amendments later. But I’ll give him an opportunity to answer our questions now.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to answer some of the questions which have been raised. The member Tangi Utikere asked a number of questions around whether other pieces of legislation require amendment. The answer is no. This bill includes all of the legislation that needs amending, and I note that he started talking about what’s in Part 2 and I look forward to him talking about that later when we get to that stage.

The member Rachel Brooking asked a very good question: why do we need legislation at all? Maybe she needs to reflect on what she did for the last three years, and we’re repealing a lot of the legislation that that last Government put in place.

This piece of legislation needs to be repealed because this Government does not support the fees and charges which were put in place: the ute tax and the Clean Car Discount scheme. So we are removing the legislation off the books, and that is why we’re progressing it through the House in this method. The member Arena Williams asked exactly the same question, and I give exactly the same answer.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. So just prefacing my comments on this part of the bill with a reflection on the explanatory note, where the claim is made that “it is difficult to make this scheme financially sustainable and self-financing”. That is, I believe, contrary to the data which shows that since July 1, it has been fiscally neutral, and it would continue to be fiscally neutral if this scheme was carried on as it was intended, as it is by many other countries in the world who’ve successfully used feebates or Clean Car Discount schemes. The goal of the scheme is to be financially sustaining over time, and you can see it in other countries that over a period of five or 10 years, there’s overs and unders and it balances out over time. So the only reason it’s not fiscally neutral is because the Government is repealing it before it can be fully fiscally neutral.

I have a similar question to some of the ones that have been raised, because the Minister really didn’t provide a substantive answer to this question, which is: given that it was entirely possible for the Government, through regulation, to remove the fees and discounts, or adjust them in any way that they needed, including taking the fees off utes and carrying on with the rest of the scheme—that would have been a possible option available to the Minister. But even just leaving it in place and having zero fees and zero discounts was also an option, without going through this legislative process to repeal that architecture. So the question for the Minister is why go down the legislative route, when through regulation you could have achieved exactly the same outcome that Minister claims to want to achieve?

The Minister wants to remove fees from utes. That was an option: you remove the fees on utes from the scheme and you could still have that financial incentive in the rest of the personal car market to ensure that New Zealanders are finding it easier to access lower-emissions vehicles and have a price incentive at the point of purchase of the vehicle, which is where it is the most effective at influencing not just the choice of the consumers but the choice of the vehicle manufacturers to prioritise certain vehicles to our market.

My second question to the Minister is about clause 6. Clause 6 in Part 1 amends section 167B(4), which relates to the clean vehicle standard, and it says that the power set out in section—oh sorry, no. Actually, it’s clause 7. This is the clause—clause 7—that I want: “Repeal section 239(4)(b)(iii).”, which provides for information from the register of motor vehicles to be released to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) for the purposes of administering rebates and charges. My only question here is whether the information on the register of motor vehicles about the tailpipe emissions will continue to be registered and publicly available—I mean, I think the answer is yes. The Government has indicated that they intend to carry on with the fuel economy standards of the Clean Car Standard, and for that, obviously, there needs to be information gathered on tailpipe emissions at the point of registering vehicles.

So my question on clause 7 in Part 1, will that—so it’s meaning that that information is not released to the New Zealand Transport Agency, but will that information still be collected? Will it still be publicly available? I think it’s of use for the people of New Zealand but also for the Government to understand what’s happening with vehicle fleet in terms of the tailpipe emissions. Even if we’re not providing that financial incentive at the point of purchase, we can at least see what’s happening. So the question to the Minister: does clause 7 mean that we’re no longer collecting and releasing that information, or is it just that it’s no longer going to NZTA, and if that is the case that we’re no longer collecting it or it’s not publicly available, in what way or what mechanism is the Government going to fulfil the Clean Car Standard—the fuel economy standard?

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. My first question is a really specific one, and it’s about the quality of air. So it’s not about carbon emissions changing our climate, but it’s an important extra advantage of having a whole lot of vehicles that are coming in that are cleaner in our cities so that the air pollutants go down.

I wondered whether the Minister had information about how much less carbon and how much less of the other toxins are going into the atmosphere in a place like Auckland. I have people in Mt Albert who live really near the motorway. They live down in Kingsland, down by the motorway, and they tend to be people who can’t afford to live way up high. It’s a really important thing for us to have a measure of that, and so I would like to know.

We’ve had an incredibly successful scheme. Has there been any analysis of how it’s affecting our cities, particularly in the valleys of those cities, because we will be paying for this in lives, in terms of the health of our children, and, in fact, ourselves—all of us? So I would like to know: has there been a cost-benefit analysis on this, has there been a measure of the improvement in the air quality in those places, and have you taken it into account when you have looked at changing the scheme here, because it’s been an incredibly successful scheme and we’ve gone way above numbers.

Now, my next question is one about equity. Has there been some sort of analysis done about the benefits once the scheme is coming through, or that has been done in terms of the maintenance of those vehicles? We’re just getting to the point where some of those vehicles will be on the second-hand market, but has there been any analysis done about how much it’s saving the average family if they get one of those cars? There’s a whole lot of cars that people don’t know about. There’s been a lot of talk of Teslas, but there’s actually a whole lot of cars at the lower end of the market that have been coming in. They attract the discount. Sometimes they’re petrol cars. Often, they are very ordinarily named cars, like Nissan LEAFs, etc.—those sorts of cars. How much benefit to a low-income family is there if they buy those kinds of cars?

Has there been any analysis done over the sort of response from our manufacturers, because my understanding is that there were some vehicles that had been really expensive. Some of the people movers and, actually, the utes had been way more expensive, and they came down by $20,000 immediately upon our introducing the scheme, because that got those vehicles into the scheme. So if you had a vehicle that was retailing at almost $100,000, they dropped overnight. Has there been any analysis of that in terms of how it affected the price of vehicles? I’d like to know those things.

I’d also like to know whether there has been some reflection on the open letter that was received by the Minister from Drive Electric, because my understanding is that that begged to have a meeting to talk about alternatives to dropping the scheme completely. I would like to know from the Minister: has he been in touch with that organisation, has he had communication, or have there been alternatives discussed? I heard my friend the Hon Julie Anne Genter talking about the possibility of a compromise on things like utes so that there might be an exemption scheme in place. Has that been discussed, because I presume Drive Electric would have been one of the submitters in any process through a select committee and we would have heard from them? I think they’re really good people and I know that they would have worked in good faith to produce some fiscally neutral alternatives if the Minister was unimpressed with this scheme. So has that communication gone on, and, if not, why not? I’d like to know that.

Those are some of the questions. I understand that Drive Electric have put the Minister on notice that if the scheme is removed, it could dramatically disrupt electric vehicle sales in this country. I’d like to know if there’s been any analysis of whether that is a likely outcome of dropping this scheme, because we don’t have an electric—[Time expired]

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some very specific questions for the Minister. Given that this is a bill that is not going through the select committee process and Part 1 of the bill is the part of the bill that does disestablish the legal basis for applying a Clean Car Discount, I have a question around the intersection of this bill with the Clean Car Standard and whether it’s the Minister’s intention to make any changes to the Clean Car Standard.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Acknowledging that we haven’t had the benefit of a select committee on this and we haven’t had the opportunity to hear from electric vehicle (EV) owners or aspiring EV owners or owners of second- or third-hand EVs, I really want to understand things a little bit further. I have certainly heard some concern and anxiety and fear from the dinosaurs in the house—the self-proclaimed dinosaur over here. As an EV owner, I can reassure the dinosaurs that there is nothing to fear from EVs, and, in fact, they are the most exciting cars to drive, if you are into vehicles.

I’m really interested in how youth, in particular, are going to be able to afford to move into EVs. My youngest son, with his partner, bought an EV. It cost them $5,000 to drive a Nissan LEAF, and that has saved them a fortune in petrol costs and it has saved emissions.

So I’m really, really interested in how much of the fees were paid by people in urban areas for EVs, and what advice has he received regarding the proportion of fees and rebates paid by or received by rural dwellers, rural communities, and urban communities. This is really important to me, because as the Green Party spokesperson for rural communities, I work with farmers. I grew up on a farm. I live rurally. I know a lot of people who own EVs or who want to own EVs. I’ve visited the electric orchard in Cromwell and been really impressed with how rural New Zealand, or the progressive parts of rural New Zealand, are trying to electrify. So I’m really keen to understand, because we don’t have the benefit of a select committee, what proportion of fees and rebates have been received by or paid by rural New Zealand and what proportion of fees and rebates have been received or paid by urban New Zealand.

This is really, really critical, because what we’re talking about is a desire in our community. We know New Zealanders want to do the right thing. We know that rural New Zealand is looking for opportunities and innovation. We know that rural New Zealand can’t afford to be hit by any more cyclones. We know that they’re going to happen, and we know what the cause is. So I’m really, really keen to hear how much the pain has been felt in in rural New Zealand with a very progressive, successful policy that is reducing emissions and reducing our dependence on overseas oil. This is really, really important for our rural communities, and I’d like an answer, please.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s been a number of questions. The Hon Julie Anne Genter asked about the scheme and talked about how we could make this somehow—she talked about fiscal neutrality and suggested we should exempt utes. But I don’t know whether she realised that would create an even bigger hole, and I’m not sure how the member suggests that that would be paid for, other than by borrowing more money. But for the Green Party, I guess money grows on trees. On this side of the House, we actually think that people have to work for it and pay for it through taxes.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that the Minister was meant to address his comments to substantial answers and not unfounded attacks on the Opposition.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes. Look, the Minister will answer some questions, but as this is a very, I guess, intense debate between different views in the House, some things are going to go each way. But the Minister will continue to answer the questions.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The next question was around why we are using the legislative process rather than using regulations—a similar question, a repeated question, from other members. On this side of the House, actually, we want this legislation off the books because we don’t agree with the Government being able to tax people buying their utes or buying their cars. We actually don’t agree with keeping it on and using regulations instead. So we’re repealing the Act and repealing the regulation-making power. She asked a question about the tailpipe emission labels. This bill doesn’t change any of those things.

Helen White asked some really good questions around cleaner air, which is a completely separate issue than what this bill deals with, and she also suggested an exemption scheme for youth. Again, there was no suggestion around how that would be funded.

Megan Woods asked about the Clean Car Standard review. As the former Minister will know, the Clean Car Standard—there is a legislated review which must start by 30 June next year, which we will be undertaking.

The member Scott Willis: I thought they were very good questions from Scott Willis, who is very concerned about our rural communities—it’s not long until he’ll be joining the National Party! I’m advised that about roughly half of the tax which has been received has been paid for by people buying utes.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first chance to congratulate you on becoming the Deputy Speaker, and it was remiss of me before not to congratulate the Minister, the Hon Simeon Brown, for becoming a Minister.

Now, I’m aware of repetition, and I’ve raised this point before about the fact that we do not need primary legislation; this can all be done by regulation. I think the Minister has confirmed that the answer is yes, but that he—

Hon Member: He hasn’t—he hasn’t answered.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m not sure about that; I would like him to give a straight yes or no answer to it. But it is his preference to make the bold political call that the Government is opposed to Clean Car Discounts and that they are taking this down the primary legislative route, even though it is unnecessary, so this whole debate in urgency is unnecessary.

I do have a separate question, but I would also note that I look forward to hearing from Simon Court at some stage. He has had a lot to say on other members’ contributions.

But going to clause 9 of the bill, this says that Schedule 1 be amended, and I know we’re not discussing Schedules at the moment, but we are discussing clause 9. It says that the new Part 7 in Schedule 1 of the bill will now be inserted in Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Act but also, in clause 9(b), it says to “make all necessary consequential amendments.” If you go to Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Act 1998, there is a whole part in it—Part 4, “Provisions relating to Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Act 2022”—there’s an interpretation clause and another clause regarding transitional provisions.

I’m just interested in this phrase “make all necessary consequential amendments.”, and I’m aware that it is a phrase used in multiple pieces of legislation and it’s not a unique phrase. But when looking at the Legislation Act, the example given is that a necessary or consequential amendment would be something like changing a heading in a section—that’s the sort of necessary consequential amendment that might be changed. If it’s the Minister’s understanding that in this case, all of Part 4 from Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Act would be removed, or if he’s imagining that the necessary consequential amendments would be smaller—it might be for reasons relating to the fact that they are transitional provisions. But I’m interested in an answer to both those questions.

To be clear: this legislation is not necessary to get rid of the Clean Car Discount—a short answer on that would be grand—and what the Minister’s views are on the necessary consequential amendments to Schedule 1. Thank you.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to seek a further response from the Minister in relation to the proportion of fees and rebates paid by or received by rural communities or urban communities.

I ask this because modelling showed that the forecast was that more than 90 percent of fees paid under the Clean Car Discount would be paid in urban areas, and I can attest that in urban areas we do see a lot of Ford Rangers having to climb the steep, steep curbs of supermarkets and having to buffer themselves against children on bicycles. We do see the challenges that the Ford Rangers face in our urban areas, so I’m really, really keen to have a precise answer from the Minister—with detail, please—on the proportion of fees and rebates paid by or received by rural-dwelling people or urban-dwelling people.

I am really concerned about this, because I work with rural communities who want to decarbonise. I work with farming families who are putting every effort in to decarbonising, and they want to understand the rationale behind this idiotic repealing of the most progressive, successful initiative we have seen. Thank you.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on the contribution made by my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking and the question to the Minister around an assurance—that he can assure the committee that the imposition of “make all … consequential amendments” is not considered as substantial, given that the House is in urgency and I’m yet to receive a response to my question around the nature of the work that officials have been undertaking.

The second question: some of the contributions made in the second reading touched on some of the concerns that had been raised with members as a result of this not going through a select committee. So my question to the Minister is what specific engagement he’s had with individuals or members of the sector—or anyone else, for that matter—and, in particular, who they are and when that stakeholder engagement had taken place in the lead-up to this bill.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Congratulations on your august role, and I’d also like to take the opportunity, if I may, to thank our new Minister of Transport, who I’m sure is going to do a fantastic job repairing the mess of our current infrastructure in New Zealand.

Hon Member: And the potholes.

CAMERON LUXTON: And the potholes. So I’d love to ask the Minister, if I could: could the Minister explain what had been the fiscal costs of the Clean Car Discount—it would be good to get some clarification on that, and I think the opposite side would appreciate that—and, as laid out in clause 12, was this scheme actually sustainable at its time of implementation? Thank you.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): I also wanted to flag that later in this debate, on further parts of the bill, I and the Green Party have tabled two proposed amendments, and I know that other members will be proposing amendments too. So we look forward to the support from Government members as well as Opposition members in the committee on those two amendments, but I’ll speak to those at the appropriate part of this debate.

But just responding and kind of coming in on the question just raised by the member from the ACT Party—which I think is a great question—and the comments made by the Minister earlier that if you were to exclude utes, you’d have to raise more revenue, clearly the way that feebates are designed and used by successful countries all over the world is with that intention that it will be moving over time. The thing that is intended by the scheme is to, over time, narrow the range of vehicles that are eligible for rebates—and that’s one way of reducing the outgoing costs—and to, over time, progressively increase the fees on the most polluting vehicles, particularly as it’s been well-signalled in advance that alternatives are becoming available so that people can plan ahead and know that, over time, higher-emitting vehicles will face higher fees. Those fees will contribute to more electric and zero-emissions vehicles on the road, and that’s how we meet our target of reducing emissions.

So there’s no proposal for ongoing Crown funding from the Green Party. In fact, if the Green Party had been responsible for the implementation of this legislation, we would not have had such a gap between the announcement and implementation of the rebates and the announcement and implementation of the fees. That’s how it’s done in other countries. It’s actually commonplace that when you use these types of price mechanisms to reflect the outcomes that we all want to see as a world, which is lower carbon emissions, you bring in those price mechanisms relatively quickly so that you don’t have the perverse impact of encouraging people to panic-buy high-emissions gas guzzlers or defer their purchases of electric vehicles.

So the way that it was implemented wasn’t ideal, but still, over time, there was a plan, and it should be possible—and I’m sure the Minister has received advice on this, or I would hope the Minister had asked for advice on this—to make adjustments to the scheme that would have meant that it carried on and achieved fiscal neutrality beyond the last six months. It has been fiscally neutral, but it would carry on being fiscally neutral simply by reflecting higher fees on high-emitting vehicles over time and a smaller range—so rather than petrol vehicles and diesel vehicles receiving rebates, the rebates would be restricted to zero-emissions vehicles.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): There have been a number of questions—again, a repetitive question—around the repeal in clause 5 of section 167A, regarding whether legislation is required rather than regulation. One of the additional reasons why legislation is required is that removing the regulations or having a regulation of a zero fee would be likely to be found to be inconsistent with the purpose of the original legislation. Therefore, it is actually requiring the legislation to be repealed, which is what we’re doing, but also, by repealing it, it also means that we don’t have to have this on the legislative books at the same time.

The member Tangi Utikere asked about consequential amendments and what specific engagement has occurred. There’s been a range of engagements with the sector, and the reality with these things—this has been well signalled. In fact, there was a thing called the election on 14 October. We signalled well in advance of the election the intention to remove the ute tax by 31 December. That was something we campaigned on, New Zealanders voted for it, and that is very specific and wide-ranging engagement with a very large sector of New Zealanders.

There was a very good question from the new ACT MP Cameron Luxton about the fiscal costs, and I have some answers for him, which I’m sure he will probably not like to hear because I know the ACT Party very much cares about our fiscal situation as a country. But since this scheme has been put in place through to 30 November 2023, $579 million was paid out in rebates and $13.5 million was spent in costs to establish and operate the scheme, while $290 million has been received from charges. This leaves taxpayers footing the bill of $302.5 million.

Now, I heard from the member the Hon Julie Anne Genter, who was talking about how we can just simply change the fees and the structure. Well, I’m not sure if the member understands the impact that actually has on the car industry when they have to then have massive peaks and changes to their demand, or the significant challenges that that actually provides to their industry when you’re constantly changing the rules on an industry, because they have to change stock levels and they have to quickly move stock forward or back, depending on what the rules are going to be. We saw that on 1 July this year, when there was a massive shift in terms of the fees and penalties, and if that’s what the Hon Julie Anne Genter thinks is the right approach, well, that is not good for business and that is not good for our economy. But that, again, reminds us about the approach that that party takes to the important issues.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for his answer to my question around the Clean Car Standard. The Minister of Transport was aware that there is a legislative review of the Clean Car Standard, but the reason I put that question to the Minister, while being aware of the required legislative review, is that policy orthodoxy would dictate that if you’re not going to have something like a feebate like we had in place—in other jurisdictions, what we would have seen is acceleration of mechanisms such as clean car standards.

So in light of the fact that we have this legislation before us today—this bill—to repeal the policy mechanism of using a rebate for customers, I’d like to know further from the Minister whether he is thinking of bringing forward any review of the Clean Car Standard. In other jurisdictions, what we have seen as an alternative is more stringent carbon dioxide emission reduction requirements on vehicles, which in some jurisdictions, has led to a phase-out of internal combustion engine vehicles. So whether these are issues that the Minister is considering or that he has received advice on and has discussed with officials—I’d be interested to know that.

But there’s a number of other areas that I’d like to know from the Minister what he has received advice on, and one is in relation to the emissions profile associated with this legislative change. Of course, this was a policy that was absolutely critical to the demonstration path in the emissions reduction plan (ERP) for the transport sector. It was doing a lot of heavy lifting, and there are going to be massive consequences to what that ERP for budgets two and three look like. So what advice has the Minister received of impacts on those demonstration paths in the ERP, but also what advice has he received on what he’s going to do instead of this, because, of course, transport does have a large burden within both emissions budget 2 and emissions budget 3 in terms of the ERP?

So what is he going to do to replace those, because, of course, from 2025 to 2030, the demonstration path sees the annual light electric vehicle (EV) registration climb from 11 percent to 67 percent of the market, and reach 100 percent by 2035. So across those emissions budgets, what is he going to do to ensure that we can meet those pathways, and, if we’re not, what are the policies and measures that he’s thinking of putting in place to replace those? These are very large numbers. They have very large consequences for New Zealand, and they have very large consequences for whether or not we can meet our emissions reductions.

I’m also interested to know from the member what advice he has received on the impact of sales of EVs. It’s not just the new EVs, which seem to be quite a focus of this debate, but some data that I read out in an earlier stage of this debate actually showed that there was a preponderance of the uptake of this scheme on new to New Zealand, second-hand vehicles, and this was a way that a lot of people, a lot of households—and I know a lot of households in my electorate were actually finding cost-saving measures. They were buying second-hand, imported EVs and drastically reducing their petrol bills for their households. They were finding this was actually an important way in which they were keeping household budgets under constraint.

Now, I would assume the Minister would have modelling, so I’d be interested in hearing from him that this would be one of the most elastic parts of the demand for these households in terms of the uptake of electric vehicles within the second-hand market, and about what he’s going to do if there is not a rebate scheme to help those households. What’s going to be put in its stead to ensure that we are helping those households? I know that I’ve also spoken to a number of retired people in my electorate who have found a really good way to make ends meet—to buy a second-hand, used EV—and it’s much, much less onerous on their household budgets to charge their vehicle than to fill it up.

The other issue that I’d like to know from the Minister, in addition to any advice he might have received around sales—but I’d also be interested in impact on sales on new EVs, because of course this will impact the targets that we have in those emissions budgets. But I’d also like to know—[Time expired]

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’ll just list a number of things that I’d like some advice on. The other thing that I would like to know from the Minister—and I think that there have been some questions, but I don’t think it’s been addressed—is the options that the Minister considered, and whether he did consider options. I understand that this was part of the manifesto commitment from his party, but I’d like to know whether, when he became a Minister, other options were considered to achieve the outcome around, obviously, wanting to remove the burden in terms of fiscal neutrality. I think there’s been some really sensible questions put in this committee of the whole House stage—sensible questions that we would otherwise have had at a select committee that we would have been able to ask officials about—about what alternative options there could have been and whether any of these were explored.

The other issue that I think is of vital importance to everybody is what advice the Minister has received. He’s told us and members from the Government benches have told us through the course of this debate that this is not required because we have an emissions trading scheme (ETS). So what I’d like to know is what advice the Minister has received on what price the ETS needs to be at to cause the behavioural change for people to switch to electric vehicles, because every piece of research we see, both here in New Zealand and internationally, is that we need to have incredibly high carbon prices to get people to switch.

So if the Minister is seeing the ETS as an alternative to repealing the scheme in this legislation that we have before us, and that is what is happening in Part 1 of this bill—if the Minister, as stated, sees the ETS as an alternative, what is the price that he’s had advice on that would be required? I’ve seen suggestions from academics in New Zealand that we’d need carbon pricing of $235 a tonne, which obviously would have a huge impact on the price of petrol. I think that it’s around $60 for an average fill-up, and I’ll check that figure.

But given where we are in terms of our ETS pricing, if the Minister is saying that we need a price of around $235, which is what experts are saying—but I’d be interested if he’s had any counter advice to that—what plans does the Government have to get us to that ETS price, because that is not going to naturally occur. So is this work that sits alongside this legislative change to rapidly hike the ETS price in this country—because I think that’s something that all New Zealanders, when it comes to filling up their cars, for those that are still using combustion engines, will be very interested in, and all New Zealanders paying their power bills would also be very interested in that, because, of course, that would have a flow-on effect, as it would across the economy.

So I’d like to see that advice and, actually, probably, if possible, for it to be tabled. This is a really serious consideration we’re going through, and I would also like to ask the Minister whether it was in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that is sitting in his office—which he has received from his agency and that he is on record as saying he has received from his agency—and I’m asking the Minister a specific question: will he release the RIS to the House so we can all have access to this modelling and this advice, because otherwise there’s going to be a lot of questions through this committee stage around what was the advice and what that advice said, because we know that the Minister has the advice.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to insert a new clause 8A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to insert a new clause 16A is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation. The Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to section 175 of the Land Transport Act 1998 is out of order as being out of scope of the bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 1 agreed to.

TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just seeking your guidance, and I appreciate that the vote on those matters has just been taken, but there were a number of proposed amendments that had been tabled that members in the committee had not had an opportunity to speak to yet, and they were seeking a call on those amendments. We’ve just exercised a vote, effectively, without having an opportunity to make any comment on those. The Minister had been posed with a number of questions, many of which he sought to answer two or three times, and so I seek your guidance. Given the House is under urgency, there hasn’t been a select committee process, but there have been a number of tabled amendments, and I know that in terms of my amendments I tabled prior to moving into committee, yet members have not had an opportunity to speak to them.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Look, thank you for that point of order, Mr Utikere. I was finding that, actually, the calls were not as vigorous as they had been before, and we seemed to have been coming to the end of the debate. So I suggest members should be perhaps a bit more vigorous if there’s an Amendment Paper that people want to speak to.

TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. In light of that, I seek leave for tabled amendments to be redebated.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The leave is sought. No leave has been given for that course of action.

Part 2 Amendments, repeals, and revocations concerning other enactments

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So now we come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 18 to 26, “Amendments, repeals, and revocations concerning other enactments”, and Schedules 3 and 4. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Chair. This part deals, as you just said, with amendments, repeals, and revocations concerning other amendments. It makes amendments to the Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing) Regulations, revokes regulations prohibiting the register of motor vehicles from issuing a certificate of registration for a vehicle if there are charges payable for a vehicle under the clean vehicle discount scheme and those charges have not been paid, because, of course, the charges under this scheme will be ceasing after its enactment.

It makes amendments to Energy Efficiency (Vehicle Energy Economy Labelling) Regulations, and, as members will see in their copy of the bill, there are some templates as to what the new labels will look like. I encourage members to take a look. There is a colour version and there’s also a greyscale version in the back of the bill, so feel free to have a look at that. It also makes revocation of Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Charges) Regulations 2022. Of course, it is the intent of this legislation to not continue with charges under this scheme.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of questions for the Minister. One of the opportunities that was put forward previously was around a review opportunity. I note that this part relates to the administration of the scheme, in terms of how it will be executed and how it is followed through, and I wonder, in light of that, whether the Minister has any thoughts about implementing some sort of review process as part of that. The genesis of that, I think, comes from the perspective that a lot of the conversation and points that have been made are around the number of vehicles, as well.

So my question to the Minister is in that vein, around whether he has considered an opportunity for reviewing any aspects, whether it be Part 2 or otherwise, and whether or not the transitional provisions are also under review, as well. I mean, that review could take place in relation to the relative number of electric vehicles (EVs) that might be on the list, shall we say, and it would be interesting to get the Minister’s view on that.

The other is whether there is a reporting mechanism back to the House—or it could be not to the House; it could be through some other mechanism that the Minister may think is appropriate in terms of the administration aspects of this.

My other question is: whether, as part of the administration, there is an opportunity perhaps for those who had previously, maybe, applied for or received a discount or a rebate to somehow, effectively, return that. Now, it may be that there is provision within Part 2 that administratively there is some leeway, whether it be by regulation or elsewhere, that may allow for those who have, perhaps, I don’t know, come from a household that might have benefited from a Tesla and might have ended up accessing the rebate, may be able to, in good faith, return that. So whether there’s an opportunity—

Hon Peeni Henare: Now, there’s a noble gesture!

TANGI UTIKERE: That is a very noble gesture, Mr Henare, isn’t it? I really do think that some thinking in this space might allow for someone who may feel noble to be able to return money that comes back to the taxpayer, as opposed to it going into the household pockets and just sitting there permanently, regardless of how much money one might get—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Like people with Teslas, do you think?

TANGI UTIKERE: Teslas. I actually think Teslas fit the criteria under the scheme—

Hon Member: Are you going to voluntarily pay wealth tax—voluntarily pay it? No.

TANGI UTIKERE: —in terms of Part 2 is about administration and so that is about making sure that all of the vehicles that are appropriate to fit that particular schedule—well, it would be voluntary. Well, I’m interested to know from Minister Bayly, who is in the chair, as to whether or not there is some appetite from the Minister to perhaps allow for that.

The other is around EV charging infrastructure and how that might actually sit with some of the administrative areas of focus that might need to come through.

So I’m interested to hear from the Minister around that, and, I think, particularly given that the price differentials between those that are electric vehicles and those that are not, over a quantum or a period of time, may end up heading in that particular direction. A further question will come, but perhaps those are a few to get Minister Bayly under way.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to respond to two of those questions. The first one is the reporting-back requirement that the member asked about. Because we’re repealing the bill, you do not need a report back. It’s self-evident that no report back is required.

The second question, about people who may want to apply for a rebate because they thought they were entitled to it: the requirements are that those people must apply by 31 December, and then the New Zealand Transport Agency will go through the process of processing those, and if payments are required to be made back, they will be made back; otherwise, moneys will be returned to the Crown account and used by the Crown for other good transport projects, no doubt.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The honourable—no, sorry, Tangi Utikere—almost honourable; always honourable, sorry.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Ha, ha! Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for the answer. There are two questions that he’s responded to, but perhaps I could just provide a bit of clarity. I note that the Minister referred to a report-back opportunity. My question was not about report back; it was around whether or not a review would be signalled, which is not a requirement whether there’s legislation or not. I note that the Minister is shaking his head, so I’m not sure whether he doesn’t like my question or whether he’s answering it, but we’ll perhaps wait to hear in due course.

The other is around the administrative function. I take the point that the Minister has said that the date on the table there is 31 December of this year. But my question was about whether or not the Government had given some thought to including in the legislation an opportunity to pay it back. So anyone who had received the rebate since it came into being right through to the end of the year—the question is about whether there was an appetite from the Government for people to choose to, effectively, refund the rebate that they had pocketed, not if they think it’s a bad scheme. Clearly, if someone thinks it’s a bad scheme, I would be very surprised that they may have pocketed a rebate, because if there’s an opportunity for perhaps the Government to provide for those that had benefited from this rebate to then return it, then I think that would be a wonderful step forward.

So it’s not about the deadline, as such, at the end of this year; it is more about providing an opportunity for anyone who has received the rebate since it has been in existence to pay it back if they choose to do so.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for letting me contribute to this important committee stage of this debate. I wanted to speak primarily in my contribution to an amendment that is tabled in my name that looks at the information that’s provided to potential purchasers of vehicles following the passage of this legislation, so I want to go into detail on that. It may be somewhat of an unusual amendment, but if you look at it consistently with the parts in Part 2 that we are actually looking at, including the schedules—which I understand we are looking at in Part 2—we’ve got two examples of labels that will be part of the law once this enactment is passed. I just wanted to ask and seek some clarity from either the Minister, or maybe he can receive some advice, but it’s very difficult to read the labels in this proposed legislation.

I know, obviously, that possibly we can go to our PCs on our desks and enlarge the font, but I just recently had my eyes tested—[Knocks over glass] Whoops! I can assure the committee that despite almost knocking that glass over, I do have good eyesight and I cannot make out the text in this, and I just would like to note that I do find it a bit concerning. Usually, the items that we are debating are available on the Table, which is as it should be, and I accept that this is on the Table, but it’s very difficult to scrutinise the context of these labels when it’s so small that it can’t be interpreted.

So, anyway, that’s maybe a side point to my amendment, but my amendment is actually looking to insert a new clause 22A after clause 22, which is in Part 2 of this legislation. My amendment would ask that sellers and importers of vehicles must identify the rebate value that would have been applicable to the vehicle as if the Clean Car Discount scheme had not been repealed, and such value must be displayed on the vehicle’s energy economy label. Obviously, the energy economy labels we can see here, but, unfortunately, only the bigger type can be made out. The exact detail is quite difficult to ascertain. So I just wondered if the Minister would perhaps be able to read out the bits which are not able to be read by members, or if it would be possible prior to the end of the committee stage for a larger copy to be tabled so that members may scrutinise this in more detail.

In terms of the other parts of Part 2, which we are now debating, we can see that a lot of regulations have been repealed and changed, and I just wanted to ask the Minister whether he was satisfied that given that we don’t have a select committee stage, all of the relevant regulations in Part 2 that are to be repealed are consistent with the purpose of this repeal legislation. We did have an example when we were debating last night where one of the regulations that was to be repealed went, in my view, too far and actually amended a primary piece of legislation. So I just wanted some assurance from the Minister, or from his officials, under advice, that this has been well scrutinised in terms of the regulations which are to be changed, and there are a number of different pieces of legislation and regulations which are mentioned there.

So I’d just like to have an assurance that that is correct, and also just to get a bit of clarity on whether he would support my amendment, because I think it is important, if the Government is sure that this is a policy supported by New Zealanders that they’re willing to stand behind, why not let New Zealanders have the information when they purchase a vehicle and see whether that, indeed, holds true in the future? So I think it would be a show of confidence in this legislation if the governing parties were to accept this amendment, because it would clearly show New Zealanders the price of their vehicle, which would be a lower-emitting vehicle, which would lead to lower emissions, which, in turn, would aid our campaign to have a better climate for the future, and New Zealanders would be able to see clearly when they purchase a vehicle the difference between the policy that the Government is implementing and the policy that the previous Government had implemented, which did lead to New Zealand having a much cleaner car fleet. So if the Minister could answer those questions.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just before I call the next speaker, I just wanted to say that we’re just seeking some advice about getting larger copies so that it’s readable for you.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually had a similar concern because I can’t read anything in the small print. It’s quite hard to speak meaningfully on a proposal that you can’t read, so I’d really appreciate it and I genuinely would like to check that script.

But I also wondered about the process of the alternative of labels, because I don’t know where the advice came that this has got some efficacy. I’d like to know how this proposal to generate labels was instigated, where this alternative has come, whether it’s actually got benefit. It may be that it’s in the small print, but I don’t know what these things mean on this label. So I can see that there is a level of emissions of “29”—29 out of what? What kind of emissions are we talking about?

I raised, earlier, issues where I was really worried about the air quality in Auckland and people being subjected to a lot of poisons. I know that we’ve had child deaths as a result of air-quality issues in the valleys in Auckland, and that’s often where the motorways are. I have parts of my electorate which just back straight on to the motorway. It’s often our vulnerable who live in those places because they’re poorer. I’d really like to know about that emissions part, but the same is true—I really just have not enough information.

I also would like to know whether anybody has consulted health officials about this approach and whether it works, or whether there is any international information available where this approach has been successful or otherwise. So those are really genuine concerns I raise on behalf of my constituents. They seem incredibly important. We’re given an example here of a plug-in hybrid. I’m not given any example of how this applies in a situation where we’re not talking about those hybrids. Are these based on averages of vehicle use in a city, in the country, etc.?

I just need a lot more information than I’ve got, but mainly I want to know about the efficacy and the advice that was given about whether this works and how this has been looked at. I was interested in an answer I received earlier from the Minister about air quality, and this was something that—forgive me—relates to both parts, I think. But I was standing, asking for a call about this. He suggested that there was no relationship between this bill and those issues of air quality.

My understanding is—and I was on that select committee—these things were raised at the time, they were issues that were very much part of the reason for bringing this about and we have a whole lot of issues around equity as well. I would fully expect the regulations and the decision over the regulations to reflect that. What is the connection? Is this really not an issue that is actually relevant, in the eyes of the Minister, on this?

So I very much genuinely would like to know whether this is seen as separate; if so, why? Given that, of course, cars emit such fuels, and electric cars emit much less toxins, as do more efficient petrol vehicles. So what is the story here? I’d really genuinely like to know the answers to those questions.

I’d like to also know whether these regulations that we have had put before us so quickly have been anywhere near the Regulations Review Committee, and if they’re consulted, what the process is around that? Because if they’re overstepping, if they really—that is a very wonderful committee. I was deputy chair to the Hon Judith Collins, and I saw the value in the work of that committee in terms of where there was an overstep, where there was an issue. Yet in this process of rush, I’m actually really unclear as to what happens with regards to regulations review. Do they get this legislation after it’s been passed, and if there has been an overstep, it gets reviewed?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, we are in the process of trying to get a blown-up version of the labelling.

Second thing—and I’ll sort of try and deal with these in reverse order—all we’re doing with the labelling is removing the dollar sum. If you look at the label itself, if you look at new Schedule 2, inserted by Schedule 4, just to help the members, it’s quite clear that 5.5 refers to carbon dioxide; it states that—even I can read that—and the 29 figure is 29 grams of carbon per kilometre travelled. Those are all standard measures, right? So there’s nothing unusual, special. I know the members are keenly interested in looking at the detail, but the reality is this is pretty standard stuff. So I think I’ve identified the key bits there for you.

Second thing, for the member in respect of her Amendment Paper (AP) regarding a new clause 22A, the argument that we should disclose the value because that will help everyone in New Zealand to work out whether the National Party’s approach is right compared to Labour, I don’t quite buy into that argument. We are removing that; we don’t see a need, because we’re getting rid of the requirement to do that. Of course, what you’re proposing is a compliance cost and all that sort of stuff, so, unfortunately, we won’t be supporting your AP.

Then, I just want to go back to the previous member to that about the concept of: can someone willingly contribute the money back to the Crown? Well, we don’t need to change the legislation. If the good member would like to make a contribution to the Crown or any other organisation, or he wants to take the rebate and give it to the Salvation Army—which is a very worthy cause—you don’t actually need to change the legislation to allow that to happen. I am so grateful that the member might be contemplating to do that on behalf of other people, or even from his own situation if he’s happened to have bought an electric vehicle, but we do not need to legislate that. But this is an interesting debate that everyone’s going through at the moment.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions for the Minister in the chair in terms of what will happen in terms of the administration around some of the dates that are laid out in terms of clause 18 “amends the Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2011”, and clause 19 revoking regulation 5(2A).

One of the things that is happening here is around removing the ability to pay the collected money over as a rebate, and I’ll return to this when we come to the dates. But, actually, those two clauses within this part—because clause 18 provides that section 19 amends that principal piece of legislation, the Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing) Regulations of 2011, and clause 19 revokes regulation 5(2A), which prohibits the register of motor vehicles from issuing a certificate of registration for a vehicle if there are charges payable for the vehicle under the Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme and those charges have not been paid. This is where we have what I would describe as a chicken and egg situation, that we are coming into a situation—this ends on the 31st.

Now, there will be a number of people that have made a decision, purchased, but the car has not landed in New Zealand and therefore cannot be registered. They may be expecting receipt of their vehicle and its registration on, say, 29 December, 30 December, even 31 December, but there is a delay for some reason or another and it might not arrive until, say, 4 or 5 January. But the cut-off there that is covered in that clause 19 will provide for a number of problems for those people. They will miss out on the rebate through no fault of their own.

It’s for their reason that there is an amendment, in the name of my colleague Tangi Utikere, proposing that we have a new clause 28 inserted into Part 7 of Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Act 1998—a new clause 28: after clause 27 insert “This Act continues to apply as if it had not been amended by sections 4 and 7 of the amendment Act for the purposes of a rebate on vehicles for which there was a purchase arrangement in place by the end of 31 December 2023.” Because the way that this bill is written, it’s all about registration. We all know that registration for a vehicle cannot be issued till it has made landfall in New Zealand and it has gone through that process. But what my colleague is suggesting, so that we don’t get people caught in this situation that may over the Christmas New Year period easily happen, is that what we could have is the requirement for there to be that purchase agreement in place by 31 December.

Now, we do not, of course, agree with the repeal of any of this, but what we are concerned about is that people, through no fault of their own, who are going to get caught by these provisions—and it’s why in Part 2 of this bill, my colleague is proposing that amendment. So I’d like to know whether the Government is willing to countenance that amendment to protect people so they don’t get caught in some tricky situations. They may find that the vehicle that they were about to purchase suddenly goes up by up to $7,000 if they miss out for some reason or another on the ability to claim that rebate; obviously less if someone’s buying a new to New Zealand second-hand vehicle. There could be a delay in that landing over this period, which is reasonably notorious for there being delays as businesses rightly shut down so people can have their holidays. I’d like to hear from the Minister and from the Government whether there is an amendment in this part of the bill that they will support.

I do have a further question around the label, and I appreciate that we will be getting blown-up copies of those labels so we can continue to debate this part of the bill. But my question is, given that the labels are going to continue to display the emissions from a particular vehicle, and given, under Part 1 of the bill, there were some very serious questions that the Minister never even addressed around emissions and reporting and advice, I’d like to know in terms of each of those labels displaying emissions information, what information more generally has the Minister received on emissions?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Just to briefly deal with the member’s question, we just want to be very clear with people that if you want to go and buy an electric vehicle and get a rebate, if you want to do that, you need to do it by 31 December. You need to buy it and register it and make your application before 31 December—very clear rules. So just saying to people: don’t go and buy one that’s in the shipment; go and buy one that you can get straight away. It’s a very clear, clean end to this car discount scheme because we need to bring it to a close.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 2 p.m. today.

Sitting suspended from 1.01 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Even though it’s not actually Thursday, I thought I might do a Business Statement, if the House would like it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: It is Thursday.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No—[Interruption] He gets it; the parliamentary nerds get it.

SPEAKER: Please, just carry on.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Next week—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Excuse me, just a bit of quiet.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —the House will consider legislation, under urgency, to progress the Government’s 100-day plan. Legislation to be considered will include the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill, the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill, and—this is not related to the 100-day plan—the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2). There will be members’ maiden speeches on Tuesday, and the House will hold the adjournment debate, which will set the sitting calendar for 2024.

Ministerial Statements

KiwiRail—Interislander Ferry Fleet, Funding

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I wish to make a ministerial statement. Yesterday, I announced that the coalition Government has declined a request from KiwiRail to contribute significant additional funding to address cost escalations in the project to replace the Interislander ferry fleet. This was a very difficult decision for the incoming Government to have to make, and the last thing we wanted to have to do.

This is a matter that was first brought to our attention during the post-election caretaker period. At the time, we were asked to authorise a draw-down of contingency funds to keep the project going. When we asked questions about the project, massive cost blowouts were revealed, and there were significant questions about the deliverability of the project. On taking office, a briefing from KiwiRail revealed a further cost blowout and a request for additional funding.

It is important for the House to hear the scale of this blowout because this is a project that under the previous Government’s watch not only became far more expensive than was originally projected but also veered far away from its core purpose. We were advised that the project to replace the Interislander ferries had almost quadrupled in cost since it began, to now reach a staggering figure of approximately $3 billion, and only 21 percent of those costs relate to the core project of replacing ageing ferries.

At the same time as KiwiRail was asking for the additional funding to be provided urgently, officials were advising us that putting more money into the project would make it harder to withdraw. KiwiRail advised that there were no options it would recommend to reduce the scale of the project, while Treasury and the Ministry of Transport advised us not to agree to the funding request.

Let me be clear: this Government—our coalition Government—is committed to having a resilient, safe, and reliable Cook Strait ferry service, but that cannot mean that we have an open chequebook to provide whatever is asked in whatever circumstances that might arise. It would be irresponsible for us to continue funding a project that has diverted so far in scope and cost from the original proposal. We have a responsibility to ensure the public gets value for its money, and that is why the coalition Government has declined a request from KiwiRail to contribute additional funding to this project.

Members will have seen that KiwiRail is now looking to wind down the project, and will work with the Government, including my colleague the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, Paul Goldsmith, to look at alternative options. I want to acknowledge that a lot of people have put a lot of time into this project, and they will be disappointed by this news. I thank them for their work and I want to assure them that the coalition Government is committed to a resilient, safe, and reliable Cook Strait ferry service, and from here, we will be working with KiwiRail and with officials on alternative options for ensuring that connection. We will be looking at a full suite of options and drawing on expertise from a wide range of experts. We will be looking to learn lessons from what has happened here and ensuring it cannot happen again.

One thing is for sure: we will not be repeating the cavalier approach taken by the former Labour Government towards spending taxpayers’ money. We have been advised that the outgoing Government knew in February 2023 that the cost had blown out to $2.6 billion, but that was never made public—

Hon Grant Robertson: So that’s what we use ministerial statements for now?

SPEAKER: Just hold on.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —and we all saw yesterday the Controller and Auditor-General’s report into the previous Government’s investment in infrastructure. It highlighted how—

SPEAKER: Yeah, just keep the ministerial statement to the Government decisions.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yep. It highlighted the need for Ministers to be careful with taxpayers’ money.

The coalition Government will be different from the last lot. We will be disciplined and we will tidy up the mess that has been left behind by Labour. We will give taxpayers’ money the respect it deserves.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m conscious that you did make comment in regards to the purpose of ministerial statements. Nevertheless, riddled throughout that and after your advice to the Minister, she continued to use a ministerial statement to comment on a previous Government’s—not their Government’s—decisions.

SPEAKER: Well, in the context of why the decision was made. In the last particular bit, I agree there was an inappropriate comment prior to that, and I referenced that with the Minister.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Mr Speaker, in the spirit of the way in which ministerial statements are now done, I’m going to begin by asking the member two or three specific questions before going on to my more detailed comments on her statement.

The first of those questions is to ask the Minister to confirm that in October 2022, KiwiRail wrote to Ministers noting “in a ‘worst case scenario’ the tagged contingency for the project would need to increase by $280m”.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): That information is new to me. I think what the member may be referring to is a pattern of cost escalation that occurred with this project while he was the key shareholder of KiwiRail.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know this is an unusual course of action, but I seek leave of the House to table a time frame regarding the Interislander ferry replacement project that was actually released by the Minister yesterday, but—I quoted from it just before. She obviously hasn’t seen it.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s true. But if it was released by the Minister yesterday, there’s no point of putting it on the Table today.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): So the timetable released by the Minister in her own press release yesterday includes the statement from October 2022 that KiwiRail noted that “in a ‘worst case scenario’ the tagged contingency would need to increase by $280m”. So I just note, for the member, the answer to the question I asked is contained in the time line she released yesterday.

The second question I have for the member is: can she please explain in what way the project “veered away from its core purpose”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I want to address the member’s questions sincerely which is to say I am looking at the timetable I released yesterday and the date that the member has used, which is 2022—I’ve got dates on my time line of 2021 and 2023. So I think the challenge that I’m having is with that time line. So I wish to assure the member—

Hon Grant Robertson: Perhaps I should table it because that way we might be able to—

SPEAKER: You haven’t been granted a point of order, so please sit down. Just trying to work out where we’re at here—would the Minister continue with the answer to the question.

NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. The undertaking I make to the member is that I will ensure that I address this question once I’ve worked out why I can’t find the date on the piece of paper in front of me. And I accept that the question is sincere, and I will give it a sincere answer.

To the second part of your question which regards my statement that the project had veered wildly from its original intent, I based that on the fact that as I understand it, when the Government first agreed to fund this project, it was in order to replace aging ferries, and that was to be the bulk of the infrastructure investment. As I have been advised, that now only comprises around 21 percent of the actual infrastructure project. The other 80 percent or so is for significant marine development and port-side development.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): In light of the answer to that question by the member, I would just refer her to a media release dated 27 May 2020 by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, which includes the following paragraph: “The funding for the land-side new terminal infrastructure, including rail and vehicle marshaling yards, will create hundreds of local construction jobs in Picton … along with hundreds of service supply jobs right across New Zealand”. So it is absolutely clear that the statement that the Minister made—that this project had somehow “veered off course from its core purpose”—is incorrect. The core purpose of the project, agreed by the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party, was for both the construction of new ferries and, indeed, portside infrastructure, as Mr Peters stated in his statement of 27 May 2020.

The third question I wanted to put to the Minister was to get her to confirm that the request made in February 2023 by KiwiRail to fund the cost escalation—which had now reached $2.6 billion by that point—was not agreed to by the previous Government.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, in two parts.

Hon Grant Robertson: Right. So we didn’t agree to that.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, no, no. I’m not agreeing to that; I’m saying I’m prepared to answer your questions. The first question that you asked was about whether or not the project had veered off. It is absolutely the case that the project today is four times what it was when the Government originally committed to it. And its core purpose was to replace an ageing ferry fleet, and yes there was an acknowledgment—not that the ferries would only be 20 percent of the project.

To the second question: yes, I have been advised that when the former Government learnt that the project had blown out to $2.6 billion, the Minister at the time then spent a significant number of months trying to work out what to do. And then I got handed the baby.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): So, to—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Well, hang on, is this a point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it’s a question; he’s had his turn.

SPEAKER: No, he hasn’t—no, he hasn’t. We’ve got the new rules that allow the interchange leader by leader, so we’ll go right through his—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah, but you want the facts, don’t you?

SPEAKER: No, no, he hasn’t finished just yet.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: So, to clarify, the Minister of Finance’s statement says that the project veered away from its core purpose when it hadn’t. The Minister’s statement also says that the cost had blown out to $2.6 billion under the Government’s watch when that money had not in fact been agreed. In fact, in my first question I pointed out that in October 2022, KiwiRail told the then Government that the worst-case scenario would be a need to increase the tagged contingency we’d put aside by $280 million.

For the record, making sure that we have a sustainable and resilient Cook Strait ferry crossing is essential for New Zealanders. We all agree that the cost escalations that KiwiRail proposed were unacceptable, and they were not accepted by the previous Government. What we did was attempt to safeguard the investment that had already been made, the sunk cost that will now be lost to New Zealanders, and ensure that there would be a ferry crossing. We did spend a considerable amount of time between Treasury and KiwiRail and the Government this year to find a way forward, and before we left Government we made an in-principle offer to KiwiRail for part of that construction cost, because we did believe that it was important that New Zealanders did have confidence that there would be an ongoing, sustainable Cook Strait ferry network. KiwiRail rejected that offer, and that was the position we were in going into the election.

The position the Government now leaves New Zealanders in is with no idea as to how they will be able to ensure that there is a future sustainable Cook Strait ferry crossing. I urge the Minister to do two things: find some certainty for New Zealanders, and release the full documentation about this project so that New Zealanders can see how hard the previous Government worked to keep a ferry crossing going for them in the future.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I think if the point that the former Minister wishes to make is that this sorry saga dragged on for months under his watch, then, yes, that is correct and, yes, he did oversee multiple cost blowouts and, yes, there was engagement with KiwiRail about it. But, actually, what then happened was that he decided, four weeks out from an election, to put aside money for the project, knowing full well that in the form that he was choosing to fund it, KiwiRail had recommended it not proceed and that, for example, passengers would not have been able to get on the ferry unless they caught a bus on to the ferry. That was the solution that was thought viable.

Hon Grant Robertson: No ferry—that is your solution. No ferry.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: But if the member will just give me a moment of patience, I wish to apologise to the House, because when the member asked me about 2022, I had in front of me an old timetable, and not the one that I have released publicly. I regret that error. The member is correct that the timetable I have released publicly says that in October 2022, “KiwiRail [advised] Government of cost escalation in the terminals, noting market engagement with construction partners [would] result in initial price estimates for the terminals programme in December 2022. KiwiRail noted that in a ‘worst case scenario’ the tagged contingency would need to increase by $280m.”

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Under Standing Order 365(1) and 365(1)(a), could I just say to the Minister, well this is a fact: that when this matter was under control, as quoted by Mr Robertson, in 2020 it was under control, but when experience and common sense left the room and the handbrake left the room—it was in 2021 they made that stupid decision without being able to see what it would cost eventually. That’s why it blew out. A 21 percent cost project for ferries became the kind of thing that they did over and over and over again, and the other project is in Antarctica where it’s blown out as well—90 percent under their watch.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I’d also like to start with a series of questions to the Minister. Thank you for your ministerial statement. Has the Government received any advice that quantifies the risk to New Zealand of not having replacement ferries if current vessels fail?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Point of order. Mr Speaker, if you go to Standing Order 365(1)(b), can you tell us how it is that that member is speaking on behalf of that party? She’s not the leader, and that’s the qualification that’s required.

SPEAKER: No. So, if you read a bit further, you’ll find that in all these matters, I think the words are “at the Speaker’s discretion”, and that party leaders notify who they intend to have speaking on behalf of their party. That’s a process that got well established in the last Parliament.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Well, just, when you say, “If you read further”—I’ve read further, and I do not find those magic words “at the Speaker’s discretion”. So I’m asking for the Standing Order to be enforced.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Speaking to the point of order, perhaps I can help the House by reading out Standing Order 365(1): “Following a ministerial statement, the leader of each party with six or more members, or a member authorised by the leader”.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Yeah. Where’s the authorisation?

SPEAKER: I am assuming—assuming—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You don’t assume.

SPEAKER: Yes, I can. I can do a lot of things, and assuming is one of them. And I’m assuming that the Green Party wish to be represented by their transport spokesman, as the Labour Party were represented by their infrastructure and finance spokesperson, and others will come. I’m not sure on what basis the member was speaking, but that’s OK—as the leader.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I can assure you of the basis, because we have more than six members—and we’ll have many more in the future—and because we know what we’re talking about.

SPEAKER: Righto. OK, we didn’t want to introduce new debating topics, so I’ll call Julie Anne Genter.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): I’ll just repeat my question, which was to the Minister: has the Government received advice that quantifies the risk to New Zealand of not having replacement ferries if the current vessels fail while we’re waiting for this replacement process?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I don’t need advice to know that New Zealand needs a reliable, safe ferry service between our two islands. Our Government is committed to ensuring that is the case and we are confident that that will be the case.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Notwithstanding that the chair of KiwiRail has mentioned that the choice that the Government has made to completely start over in this process will mean that there’ll be considerable delays, potentially, to the replacement ferries, how much of the cost that the Minister has been referring to is related to necessary upgrades to port infrastructure, particularly to address seismic risk?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The member will be aware that there are a number of options for how we proceed in terms of replacement ferries, and I’m confident that we can get a timely solution.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Can the Minister let us know—because she has mentioned that only 21 percent of the current cost is related to the vessels themselves—how much of the cost is related to necessary upgrades to poor infrastructure, particularly to address seismic risk?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I don’t have that figure to hand, but I would note that the member herself said, on X, that the project had become too expensive.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Yes, that’s true, and thank you for referring to my very reasonable comments, because I’ve long been a critic of Government spending in the transport sector inflating too fast and not being good value for money. But I guess the relevant point for the Minister that I’m interested in drilling down for the benefit of the House is whether or not the cost inflation is out of line with other cost inflation we’ve seen in infrastructure, particularly in the building space, because of changes made—I believe by a previous National Government—to earthquake standards and our awareness of the risk of seismic risk and whether in fact quadrupling of price is pretty standard certainly for the highways that this Government will be trying to deliver.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well, a cost blowout of four times the size of the original project may have been pretty standard under the last Government, but it’s not going to be pretty standard under this Government. In fact, this project was an outlier, and the point I would make is this: the cost of the infrastructure that needed to be developed at port and on the land side and the marine side, I understand, was a lot more expensive because of the size of the boats—ships—that had been committed to. And that is relevant here because the pattern under the previous Government was that they would commission an infrastructure project without first doing the appropriate due diligence to fully understand the design implications and implications of it. Don’t take it at my word; read the Auditor-General’s report.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Two more quick questions: will energy efficiency and carbon emissions be a consideration in any new vessels that are commissioned, given that they do have ongoing implications for the cost of running the vessels?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, it’s my understanding that modern ferries are less emissions intensive than the ferries we are currently using.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Will continuity of rail freight services be a consideration in the necessary port-side infrastructure?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): We will continue to want the ferries to support good freight connections between the North and South Island and we continue to support rail as a means for transporting freight around New Zealand.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Cabinet has made the right decision. KiwiRail’s project iReX was hugely wasteful, had already faced cost blowouts, and was facing larger significant cost blowouts. We are a Government that wishes to ensure that we deliver value for money for all New Zealand taxpayers. This move will also send a clear signal to the public sector that we will not tolerate cost blowouts and a lack of value for money.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Look, just a couple of questions, please. We’ve been concerned—in fact, last night, we were debating how we protect small to medium sized businesses. So it’s a unique position Te Pāti Māori finds itself in, asking the Government about economic questions and, surely, productivity. So we’ve now got a decision that will axe and limit the economic ability within Te Wai Pounamu and its aspirations and ability to grow. We have been extremely concerned with the messages that we’ve had from businesses in Te Wai Pounamu. So we have a couple of questions.

If we are continuing down this “cancel culture” approach economically, can you please explain what the Government is doing to connect—has it communicated with those businesses who are in shock, who have had aspirations to grow their economy, and what is it that you are doing (1) to contact them; (2) what is the solution that you’re providing them instead of, because their aspirations have been built around this project—rightly or wrongly; we’re certainly not sticking up on either side. What we are more focused on is how their economic aspirations will be realised, when you will be able to support them, and, most importantly, what degree of investment is the Government going to provide so that the businesses, the very grassroots people who have been relying on this project and this solution to happen, will happen?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for her question and her appreciation that, actually, the wellbeing of all New Zealanders is dependent on businesses being able to thrive, employ people, grow, and innovate. I can assure the member that our Government is committed to a range of policies to assist in that.

When it comes to this specific project, I repeat the assurances in my initial ministerial statement: we know that there are people who are impacted by this decision, but we wish to reassure them that we remain 100 percent committed to reliable interisland ferry services and that we will make decisions that allow those to continue to be delivered. We appreciate the importance of that connection for freight and for passengers.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe. Can I seek clarity, please, on which businesses, which sector within the business sector have been communicated with or consulted, bar the release that came out?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): We have asked that KiwiRail engage its contract partners and stakeholders in communicating this information, and we anticipate further engagement in the days and weeks ahead.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Can I please seek clarity: have Ngāi Tahu, Wakatū, the Māori business sector, who are extremely successful and prominent in Te Wai Pounamu—what has been the engagement with them and how are they being supported to realise their aspirations economically that they’ve had on hold for a very long time?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for her question, and I would welcome further engagement with that group. I think the point here that we can agree on is that there are a number of stakeholders with an interest in ferry services across the Strait. Those stakeholders include businesses, the port, and KiwiRail itself. I wish to re-evaluate this project not just from the perspective of KiwiRail but actually from the perspective of all port users, ferry users, and freight users, to ensure that we’re coming up with a solution that best delivers value for all New Zealanders, not just for the KiwiRail business.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Just one last question. Have the regional and local government authorities been engaged, and what has been their feedback to the Government about this change of direction?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): We will be carrying out engagement with those entities in the coming days. I wish to be clear with the House about the challenge that we found ourselves in, which is that we had a financial situation on our desks that required urgent resolution due to requests to draw down funding. At the point that Cabinet made a decision, responding to the urgency of that, we then knew that we had made a very market-sensitive decision. What we thought was important to do was communicate that to KiwiRail as quickly as possible so that they could then make the appropriate engagement with their contractual partners. We moved quickly to do what we said we would, which was as soon as was possible to make open to the whole public, to all New Zealanders, the decision we’d made and the reasons for it.

I don’t think it’s conscionable that the previous Government knew since February last year that this project blew out to $2.6 billion and chose not to do anything to allow people awareness of that problem.

SPEAKER: No, sorry—

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We got given a basket case—

SPEAKER: Sorry, the member—

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —we took action—

SPEAKER: The member doesn’t appear to be listening. Ministerial statements need to stay tightly to the matter being dealt with, without the added speculation. I might just offer that advice to all Ministers who might be listening now.

Voting

Correction—Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill

SPEAKER: Before the House was suspended, the result of the vote on the second reading of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill was incorrectly announced as Ayes 70, Noes 51. The correct result was Ayes 67, Noes 54. The record of the House will be corrected accordingly.

petitions, papers, select committee reports, and introduction of bills

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Observations from our central government work in 2022/23, and the report of the Ombudsman entitled “Insights and observations on extreme weather events 2023”. Those papers will be published under the authority of the House.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially the very strong actions the Government has taken to ensure that we’re focused on improving the lives of New Zealanders by rebuilding the economy, and particularly with news out this morning that the previous Government’s economic mismanagement saw the economy shrink in three of the past four quarters—three of the past four quarters. In particular, I stand by our action to stop the significant risk posed to taxpayers by cost escalations on KiwiRail’s ferry project; also our action to focus the Reserve Bank on fighting inflation, which is, of course, pain and suffering to all New Zealanders; of course, our action to actually change the speed limit rules to allow New Zealanders to get to where they need to go faster and safer. I have to tell you this is a Government that is elected with a mandate for change and an unashamed and unflinching focus on cleaning up the mess left by that member’s Government to get our country back on track and realise all the great potential that sits in this country.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his Government’s decision to suspend regulatory impact statements for proposals in his 100-day plan, and does he feel that suspending advice on the impact of his decisions is based on data and evidence?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are very comfortable with suspending regulatory impact statements because we don’t think they’ll add value for decisions that we’re repealing legislation on.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with the National Party leader, Christopher Luxon, that “I can tell you we’re going to be straight with the New Zealand people, tell it as it is—the good, the bad and the ugly”; if so, what’s changed?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Very much—we’re going to be very straight up with the New Zealand people, and what they have heard today is that that was a previous Government that led three of the last four quarters’ declining economic growth. What they’ve heard today, and we’ve been straight up with the New Zealand people about, is a $15 billion New Zealand Upgrade project with an Auditor-General’s report that says it was appallingly managed—appallingly managed. What you’re going to see is a Government that is very focused on making sure taxpayers are not treated like bottomless ATM machines, that we get return for their money.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did he suspend regulatory impact statements before or after the regulatory impact statement for repealing fair pay agreements was leaked?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are determined to make sure, through repealing the fair pay awards legislation, that we can actually make it easier for people to hire workers, not harder.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Point of order—I think I know what’s coming.

Hon Grant Robertson: Yeah, well, do you want to do it?

SPEAKER: I think you could do a bit better with the answer, Prime Minister, on that one.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It was before.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his Government’s decision to repeal fair pay agreements, the Reserve Bank dual mandate, and the Clean Car Discount under urgency with no select committee process or regulatory impact statement, or does he agree with Chris Bishop that “This is a disgraceful way to make important law.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question, yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Has he suspended receiving regulatory impact statements because (a) he doesn’t like what they say, (b) he’s going to ignore them anyway, (c) he knows they’ll leak, or (d) all of the above?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We went to an election, we had a campaign, we made very clear what we were going to do, and we’re going to do it.

Hon Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, can we now expect that because of the election result, no pieces of legislation will be referred to a select committee?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. We want a proper process. [Interruption] No, no, hear the answer—hear the answer. The answer is: when we went to the election with really good clarity about the policies we’re going to repeal and the dumb legislation from the previous Government that we’re repealing—we’re going to move forward with great speed so that we can actually get this country moving forward. But what I’d just say: I think it is ironic on a day when we’ve had economic news where in three of the last quarters under the previous Government we had negative economic growth, at a time when inflation has been out of the band for the last over 21 months, when we’ve seen wages not keeping pace with inflation, we haven’t had a single economic question from the Opposition—a single economic question from the Opposition.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: has the Government just learnt, with respect to KiwiRail, the lack of impact that the impact statement had on the previous Government?

SPEAKER: No, look, I’ll tell you what, these sort of questions aren’t very helpful to the order of the House. They might be enormously entertaining for a number of people, but they’re not helpful for the order of the House, and that’s two days in a row, so can you sort of keep it down to genuine questions? There must be a lot of genuine questions you could ask the Government.

Hon Phil Twyford: Does the Government now support the immediate humanitarian ceasefire it voted for at the United Nations General Assembly yesterday, or does it still believe there are a list of preconditions that must be met before calling for a ceasefire?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think our position is very clear. We want a cease to hostilities—as you’ve seen in the parliamentary statement; as you’ve seen from the joint Prime Ministers’ statements for Australia, New Zealand, and Canada; and as you’ve seen for our support for the General Assembly resolution.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has she received on the state of the New Zealand economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): New Zealand is experiencing difficult economic conditions. Statistics New Zealand confirmed today that GDP declined in the third quarter of this year, a third decline in just the last year. It’s also been confirmed that New Zealand did experience a recession at the end of the last year and the beginning of this year. I’ve also seen reports from the member for Remutaka, who claimed last week that we “inherited an economy that is growing faster than many economists had predicted” and that the economy was “never in recession”, but I have seen no evidence to confirm those reports.

Stuart Smith: What reports has she seen on the outlook from here?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: After six years of economic mismanagement, turning the New Zealand economy around won’t be achieved overnight. Our Government has inherited big fiscal deficits, a large current account deficit, an economy in decline, and a labour market on the skids. Rebuilding the economy will be a massive task, which is why we are moving fast and getting quick wins as part of our 100-day plan.

Stuart Smith: What reports has she seen on GDP per capita?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Today’s GDP per capita figures show on a per person basis the New Zealand economy has gone nowhere since the start of 2021 and has gone backwards four quarters in a row. The last time GDP per capita continued to slide for at least that long was during the global financial crisis. Kiwis knew they were going backwards under Labour. Today’s data is just a confirmation of the challenge they face.

Stuart Smith: What steps is the Government taking to turn economic conditions around?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government is taking urgent steps to rebuild the economy in the interests of all New Zealanders. We’re supporting the Reserve Bank in their fight to beat inflation, because after years of rampant spending, this Government understands that monetary policy needs mates. We’re eliminating wasteful spending, ensuring taxpayers’ money is spent well, and we’re clearing out the blockages in the economy and reducing costs on business so we can chart a course back to growth, investment, and opportunity.

Question No. 3—Energy

3. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister for Energy: What are the total emissions reductions that will result from the doubling of renewable energy that was promised by the Prime Minister?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Our commitment to doubling renewable energy will provide businesses with the investment certainty they need to make the switch to renewable energy, which will ensure emissions reductions. We have started work on updating the national policy statement for renewable electricity generation to make it easier to consent renewable energy. Part of that work will include getting that advice. I note that the Boston Consulting Group study The Future is Electric found that electrification could reduce annual carbon emissions by 22 million tonnes in 2050.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What percentage of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions come from the energy sector?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Now, what percentage of our energies is about 50 percent.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Can he confirm that the percentage of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions that come from the electricity generation is 5.7 percent, whereas the percentage of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions that come from the energy sector is 40.6 percent?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as the member rightly knows, those are very good statistics and I’m sure she’s correct.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What other policies, then, does the Government have to reduce the 40.6 percent of New Zealand’s emissions that come from the energy sector, given that the Minister’s own officials advise that only 5.7 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions come from electricity generation and the Climate Commission advised complementary measures to the emissions trading scheme (ETS) are required to shift industrial and process heat from carbon sources?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as the member will know—being a former Minister for energy—the electrification of our economy is going to require a significant amount of more electricity to be generated. That is why we have a policy of updating the national policy statement for renewable electricity generation to double renewable energy in New Zealand. And it’s not just for electricity supply now, but for all of the other activities that it’s going to be required—in transport and industry and energy, all of those other factors—and I thought the member might know that.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I did actually ask a very specific question and it was around policies that are going to be required to move energy emissions over to electricity.

SPEAKER: Look, yep. Stop arguments and save time. It was a very long question. Can you ask it concisely again?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: OK. What policies does the Government have to move industrial and process heat coming from fossil fuel sources to electrification?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this Government will use the emissions trading scheme, which is a critically important tool—and a critically important market-based tool—to help move New Zealand and bend the curve of emissions down. That Government over there wanted to subsidise wealthy businesses with profitable businesses using taxpayers’ money. We’ll use the emissions training scheme as the key tool.

Scott Willis: What is his plan to fix market imbalances in an electricity market dominated by four gentailers, which today’s Generating Scarcity 2023 report shows has stifled investment in renewable electricity generation and resulted in billions of excess dividends to shareholders, all while thousands of New Zealanders struggle to heat their homes?

SPEAKER: I appreciate that’s the member’s first question, but it’s a very long one and contained quite a degree of statement. So just work that one through in the future, but the Minister will now answer.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, thank you, and it’s a very good question. But what is stifling the market was this former Government’s Lake Onslow—

SPEAKER: Yep, you’re not talking about them.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —programme: $16 billion, which was actually stifling investment—

SPEAKER: Yep, that’ll do. That’s enough.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Can he confirm that for the ETS alone to shift industrial process heat to electrification, the price needs to be in excess of $200 a tonne, and can he advise New Zealanders what it will do to their electricity and petrol bills at that price?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: What I can confirm is this Government is going to have the tools and the policies to double renewable energy in New Zealand so we can electrify our economy. What I will say, though, to the businesses—the profitable businesses—which were receiving subsidies under that Government, they will not be receiving them under this Government. They should be making those investments themselves. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Very good, thank you. We’ll call question No. 4.

Question No. 4—Infrastructure

4. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent reports has he seen on decision-making processes for Government infrastructure investments?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): I’ve seen a deeply concerning report from the Auditor-General into the shovel-ready and New Zealand Upgrade programmes. The Auditor-General found that Ministers did not have enough information to be sure that decisions supported value for money, and that the Government carried out due diligence after announcements were made. He also has reported to Parliament that as part of putting together the report, some of the so-called shovel-ready projects were not actually shovel-ready at all. Like many who have read this report, I was shocked to learn of these findings and see how badly the schemes were managed.

Grant McCallum: Were Ministers provided advice which raised concerns about their proposed plans for these Government infrastructure investments?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, they were indeed. The Auditor-General found that at several points, officials advised Ministers of risks to value for money for both the Upgrade programme and the shovel-ready programme. What’s more, Ministers were explicitly advised there was a real risk of cost overruns as well as delays. The Ministry of Health advised a number of health projects were not ready to be announced, yet despite all these warnings, Ministers pushed on with the announcements anyway.

Grant McCallum: Did the Auditor-General raise any additional concerns about ministerial decision-making?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Unfortunately, he did. He found that Ministers made their decision to progress some of these projects despite the projects not being fully scoped or even planned. Business cases were not always available or up to date. In the case of Auckland Transport, announcements were made about Auckland Transport projects and Auckland Transport were not even asked for the business cases or for information about the projects they were responsible for. It is clear Ministers were too worried about hitting “send” on press releases rather than ensuring value for money for taxpayers.

Grant McCallum: Supplementary—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Just stay standing—we’ll just have a bit of quiet while people are asking their question.

Grant McCallum: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Did the Auditor-General raise any specific concerns about transparency and integrity as part of these infrastructure investments?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, he did, and this is very worrying—the House should listen to this. The Auditor-General stated, and I quote, “A lack of transparency in documentation about how and why decision-makers made significant decisions can … create the perception that processes lack integrity.” To quote the report itself, “During the process of longlisting, shortlisting, and Ministers making final decisions … many changes were made to the list of projects under consideration. There were frequent discussions between Ministers’ offices and officials during this time, and some projects were added from outside of the Infrastructure Reference Group process … My staff found it difficult to determine how or why these changes were made.”

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does he agree with the comments made by the Hon Shane Jones in the Northern Advocate on 22 May 2021, I quote, “We had a pretty good lick of the cherry in the last three years and as far as Northland is concerned, I’ve learnt the hard way in that the challenge to getting things done is timeliness and execution. Now, the acid is on the system to get the projects running and to get the money out. For a small country with a very modest population, we spend an inordinate amount of time ticking boxes.”

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. That is a seriously true statement, except it is not the Minister’s responsibility to answer it.

SPEAKER: Thank you. The question was “Had he seen …”—

Hon Members: “Did he agree …”

SPEAKER: Well, it’s a bit like assumption; you’re allowed to speculate occasionally, and in this case it’s not unreasonable.

Hon Members: Do you agree?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I agree with a lot of what Shane Jones says, particularly about the need for speed when it comes to consenting, about which the Government will have more to say very soon.

Grant McCallum: Were the stakeholders to these impacted projects well consulted as part of this process?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it won’t surprise the House to learn that the answer is no. In one of the most surprising findings of this deeply troubling report, key stakeholders like the Infrastructure Commission and Auckland Transport had to find out about the New Zealand Upgrade programme through media coverage—and if that isn’t reflective of the priorities of the last Government, I’m not sure what is. We are a coalition Government who knows that high-quality infrastructure boosts our economy and benefits all New Zealanders. We are committed to multi-generational infrastructure up and down this country, but we also know that proper process and respect for taxpayer money should be at the forefront of our decisions, and it will be under this coalition Government.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) to the Minister of Transport: What did the official advice provided to Cabinet on 4 December estimate would be the impact of discontinuation of the clean car discount on New Zealand’s carbon dioxide emissions, and were there any inconsistencies between this advice and other analysis provided by the Ministry of Transport?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): The advice to Cabinet noted that the transport sector remains on target to achieve its contribution to the first emissions reduction plan. Advice provided to Cabinet is consistent with all the advice provided to me by the Ministry of Transport.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has referred to this document, and I’m wondering if we could ask the Minister to table the documents since he’s referred to the content of it in the House.

SPEAKER: It’s a matter of whether or not he relied on the document in the House or was simply making a statement from it. So I’ll ask the Minister: is that a document he has with him in the House that he would want to table?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I just said that it was advice provided to me.

SPEAKER: Advice provided—yeah. I think there’s a slight difference between advice provided and a document. So thank you but—your next supplementary?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why won’t he release the draft regulatory impact statement that was prepared by the Ministry of Transport on the impacts of carbon emissions before we vote on the legislation today?

SIMEON BROWN: It was a draft document.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why won’t he release the draft document so we can see what the draft advice was before we vote on the legislation?

SIMEON BROWN: It was a draft document. I’ve asked Ministry of Transport officials to prepare the proactive release of this Cabinet paper and regulatory impact statement.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why won’t the Minister release the advice produced by the Ministry of Transport telling us what the impacts of the repeal of this legislation will be on New Zealand’s carbon dioxide emissions before we vote on the legislation in the House today?

SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I’ve said, the advice to Cabinet noted that the transport sector remains on target to achieve its contribution to the first emissions budget.

Simon Court: What impact will removing the Clean Car Discount have on transport emissions given they’re already covered by the emissions trading scheme?

SIMEON BROWN: Well, that is a very good point; they are covered by the emissions trading scheme and capped under that scheme. But also, as I said in my answer to the primary question, the advice to Cabinet noted that the transport sector remains on target to achieve its contribution to the first emissions reduction plan.

Mark Cameron: Are there other impacts from removing this ute tax, like the benefits to the rural communities who will no longer need to pay the fee on their farm vehicles?

SIMEON BROWN: Well, yes, this removal will have a huge benefit for our rural communities. In fact, the advice I’ve received shows that of the $290 million paid in tax under the ute tax scheme, half of it has come from people buying utes. Many of them will be farmers and tradies in our rural communities.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does the official advice that the Minister is refusing to release before we vote on the legislation concur with the report released by Concept Consulting for Drive Electric that the reduced uptake of electric vehicles, because of the repeal of the Clean Car Discount, will see New Zealand spending over a billion more on imported oil from overseas and mean that we will import 100,000 fewer electric vehicles in the period from now to 2030, thereby increasing carbon emissions relative to if the scheme stayed in place?

SIMEON BROWN: I dispute the assertion made by the member. In fact, I was very pleased to see yesterday that Ford announced that, from 1 July, the day after the tax will be removed, they will be reducing the price of some of their electric vehicles from between $5,000 and $8,000.

Chris Bishop: Has the Minister received reports about past examples of Ministers adamantly refusing to release correspondence about related matters to the transport portfolio that might be in the public interest to release?

SPEAKER: You may want to ask that question, but the Minister’s not going to answer it. It’s in the same category as the questions we had earlier: interesting but not particularly relevant to the question.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: If the Government is concerned about subsidising wealthy people, why is the Government happy to give money—billions of dollars in tax breaks—to wealthy landlords when that does nothing to reduce emissions? Is it the case that this Government is happy to give money to rich people when it does nothing to reduce emissions?

SPEAKER: Sorry, that question is out of order as well.

Question No. 6—Education

6. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Education: What recent reports has she seen around distractions in classrooms?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): The 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment results released last week found that half of students said learners get distracted by using devices in every, or most, math lessons compared to 30 percent of students on average in the OECD. Many parents have expressed concerns about the use of cellphones at school, and research indicates that removing these distractions leads to an improvement in academic achievement, health, and other social benefits.

Mike Butterick: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Mike Butterick. We’ll just wait a minute for the House to go quiet.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. With respect, we’re struggling to hear. So if we could just have some of the speakers move forward. Thank you.

SPEAKER: Yeah, can the technicians just find out whether that mike is going as well as it could, but we will take the supplementary from Mike Butterick.

Mike Butterick: What does the Government plan to do about this?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: To assist a turn-around in falling achievement, students need to focus on their schoolwork during their precious class time. That means doing what we can to eliminate unnecessary distractions. That is why, as part of our 100-day plan, the Government will ban cellphone use during the school day for students so they can focus on their learning. New Zealand schools that have banned cellphone use, and overseas jurisdictions that have imposed bans, report better concentration and engagement in class, and have seen an improvement in achievement and wellbeing.

Mike Butterick: What feedback has the Minister heard around the banning of cellphones in schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Feedback from principals who have already imposed bans has been very positive. In a recent New Zealand Herald article: “Otago Boys’ High School rector Richard Hall said banning cellphones during school hours was ‘one of the best things I’ve done’.” Hall said that since the policy was implemented “it was now normal to see boys interacting and playing together during breaks. Staff were also spending a lot less time dealing with cyber-bullying.” A 14-year-old student from Hillmorton High School in Christchurch said, “People are talking to each other more, rather than just sitting on their phones.” She said, “In whānau groups people are actually talking and socialising, getting to know people more. Also, you’re not distracted by things on your phone and can focus more on your schoolwork.”

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Banning everything except smoking.

SPEAKER: Yep, well, I’m going to ban all commentary on all questions if we can’t just be a little more orderly.

Mike Butterick: Does this change echo global trends around cellphone use in schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes. More and more countries around the world are banning or considering a ban on cellphones in schools. This year, a Unesco report called for a global ban on smartphones in schools, and they found that the use of social media in the classroom is disruptive and has negative impacts on learning outcomes. The mere presence of a mobile device was found to distract students and have a negative impact on learning areas in 14 countries. The use of technology is associated with negative impacts on physical and mental wellbeing, and increased susceptibility to online risks and harms, which affect academic performance in the long term. And I suggest that if the Opposition have a further supplementary, they should take that opportunity, but I suggest that they probably won’t.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: On behalf of the Minister, yes. I particularly stand by my statement on the New Zealand Health Survey that the results underline “just how badly an urgent change in direction for health is required”.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that the New Zealand Health Survey shows that the smoking prevalence for Māori is still 17 percent, and repealing amendments to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act will mean unacceptable levels of Māori cancers and Māori deaths, and aren’t those outcomes worth showing some moral courage for?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, this has been delegated to Minister Costello. What the Minister has said is that this Government is committed to reducing smoking rates. This Government is committed to reducing smoking rates and helping people quit smoking.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he stand by his answer last week that the target of 5 percent smoking prevalence was unlikely to be achieved, even with that Government’s proposed policies, or does he agree with Dr Shane Reti MP’s statement that the denicotinisation proposal “by itself, almost gets us to the smoke-free target that we’re looking for.”?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, as I’ve said to the House before, this has been delegated to Minister Costello.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can he confirm that, following this flip-flop, the Government’s health policy amounts to nothing but scrapping the free prescriptions initiative in order to fund cancer medicines while allowing more cancer-causing tobacco to fund millionaire’s tax cuts?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, this Government is committed to improving health outcomes for all New Zealanders, including Māori. Particular areas of need we’re targeting are shorter stays in emergency departments, faster cancer treatment, improved immunisation, shorter wait times for first specialist assessment, and shorter wait times for surgery. I find it interesting with that member, who was part of a Government that took a wrecking ball to our health system in the middle of a pandemic.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What does he say to the thousands of people who marched, the 47,000 who signed a petition, and the 67 percent of voters who want our smoke-free laws to stay, and why won’t he front up to them?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, this Government is committed to reducing smoking rates and helping people quit smoking.

SPEAKER: Listen, we’re going to have to make a bigger effort when questions are being asked. With all due respect to Dr Verrall, when she was asking her questions, a lot of the commentary was still coming from both sides of the House. Even though you’re quick out of the blocks, you’ve still got to show that respect.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement, “The dream I have for Māori is to lift pretty much every health metric we have to the level we have for non-Māori”; if so, what actions, if any, will he take to achieve this?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes, and I stand by the rest of the quote where the Minister said, “I think the hapū probably know what’s best for their communities.”

Hūhana Lyndon: How will Māori health leadership be brought into the health sector when you intend to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, can I point the member to another quote, “My dream is to devolve decision making and funding and give to mana motuhake as close to home and hapū as possible.”

Hūhana Lyndon: Why is the Minister proposing to repeal a structure that will enable Te Aka Whai Ora to take a local approach empowering hapū, iwi, and whānau through iwi-Māori partnership boards and localities?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, as outlined in the Speech from the Throne, services will be delivered on need using a range of effective providers, including iwi and community groups, who have the best reach into the communities they serve. On this side of the House, we believe communities know what’s best for their people, not Wellington.

Hon Marama Davidson: If he agrees that iwi and Māori are best placed to ensure our health system works well for Māori at a central level as well as through local devolution, then why not ensure this is resourced through Te Aka Whai Ora that was already established, instead of creating a new model?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, if I can point that member to another quote from the story she’s referenced: “The difference in philosophy on where we want to go and where the Māori Health Authority was going was why was all that funding held in Wellington with a Wellington-knows-best approach?”

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he acknowledge that removing the smoke-free laws will mean more people will die from smoking while the only people who will benefit from this are landlords getting tax cuts?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister—have stated in the House before, I have full confidence in Minister Costello, and to reaffirm this Government is committed to reducing smoking rates and helping people give up smoking.

Question No. 9—Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

SPEAKER: [Interruption] And the same rules apply. When the question is being asked, be quiet.

9. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Is he planning on attending Waitangi 2024; if so, what preparations, if any, has started on behalf of the Government?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): E te Māngai o te Whare. In response to the first pātai, and in my Wanganui dialect, ana. In response to the second pātai, planning is well under way across Government, and the calendar will be finalised shortly.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister think that repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, disestablishing the Māori Health Authority, repealing smoke-free legislation, removing Māori names of Government departments, repealing fair pay agreements, and introducing a Treaty Principles Bill will enhance the Māori-Crown relationship, and, if so, will he and the Prime Minister be prepared to front up and discuss this at Waitangi 2024?

SPEAKER: I know the point of order that’s about to be made, but I have to say, right at the cusp—the Hon Willie Jackson brought it just inside the borders. It’s not unreasonable that he lists some of the Government’s policies and asks about their context in Crown-Māori relations, particularly given the venue that is a subject in the question.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We look forward to a warm and cordial welcome by our Tai Tokerau whanaunga, where we will discuss many important—of national significance.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister, will he set time aside in the discussion or kōrero at Waitangi, for Willie Jackson to explain why he lost all those Māori seats?

SPEAKER: No response required.

Hon Simeon Brown: Are you going to answer it?

SPEAKER: The member can ask a question; he can’t answer one.

Hon Willie Jackson: Will the Minister ensure that the Prime Minister will be there?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E mārama ana au e whaiwhai haere ana te tari o te Pirīmia me ōna āpiha kia whakarite mai te haere ki Waitangi, heoi anō, kei te Pirīmia me tōna tari te mana whiriwhiri.

[I understand that the Prime Minister and his officials are working towards going to the Waitangi; however, the decision lies with the Prime Minister and his office.]

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You’ll have to get your translations on, but I don’t believe he’s addressed the question. What do you think?

SPEAKER: What do I think?

Hon Willie Jackson: What do you think?

SPEAKER: I think that was an excellent answer.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister agree with the statement of a young Tama Potaka when he said central government and local government need to consider sharing power with Māori instead of hoping that Māori entitlements and demands will be satisfied with policies that, effectively, mainstream Māori into Pākehā society; if so, will he commit to discussing this at Waitangi 2024?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: National-led Governments have linked in and engaged with many Māori over time, including in Waikato, with the Waikato River settlement. That is a great reflection of working together.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, point of order—point of order. Mr Speaker, point of order.

SPEAKER: Hold on—no.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, he didn’t even go near the question—didn’t go near it.

SPEAKER: Yeah—Willie, please. I’ll come back to you in a minute, right? So we’ll just do things bit by bit. Sit right down. Good. Now, I’m not sure who was on their feet first here. Supplementary, the Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon Members: It was a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: He didn’t call—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: He did.

Hon Grant Robertson: Very loudly.

SPEAKER: No—excuse me. Sorry, you can say what you like, but it’s all on film.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh, that’s good—that’s good. Great. We’ll sort it out later!

SPEAKER: Yeah, you sort it out later if you like, but, the way I took it, he started to tell me the point of order before he was called. Point of order, then—Willie Jackson.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Speaker. You’re doing a good job.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m not feeling very good about it at the moment, and that could blow back on the member.

Hon Willie Jackson: The Minister did not address whether he agreed with the young Tama Potaka.

SPEAKER: And if the member looks at his own primary question, even though he’s expanded it—and I’ve been very generous to him—it is so wide of the mark, it’s not a reasonable question to ask him. So we’ll let it go.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister whether or not eight New Zealanders with Māori in their background in Cabinet is not evidence enough of equality and democratic representation in this country?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m absolutely proud of there being the highest number of Māori members in the Cabinet that there ever has been.

Hon Willie Jackson: Congratulations about that, Tama. Can I seek leave to table a document? It’s called “A Treaty Agendum for Local Government”, by Tama Potaka, where he is very clear—

SPEAKER: Where does it come from? Is it published and is it available?

Hon Willie Jackson: It’s been, but not widely. Many people in this—in fact, probably no one in this House has read this, and it’s really good reading. It’s really good reading, so seeking leave.

SPEAKER: Now that the member’s done the advertorial, a lot of people might seek it out to read it. But it’s very available.

Hon Chris Bishop: Will there be discussions at Waitangi 2024 about the failed TVNZ-RNZ merger—

SPEAKER: No—that’s out of order too.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Yes?

Hon Chris Bishop: You ruled, in relation to the primary question’s original question, that a long list—I think it was 10 items—and whether or not those would be discussed at Waitangi 2024—you said that that was within the scope. I, frankly, find that remarkable, but I’m using the same formula.

SPEAKER: You might find it remarkable, but I also said that the member could answer that because they were Government policies that were being asked about. Now, you can add to every Government policy if you like. At some point, I get to make a discretionary decision about whether it’s a longer or shorter list—it’s been exhausted.

Question No. 10—Workplace Relations and Safety

10. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What steps has she taken to improve flexibility in the labour market?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Today I am pleased to announce that my bill to repeal the fair pay agreements system has passed its third reading in Parliament. By achieving this milestone, we are in the final stages of bringing about real change for businesses and workers that helps New Zealanders get ahead.

Cameron Luxton: How will repealing fair pay agreements and improving labour market flexibility benefit workers?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: This Government wants to see higher wages and better conditions for workers, especially during a cost of living crisis. Repealing the fair pay agreements legislation gives businesses the certainty they need to invest and grow, creating more and better jobs. By repealing the fair pay agreements, we will have improved labour market flexibility, which has been a pillar for New Zealand’s economic success for the past three decades. This Government has removed these one-size-fits-all agreements, which have no place in an economy where innovation is key. The best and most sustainable way to increase the wages of workers and to achieve lower prices for consumers is to improve productivity and to reduce the regulations that hold businesses back.

Cameron Luxton: What message would the Minister have for those who opposed the repeal of fair pay agreements?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: There has been a lot of scaremongering around the repeal of the fair pay agreements. I do wish to clarify a few points. First, I want to make it clear that no worker will have their wages cut or be worse off, because no fair pay agreements were finalised. Secondly, Māori, Pasifika, young people, and women will not be harmed or made worse off by the repeal of the fair pay agreements, because no fair pay agreement was finalised. The minimum standards in employment law remain, including the minimum wage, health and safety law, and leave entitlements.

Camilla Belich: What does she say to the 200,000 to 300,000 workers who would’ve benefited from fair pay agreements?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No fair pay agreements had been finalised. All bargaining was in very early stages and everybody can be certain that their current entitlements remain.

Cameron Luxton: What other plans does the Minister have to increase flexibility in the labour market?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Next week, I will be introducing a bill to the House to expand access to 90-day trials to employers. Whether a business has two or 200 employees, bringing on any new employee costs time, it costs money, and it is in the best interests of any business to find the right fit. Expanding access to 90-day trials will give workers access to new opportunities they would otherwise not have. They allow employers to employ someone who might not tick all the boxes, but a person who might have the right attitude. By delivering on this Government’s commitment to extend the availability of 90-day trials, this Government will give all businesses greater confidence to employ more Kiwis.

Question No. 11—Agriculture

11. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Agriculture: What reports has he seen on the export revenue forecasts for the primary sector?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): The Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries report released today shows a forecast dip in export revenue. Exports hit a high of $57.7 billion this year but are forecast to drop to $54.3 billion in the year to June 2024. It’s been a tough few years for New Zealand’s food and fibre businesses. However, it’s still a strong result against a backdrop of very challenging times. The Government will be working with the primary sector to ensure they are productive and remain world’s best-practice food and fibre producers.

Suze Redmayne: What else is this coalition Government doing to help farmers?

Hon TODD McCLAY: We will be supporting our primary sector businesses through targeting a doubling of the value of exports over 10 years. We think we should measure ourselves more on how much we export and sell overseas by value, not just by volume. Non-tariff barriers cost New Zealand agriculture around $8 billion each year. We’re committed to working to resolve barriers that are preventing New Zealand’s world-class primary industry sectors from doing business with the world. We understand that part of growing value is getting more return for what we already export, and I’m delighted to work closely with the sector to see what else we should do to supercharge the support to businesses. We’re determined to the break down barriers that are such a drag on their product productivity and growth.

Suze Redmayne: What benefit can our primary sector expect to see from this work?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The Government is going to champion the significant achievements the primary sector has made at home and abroad. The sector accounts are 81.9 percent of New Zealand’s goods exports to the year June 2023. Food and fibre export revenue growth has exceeded the non-primary industries for seven of the last 10 years. Adding indirect effects, we estimate that the food and fibre sector contributions to GDP increased by 16 percent. They’re responsible for 13 percent of employment. When rural New Zealand does well, all of New Zealand does well, and when the rural economy is strong, New Zealand’s economy is strong. The coalition Government trusts farmers. We’ll be working to get costs down; better rules, not more regulations; supercharge the rural economy so farmers can be proud of what they do. We have stopped Labour’s war against farmers.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Yes, and, in particular, actions to repeal Labour’s inequitable and fiscally irresponsible ute tax by 31 December as part of our coalition Government’s hundred-day plan. Can I thank the support from the ACT Party and the New Zealand First Party for this policy.

Tangi Utikere: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Well, he’s trying to speak.

Tangi Utikere: Does he stand by his statements on a regulatory impact statement for the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill: “I believe one has been drafted.” and “I believe it would be published.”; if so, when will it be published?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in answer to earlier questions, there is a draft and it will be published.

Tangi Utikere: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the question was quite clear in terms of timing, and I submit to you that—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, excuse me—points of order will be heard in silence.

Tangi Utikere: The question was quite clear in terms of timing, and I submit to you that the member has failed to address the question.

SPEAKER: Yes, but it was the second leg of the question. Ministers must address one of the legs of a question.

Tangi Utikere: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon: “I believe transparency is important, openness is important.”, and “Talking straight to the New Zealand people about outcomes and the achievement of them, or not, [it’s] how you get judged as a Government.”; if so, why is he refusing to release the regulatory impact statement before the final vote on the bill later today?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I always agree with the Prime Minister, who is getting our country back on track.

Tangi Utikere: Does he really think that telling journalists and members—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute—start again. You’ve got to be quiet when people are asking questions.

Tangi Utikere: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he really think that telling journalists and members to just OIA a regulatory impact statement and continue to refuse to provide it to the Parliament meets National’s coalition agreement that “decisions will be based on data and evidence”; if so, how?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in answer to earlier questions, the document will be released.

Bills

Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 2 Amendments, repeals, and revocations concerning other enactments (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, when the committee suspended on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill, we were debating Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 18 to 26, “Amendments, repeals, and revocations concerning other enactments” and Schedules 3 and 4. The question, again, is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much. I have been taking a call since the debate on Part 2 started, so I really appreciate the opportunity to take this call. I have some questions for the Minister. Clause 26 in Part 2 revokes all of the regulations of the Land Transport Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme charges, and those, I believe, are the regulations which put in place the charges related to the carbon emissions of the vehicle. So my question to the Minister is about the impact this will have on New Zealand’s carbon budget beyond the first budget, beyond 2025. What advice has he received on the impact out to 2030? Has he asked any questions about the fiscal risk or cost of not meeting our 2030 carbon budget and the potential penalties from the EU, given that our free-trade agreement (FTA) with the EU specifies that we will be taking action, and if we are not seen to be taking serious action to meet our 2030 commitments, there will be penalties under that FTA.

So I guess my question to the Minister is just really about the advice that he’s received about modelling of the impacts, beyond 2025, of repealing these regulations, what impacts that will have on the vehicles supplied into the New Zealand market to the average emissions of the vehicles in the fleet, and then whether or not he’s received any advice about a risk or fiscal cost related to increased emissions as a result of repealing this bill.

In addition to those questions, I haven’t had a chance to go up and check the Table to see if we did get an enlarged picture of the energy economy label.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: It is there.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: That’s great. I’ll have to go and look at that more closely so that I can read all of the wording on that energy economy label.

But I guess, firstly, I’d like to thank the Minister and the Government for retaining the energy efficiency labelling. That level of consumer information is extremely important so that people can easily assess the vehicle that they’re looking at buying, what it might cost to run, what the carbon emissions related to it might be. I think it is a useful label. But I’m wondering if the Minister has received any specific advice on what impact the label would have on consumer behaviour relative to a price incentive. Because we know from the Climate Commission report that was released the day before yesterday that the Climate Commission has provided evidence and a recommendation to the Government that there needs to be a specific step taken to deal with the upfront cost barriers of purchasing a lower- or zero-emissions vehicle. That’s exactly what the Clean Car Discount was designed to address. It was to reduce cost barriers to getting into low-emissions and zero-emissions vehicles for New Zealanders. So I’m just wondering if he has any advice on how the label will actually make it easier for people to purchase a vehicle compared to an actual discount in price, which would address the fundamental barrier that has been pointed out by the Climate Commission to the Government that we need to address the cost barriers.

So I’ll just summarise my questions one more time, because I realise I’ve said quite a few, and I want to make sure the Minister has an opportunity to answer them. Did he receive any advice about the risk or fiscal cost to New Zealand of not meeting our 2030 carbon reduction commitments as a result of repealing this legislation? And what impact would a labelling scheme have on consumer behaviour? But especially what impact would it have relative to a price incentive which actively reduces the cost of getting into a zero-emissions vehicle relative to a very high-emissions vehicle?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Further to the very good question that the Hon Julie Anne Genter just posed—and I note that these were questions that went unanswered in Part 1 of the legislation. The House and the committee did not receive any information about what advice around emissions the Minister considered when making this decision. I think, given that we are not going through a select committee process and given that the House is not being released all the information that the Minister holds in the form of the regulatory impact statement, this committee of the whole House has a responsibility to understand the information that the Minister had there.

So in addition to the emissions information that the Minister did or did not receive—because, of course, this Part 2 is about the administration of what we’ve just done in Part 1 of the bill. So when we’re coming to this Part 2, that is still very pertinent, Mr Chairman. What I’d like to add to that is, of course—and it is linked to the emissions question—that the demonstration pathway, as outlined by the Climate Commission, has some very specific targets around what needs to be met in order to meet those emissions reductions. That is that from 2025 to 2030, we need to see our annual light electric vehicle (EV) registrations climb from 11 percent to 67 percent of the market, and reach 100 percent by 2035.

I think the Hon Julie Anne Genter put it very well around whether or not that label that is covered off in this part is going to be enough to form that switch. We’ve already heard from the Minister that he thinks the mechanism for inducing people to do the switch will be the emissions trading scheme (ETS). Of course, that requires the evidence that is in the public domain—that requires an ETS pricing of $235 a tonne, which will have around an 80c a litre, or more, impact on the price of petrol. So I think it’s useful to understand exactly where the Government’s coming from, of where they see the levers, and that is a price hike of 80c-odd a litre of petrol, rather than giving people the clean car rebate. So it’s good to get that out and flesh out that point.

My other point in the first part of the debate—and I just want to ensure that we’re going to have this labelling on our second-hand vehicles, and that that practice will continue. What I was able to get to share with the House was the evidence that’s there around the uptake on new to New Zealand used vehicles that have been such a big part of this scheme. So when we have the Opposition talking about this just being a middle-class subsidy for wealthy people to go and buy Teslas, that’s not always the case—clearly it sometimes is, but not always the case.

I do note that in the first part of the bill, my colleague Tangi Utikere put forward a motion to allow those people who feel so strongly that this is a bad scheme but none the less may have taken up the scheme themselves—we wanted to introduce a provision so that they could pay that money back directly to the Crown. But I do note that the Government didn’t want that.

In terms of the ability to—I just want the Minister to confirm that this information will continue to be on second-hand vehicles. That’s because that is such an important part of how it is we can ensure equity outcomes.

But also not only new to New Zealand used vehicles, what we will increasingly see—and one of the things that the Clean Car Discount has been really important for is actually creating a second-hand market of cars in New Zealand so that we will feed through that all of those brand new EVs eventually become second-hand cars. So will we continue within that not only new to New Zealand but the EVs that have been previously purchased as new cars, but then as they enter the second-hand market, will they continue to have that labelling so people can make those decisions around that, and we can ensure that we are fuelling that second-hand market?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the members for their questions. As I’ve answered numerous times—and I’m not sure if it’s actually relevant to Part 2 in relation to the question of the carbon impact, but I’ll answer it anyway—as I’ve said, advice I’ve received shows that this does not impact on our ability to meet the carbon budget for the 2025 period, and that is something I’ve answered. Again, it’s not actually relevant.

The part we’re dealing with here is, effectively, amendments to the Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2011 and amendments to Energy Efficiency (Vehicle Energy Economy Labelling) Regulations. I do note that the member did have some questions in relation to the labels, and I’m very pleased to see the new labels, which I hope members have received. They’re bigger. You can now read the labels. One is in colour and one is in black and white.

Hon Member: I like the colour.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I prefer colour as well—it’s blue.

But what I would say is that the changes that are being made here simply are to revoke the regulation which requires that the label includes information about the Clean Vehicle Discount, because, of course, this repeals that legislation.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana meitaki maata. Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for some of those responses. It’s pleasing to see that that label has been provided because it did cause some concern prior—well, earlier in the day—that things couldn’t be seen. I wonder whether the Minister, once he’s now seen it in colour or in black and white, whichever he chooses—actually it would be quite good to have the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that everyone knows about, whether it’s in colour or black and white, I don’t think members really mind. Just having it would be quite helpful. You know, digitally or even soft copy, hard copy, just having the RIS I think would be quite helpful, particularly given that, you know, we don’t have a select committee process, so the need of the House and this committee to scrutinise what’s currently before it is really, really important.

We will leave that with the Minister because we haven’t seemed to see much action in that space today. But there is still hope because the final vote on this bill hasn’t been taken yet. So there still is an opportunity for the Minister to provide that to inform the committee and the House’s thinking as to whether this bill should proceed or not.

Having said that, I wonder whether the Minister has had a chance to see whether there were any other gaps, because I note that my colleague Camilla Belich has a tabled Amendment Paper that does seek to insert new clause 22A. It does relate to the ability for sellers and importers of vehicles to identify a value that would have been applicable had the scheme not been repealed. I think that’s really important because it lends itself to how seriously some of these decisions are taken, but also that it’s going to be an opportunity to display that on the energy economy label as well. So I’ll leave that with the Minister, and any other gaps that he may have as well.

I do think it’s also important to just hear from the Minister about the price differential between electric vehicles and non-electric vehicles (EVs). You know, all the evidence seems to suggest that that will narrow over time. And I’m sure that having a best evidence - based approach is one that the Minister, I’m sure, would appreciate, in practice and in reality. I just wonder whether there are any comments around why the life of the scheme perhaps shouldn’t be extended as a result of that—that narrowing of that price differential over time, that there is a justification there about, well, why not extend the life of the scheme to allow that narrowing to get to the point where, effectively, there is an equilibrium, I think would be quite helpful.

I wonder whether, also, in terms of Part 2 which is around the administration, the Minister had given any thoughts to possibly decreasing the discount threshold—that’s actually very important. My colleague the Hon Dr Megan Woods talks about the importance of labelling being applied to second-hand vehicles that are new to New Zealand. That’s important, but also the accessibility to the market is equally important in making sure that that is the case.

I want to just very briefly touch on my amendment that has been tabled, and my colleague Dr Woods has already referred to that. It does seek to in clause 26 insert a new part within the Schedule, and that relates to an ability to have a purchase arrangement in place, Minister, by the end of 31 December 2023, and if that is the case, then the rebate would still be applicable. Now, we have heard previously that members of our community can just go on out to a lot, get a car before then, and all will be sorted and sweet. The reality is that most people who would look to use this as an incentive can’t just go out and pick up an EV off the lot.

Now, if this was an opportunity to say, “Look there is provision, let’s have arrangements in place at the end of 31 December, let’s honour those arrangements”, in terms of those households who—and many of us have referred to this in contributions in this Chamber already—have been thinking about getting an EV and have made that decision. I think I’d be interested to hear the thoughts on the Minister’s approach, or the Government’s approach, to, basically, penalise those members who may be planning to do this in the lead-up to Christmas, but for whatever reason they don’t.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: All I want for Christmas is an EV.

TANGI UTIKERE: All I want for Christmas is an EV. And I think, you know, it might be an opportunity to provide a level of fairness for those that may wish to have that as their Christmas present come this Christmas.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. It has been a long day after another very long day, and yet I’m yet to get any answer to the question I’ve asked more than once to the Minister of Transport. It is really important. It’s important for many in our rural communities who are leaders or are keen to be leaders in reducing emissions that I get an answer to this question. I would like to encourage the Minister, firstly, to visit Mike Casey’s electric orchard near Cromwell and see what rural leadership is in electrification for our rural communities and to show New Zealand leaders how we can change things.

I would like to hear from the Minister an understanding of the proportion of fees and rebates that are paid and received by rural communities, and what is the proportion of fees and rebates that are paid and received by urban communities—noting that many in rural communities drive Leafs, not simply utes; noting that many in urban communities drive Ford Rangers and other large vehicles that are a danger to children on bikes. You don’t really need them to get through the supermarket challenges. So, to the Minister, please, can I have an answer, or will you continue to dodge?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the members for their questions. I note member Tangi Utikere was referring to a tabled amendment in the name of Camilla Belich which suggested that there should be continued identification of what the rebate values would’ve been if the scheme had not been repealed. This adds no value as we’re discontinuing the scheme. We don’t support that tabled amendment.

I note there’s a tabled amendment by the Hon Julie Anne Genter which seeks to extend the scheme by, I think, six years. Obviously, we don’t support that, because it’s not within the Government’s policy intent.

I thank the member Scott Willis for his question. You know, this part that we’re dealing with here is dealing with amendments to the Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2011, amendments to energy efficiency labelling, revocation of land transport regulations. The question I don’t think fits within the part that we’re debating.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chairman. There’s still a number of questions that I have about the labels, and I’d like to thank the Minister and his officials for getting down copies that members in this Chamber can read so they can ask the questions. I have to say, if I had to choose between the colour and the black and white version, I’m going black and white. Blue’s not really my colour. The Minister asked us to state a preference in terms for the kind of copy we want, so when it comes for releasing the regulatory impact statement we’d quite like that, whichever way—colour or black and white will work.

But my question about this is whether the Minister sought any advice or gave any thought to other information that could be on the label. Of course, Part 2 of the bill is all about what is the label, and the changes that are being made to the label. One of the things that we do know is that in other jurisdictions where you have had increased uptake of electric vehicles (EVs)—so usually one of the triggers of getting rid of a rebate scheme is actually that you get to price parity between an EV and an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle, so that the need for there to be assistance is no longer necessary, because there isn’t that delta in terms of the capital expenditure.

So there’s a couple of ways in which this could be expressed on the label. I was giving this a great deal of thought, and one of the things that I think would be the most useful way for it to be expressed on the label would be the marginal abatement cost that sat around that vehicle. So I want to know from the Minister: did he receive advice on the marginal abatement cost of this policy? If so, what was that advice? What is the marginal abatement cost of both the Clean Car Discount but also the marginal abatement cost of removing this policy? I think this is the kind of information—the marginal abatement cost—that would help consumers to make really good decisions. They would know, then, in terms of the benefit that was flowing through to them.

One of the things that I am mindful of is that it is very rare for climate change policies to have a negative marginal abatement cost. What I mean by negative abatement cost—it means that people will be better off because of the policy. Actually, the Clean Car Discount was one of those policies that did have a marginal abatement cost—and certainly there is—which we released when we passed the law, because it is useful to have that information. They had a marginal abatement cost per tonne of between minus $170 and $199.

I want to know whether the Minister has received information on the marginal abatement costs of removing the policy—i.e., how much worse off New Zealanders are going to be, or how much better off New Zealanders will be as a result of his policy change, and whether he has given any thought for that being the kind of information that could be displayed on the label. Because it’s not only the efficiency that consumers will want; it’s important information. One of the things that we know and all the research shows us is, actually, people are doing their sums and working out whether that extra expenditure—that extra capital expenditure—upfront is something that makes sense for them and their families.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Since the Minister referred to it, I did want to take a call to speak to my proposed tabled amendment and the reason for it. So the reason why I’ve tabled an amendment suggesting that they phase out the Clean Car Discount at 2030 instead of now or some years in the future is because we know that, as the Minister has often stated himself, over time the vehicle manufacturers are moving to produce entirely zero-emissions vehicles. So there’s just this gap, now, between now and when that happens, where we need to take steps to address price parity, and that’s the purpose of a policy like this. It’s not meant to last for ever; it’s meant to last as a transition to shift the vehicles being offered and also to shift the demand profile from, you know, businesses and New Zealanders so that we shift the average tailpipe emissions to be lower than what they would otherwise be. That’s the point of Government intervention at this point.

Every vehicle purchased between now and 2030 is going to lock in 20 years at least of emissions. If we can influence the market so that we’re selling lower-emissions vehicles here in New Zealand, we’re bringing in, we’re importing, more low- and zero-emissions vehicles. That means that we’ll have reduced emissions over a long period of time, and, as the Hon Megan Woods was just saying, of course that has a positive economic benefit for New Zealanders because they’re spending less money on fuel. So at the same time that we’re reducing carbon emissions, we have an added benefit of spending less money on imported petrol and diesel, and that’s a direct productivity gain; it actually helps us with our current account deficit.

I don’t know if the Minister is aware—but he might be interested to know, especially with his portfolios—that currently our imports of vehicles and fuel to run them exceed the value of our exports in dairy. So all of our dairy exports are not even covering the cost of the cars that we need to use and the fuel that we need to use to use our transport system. So there’s a huge opportunity there to reduce our current account deficit. Obviously, lots of people are going to continue carrying on driving their petrol and diesel vehicles, and that’s fine. But this policy, the purpose of it is to make it easier for more New Zealanders to access low-emissions and zero-emissions vehicles and that has economic benefits for us, it has environmental benefits. It’s really a win-win policy, and if the Minister and the Government were to accept my amendment it would mean that the policy would continue for that period of time that we’re waiting for the global market to completely transition to zero-emissions vehicles.

I would also note that the reason vehicle manufacturers are moving in this direction is because most other countries have policies like clean car standards and clean car discounts or other price incentives at the point of sale that are deliberately targeted at reducing emissions from the vehicle fleet. And we know that relying on fuel being in the emissions trading scheme (ETS) will not work to that end. It does not work. It will not work. That’s why fuel is not in the ETS in Europe and I would be totally fine with fuel being taken out of the ETS here if it meant we could have a policy that was more effective like the Clean Car Discount. But, of course, European countries largely have much higher fuel taxes than we do, and maybe that would help the Government close the gap in its infrastructure spend, because it’s promised a huge infrastructure spend with no revenue really to pay for it. I think they’re going to be very unhappy when they realise how much costs have inflated compared to the prices that they put in their manifesto for those so-called “roads of national significance”, which are really roads of private greenfields-developer significance, particularly in the Auckland region.

But seriously, Minister, seriously—he says the market’s going in this direction and we’re going to be mainly offered zero-emissions vehicles, hopefully, by 2030. How do we close the gap between now and 2030? The Minister’s only referred to meeting our emissions budgets to 2025, not beyond 2025. Obviously, there will be penalties and fiscal risk for New Zealand if we aren’t on track to meet our emissions reduction commitments by 2030, beyond 2025.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Some further questions have been raised by members. I note that the Hon Megan Woods asked whether I’d received further advice on the label. No, I had not asked for further advice on the label, but I’m glad we can now read it. It’s good to see that it’s big enough to read.

The other question was in regards to other jurisdictions, and I just would like to note that the New South Wales Labour Government is ending subsidies for electric vehicles (EVs) on the same date that we will be ending subsidies on EVs.

I note the Hon Julie Anne Genter continues to ask questions about her tabled amendment. I’ve already said we don’t support it.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Chair. I note that the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Transport, for this part of the bill gave a previous answer that referred to emissions budget (EB) 1. What he was asked about, he has answered, about emissions budget 1, under this part of the bill—and I thank the Minister for that. He said New Zealand is on track to meet emissions budget 1, and that is absolutely the case. And a big part of how New Zealand is going to meet emissions budget 1 is because of the reduction in transport emissions, largely driven by the uptake in electric vehicles that the Clean Car Discount has brought around.

But what we still want to know, despite asking multiple times and not hearing from the Minister, is what the impact will be on EB2 and EB3. I think they’re the ones that have the most consideration. Certainly EB2 is the focus of the Climate Change Commission’s advice that was released this week, which makes it abundantly clear that if we are going to see the uptake that we need to get baked into our emissions reduction plans—if we’re going to see that uptake, there do need to be supplementary measures. People aren’t going to make the shift of their own volition at the moment.

So I’m really interested to know what advice he’s had, and given the Minister’s already alluded to EB1 under this part of the bill, I’d like to hear more from him around emissions budget 2 and even out to emissions budget 3. And, of course, his Government will have to start putting together emissions budget 4 in the not too distant future.

Obviously, the Government can repeal things and is repealing things, but one of the things that we did change in the last Parliament—actually, I think it was the Parliament before, and there was cross-party support for it—is we now have a framework that if you remove something that is baked into an emissions plan, you need to say what you’re substituting it for—what is going to be put in its stead.

I can’t imagine the Minister is saying that on 1 January the Government will be raising the emissions trading scheme price to $235, because that has been the answer that he’s given for what will drive the uptake.

But if the Minister is saying that on 1 January the Government is planning to raise the emissions trading scheme price, the unit price, to $235 a tonne, then I think New Zealanders probably need to know because when they’re coming back from their summer holidays, they’ll be paying around 80c a litre more for their gas.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Chair. I still have a few questions that I’d like to cover off. Just looking at Part 2, there is reference to Schedule 2—which we’ll come to in due course—but I do want to just identify that, obviously, colour is quite important because it’s referenced there in the section around that.

But my question to the Minister is whether he is comfortable that the time frame for the administrative functions in terms of winding things up that might come post 31 December 2023, if this bill is enacted—whether that is sufficient; whether he has received any advice relating to whether there might be a need to delay that somewhat or have some provision within Part 2, or indeed within Schedule 2, that might provide an opportunity if things were not winding up by the particular time in question; that there was provision around that. I think that is important.

The other is about the cost of winding things up, as they relate to the administration of it and whether there is provision for that. Can I just turn to the specifics of Schedule 2, because it is referenced in clause—well, within Part 2, specifically, its first mention comes from clause 22 and then clause 25 as well. It identifies a range of particular purposes for which that close the financial year, which ends on 30 June 2024, would kick in. I know that there is an Amendment Paper on the Table that relates to clause 2, which we’ll come to, around the particular time that things would wind up.

But I wonder whether the Minister has any thoughts or whether he’s received any particular advice as to whether or not any of those specific elements or purposes that are contained in clause 15 of Schedule, (a) through to (e), might be impinged or there is to be some impediment. Now, the reason why I’m referencing that is because Part 2 is where the reference to Schedule 2 comes in—specifically, as I’ve already said, clause 22 and clause 25.

So I wonder whether the Minister has any comments on that. And I still haven’t quite received a response around whether or not there is some justification for having a purchase agreement reference in there. Again, we haven’t had an opportunity to hear from people about what they think about this bill as part of the parliamentary process, and so I would be grateful if the Minister could turn his mind to those questions.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m hoping this is raising an issue that we may not have had a bit of a deep dive into. It’s still on the emissions reduction plan, but in the area of light vehicles, light fleet, and the potential—well, not the potential but also—so the target from the emissions reduction plan was to increase zero-emissions vehicles to 30 percent of the light fleet by 2035. So I’m wondering if we have had enough response from the Minister around the impact of this repeal on that target from the emissions reduction plan. We can link that target to the Climate Change Commission’s advice released just this week, which shows that the emissions trading scheme alone is insufficient to substantially move people away from fossil fuel - powered vehicles. So what then? What then is the actual plan and the vision for moving people to the solutions and supporting our communities and our people, moving to the way that the world is going to have to adapt rather than clinging with desperation to an old world with old energy and dirty energy?

Tim van de Molen: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve been listening closely to the last several speakers now, and at the beginning of this committee stage, I sought leave to have all provisions taken as one debate so that we could have a more free-flowing debate across the breadth of the bill. That leave was declined by the other side, which, of course, then requires them to stick quite tightly within the confines of the specific parts as we’re going through, and we’re straying quite a wee way from that, I would suggest, across the last several speakers, Mr Chair, and I’ll just ask your view on that.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I absolutely agree that it is important to take this part by part, and perhaps I should have been clearer that my repeal in my speech at least—I know I can’t speak for others—is specifically pulling into Part 2 the amendments, repeals, and revocations concerning other enactments.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you. Just for members’ awareness, we are starting to stray from Part 2. There have been some contributions which have been focused on Part 2, but we are starting to drift. When we start to drift, we start to get repetitive, then we’ll need to move this debate on. Anyone wants the call?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Point of order, Mr Chair. I’m just seeking your guidance. I understand the need and the necessity not to have repetition at the committee stage. But you can see the dilemma that members are in in this Chamber, Mr Chair, when we simply aren’t getting answers to questions that have been asked. So we’re seeking some guidance from you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We’ll take a few more calls and see where we go, but people are drifting, and then we’ll have to move this debate on.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. I still am yet to receive—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): And if we can focus on Part 2, that would be helpful.

TANGI UTIKERE: —yes—a response from the Minister about the purchase arrangements being put in place, which actually is specifically on the tabled Amendment Paper in my name, and it does relate to Part 2. Perhaps members opposite do need me to go through that again, so I’m very happy—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: I think you should read it out.

TANGI UTIKERE: I’m very happy to. For clarity, the amendment seeks to, in clause 26, in new Part 7 of Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Act, add new clause 28 after clause 27. If I just draw that to members’ attention, that is contained there, but it also relates to the transitional provision for vehicles purchased before the close of 31 December 2023.

I think that there is a really interesting point here, as well, that I think my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has some comment on, in terms of an Amendment Paper in her name that relates to what that actually means—these dates that relate to the close of 31 December 2023, and other dates that are contained here—and whether there needs to be some specificity, which I think is why my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has suggested, I think, midnight. You know, the reality is that if you’re looking to register a vehicle, a motor vehicle—and it’s the application or the administration process for which Part 2 is responsible, as I understand it. People need to know what that actually means. Does it mean that it’s going to be at 5 o’clock when the shop closes? Does it mean that you can go online and take care of those aspects at 11.59 p.m. Does it mean that if you’re on there at 11.58 but you hit at 12, you’re not captured? This is important information.

Now, members opposite may not like to hear this, because, again, I remind the committee, and I remind the public of Aotearoa New Zealand, that we are in urgency—those who, again, are tuning in, thinking, “Why is it that the Parliament continues to sit?” It’s because they want to know.

You know, I think what we also need to reflect on is the fact that we are leading into Christmas. Christmas is upon us. People need to know certainty. You know, this is a Government that seems intent on simply rushing this through, during a state of urgency, to get things done. Now, there is no problem in having a line in the sand in terms of when something will kick in, but there is a problem when things are ill-thought-through, when they’re not relevant, and when there is some confusion. I know that members on this side of the House do not want to have to come back to the House to address some shortcomings, in terms of misfortunes, because Part 2, which is about the administration, simply cannot be adhered to.

So while members opposite may wish that, actually, we don’t tease these out and the Minister doesn’t respond—which is their prerogative—I do think that members of the public all around the country will be expecting to know if they are going to purchase an electric vehicle that would be eligible for the rebate scheme. And that is in the lead-up to the Christmas period. There needs to be some certainty for them. That’s all that I’m asking, yet I have still failed to receive a response from the Minister about the purchase agreement and the particular time around that. I know that it might be cumbersome for members, but that is, unfortunately, the position that members in the Opposition are in, because we are not getting an answer to the very questions that we are putting to the Minister.

A lot of this stuff could have been teased out if there was adequate information in front of the committee. There was a question about the nature of advice that officials had provided. There have been questions provided by my colleague the Hon Dr Megan Woods around the nature of some of the efficiency gains and how that relates also to emissions budgets. Yet we still fail to have a response from the Minister, and I invite him to provide that response to allay some of the concerns that, as of now, still continue to not be responded to.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I thank the member for the question. In regard to his tabled amendment, we don’t support it. The policy intention of the legislation is for the rebate and ute tax scheme to end at midnight on 31 December 2023.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do have a question for the Minister about the vehicle emissions and energy economy label in Schedule 3, now that we have the larger version of it, and thanks to the officials for getting that, or whoever it is that provided that.

I was just wondering if there is the ability for this label to be updated in line with changing costs. So, for example, the energy economy, if you look under the energy economy side, next to the star label, it says its cost per year is an estimate based on a petrol price of $2.50 per litre, an electricity price of 15c per kilowatt hour and an average driving distance of 14,000 kilometres. I’m just wondering if the Minister can tell us if there’s provision for the information that’s used to calculate the estimated cost to change, based on rising petrol prices, because petrol prices have been over $2.50 a litre, I think, for quite a while, and they stay above $2.50. Obviously, the higher the petrol price, the more cost savings from an energy efficient vehicle like an electric vehicle or a low-emissions vehicle.

So, if anything, this label, if it’s using $2.50 per litre as the estimate, is underestimating the cost savings of an energy-efficient vehicle. Or it’s underestimating the cost of an energy inefficient or gas-guzzler vehicle, and I think that’s really important. I just want to make sure, given that it’s in the Schedule, is this word for word in the Schedule or is there a provision for the wording around this to change to reflect changing petrol prices, which I think would be quite important to give accurate information to consumers?

Now, maybe this is just an example and it is possible to make those changes, but I guess I’m just seeking guidance as to whether the actual specific wording in here and the numbers that are used to calculate the cost estimate are limited to what’s in the Schedule or whether that is something that can change. And if it does change, how often is the cost of petrol updated in these energy labels? Could the Minister tell us that?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Chair; I was being vigorous based on your previous advice. This will be a short contribution, and I note that these new MPs across from us are very full of themselves. It’s interesting that they are not embarrassed that the Prime Minister said in question time that he was all for—what was it?—“proper process”. And here we are in urgency in an all-stages debate, and yet the Government benches are so loud and not embarrassed, and I would hope that people like James Meager would be embarrassed by this process. [Interruption] Here we go—I was planning on making a very short contribution but apparently I’m to talk about the last six years and my contribution since I’ve been here, which is interesting.

I did very much enjoy being an Associate Minister for the Environment and, of course, doing our great legislation to do a whole lot better for mitigating climate emissions, Madam Chair, which, of course, you know about having served on the Environment Committee. That was important work that we have done, and I very much hope that it will not be undone.

I will, of course, refer more about that in the third reading when we’re talking about the whole bill, but here I was just going to remark on a remark of the Minister mere minutes ago when he was discussing an answer to Tangi Utikere’s question about the timing of when the scheme ends. He said—if I heard correctly—that it will be at midnight on 31 December 2023. I’m interested in why he’s saying it’s at midnight on 31 December 2023, because of course the Schedules refer to the close of 31 December 2023, and if the close is to mean midnight, I think it should say midnight. But if we can have the Minister on record, on the Hansard, saying that it should indeed be midnight and to clarify the point that it wasn’t an offhand response, that would be a very useful thing for the member to do. Thank you.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 22A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now we come to Schedule 1, where there is no debate. The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to Schedule 1 to insert new clause 28 in Part 7 of Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Act 1998 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendments to Schedule 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Schedule 2, also with no debate. The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to Schedule 2 to insert new clause 16 in Part 4 of Schedule 1AA of the Land Transport Management Act 2003 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Schedule 3—also no debate.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 4 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is the final part of the debate. There are two simple clauses that we are debating here: the title and the commencement. The title is: “This Act is the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Act 2023.” I note there are a number of proposals on the Table—the Government won’t be supporting any of them.

The commencement is: “[The] Act comes into force on 1 January 2024.” This has been long signalled. This was what the Government campaigned on. This was what people have had clearly signalled, and we will not be extending that at all. I see there’s a range of other amendments on the Table, but we campaigned on this policy; we are now delivering on this policy.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for those comments. It’s interesting to hear this common rhetoric that, you know, “We’re doing this as a Government because we campaigned on it.” Yes, there is some sense to that, but it also, I think, needs to be considered alongside other campaign commitments which were not campaigned on but suddenly are making their way through at some stage to become laws—and, you know, we think of things like smoke-free generations. So it’s interesting that those sort of comments from the Minister I think need to be taken in the context for which the rules currently operate.

Madam Chair, I know that this is a very discrete component of the bill, and I have two proposed amendments on the tabled amendment paper. The first one relates to the title, and I think one of the really interesting things—and we’ve covered this off as a House whilst we’ve been sitting in urgency—is around the title of a bill or a piece of legislation. It’s really important because it signals, actually, what is in the provisions that are in the bill or the legislation. I think, when we look at what the current title is, the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill, doesn’t—well, it might reflect what it actually does, but I don’t think, actually, it reflects what it means. So the tabled amendment in my name for clause 1 is to replace that with “Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal (Taking No Action on Climate Change) Amendment Bill”. I think that really does sum it up, because what we have in front of us is a series of suggestions that the committee has gone through that really do reflect the position of the new Government, and that is one where the Government is not prepared to take any action on climate change.

The reason why that’s an appropriate title is because all of the things that are contained in all of the clauses within this bill lend themselves to stupid types of decisions—decisions that are not going in any direction to support households and communities to look at their emissions profile and to make some real positive decisions in that space. So the suggested change to the title of the bill to the “Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal (Taking No Action on Climate Change) Amendment Bill” is a very good name, and I do hope that members of the committee will support that. It is reflective of the current Government’s position, and I look forward to support from members.

The second is an amendment to clause 2, which would seek to replace the commencement date. Currently, the commencement date is quite specific. It’s 1 January 2024. It differs from some other bills where it relates to the day after Royal assent or something like that. I do think that having a specific date, if we’re to head down this path, is helpful. I think that the suggestion of replacing that 1 January 2024 with 1 January 2025 is very helpful, and I hope that members will be supportive of both of those clause changes.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, as agreed by the Business Committee, it’s time for me to report progress back to the Speaker. So I just ask for some silence as we get the House prepared for some maiden speeches.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Maiden Statements

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): Mr Speaker, I begin by congratulating you on your appointment. It is evident it is well deserved and affectionately accepted. In the brief moments I have been here, I recognise that your judgment, fairness, and humour will serve us well in both maintaining order and ensuring that all voices are respected, while allowing for robust and engaging debate.

I stand before you in this House today, acutely aware of both the privilege of my position and the responsibility. I reflect on the words of Jonah Lomu. When he was acknowledged for his humility, he responded that it is far better to have a seat at the back of the room and be called to the front, than the other way around. It is in my nature and foundational to my upbringing to value humility, so to enter this place with the honour of the appointment afforded to me, with a seat literally at the front of the room, has been unsettling. But I’m truly honoured to accept this position as one of service to those who have put their faith in me, and service to our nation and all its people.

On this point, I wish to acknowledge those to whom I owe this position. Firstly, to New Zealand First, my colleagues who stand beside me, and all those who gave up so much over the last three years to return us to Parliament. We truly are the party of hard-working Kiwi battlers, who welcomed me into the fold with encouragement, generosity of spirit, and friendship. The list is too vast to name you all, but I commit to you that I will dedicate my time here to realising the vision that we share.

But I will be clear: the success of New Zealand First comes through the leadership and strength of a man for whom I have the greatest admiration. The Rt Hon Winston Peters is without equal as a leader and a statesman. His vision, knowledge, wisdom, wit, and dignity will be essential as we navigate making the changes needed for this country.

I also cannot miss out my neighbour, the Hon Shane Jones. I know how much I have to learn, and I look forward to benefiting from your wise counsel, your courage, and your determination to navigate the rhetoric to deliver for New Zealanders.

To the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, the Hon David Seymour, and the colleagues with whom we have formed a Government, I congratulate you all and look forward to continuing as we have started, working in the best interests of our wonderful country.

I acknowledge with respect all members in this House: those returning and those who stood in this House for the first time only recently. I fully appreciate now the commitment and dedication it takes to be in this place. It strikes me that there is so much more in common than many would believe. We are all here to serve, to give a voice to those we represent, and we are here to deliver on our promises. It is my hope that this common ground will serve us well as we navigate the work ahead.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge my family and friends who are here today. Thank you so much for standing with me. I won’t embarrass you by naming names, but you’re all part of my journey to this place. For some, you are my inspiration; for some, you are my safe haven; for some, you are my wisdom; and for some, you are my driving force. It is the simple lessons that you’ve given me: breathe, just breathe; that sometimes, digging a hole and working in the dirt is good for your soul; putting your shoulders back and looking people in the eye makes you strong; and after a tough day, a bag of chips and a lemonade can put things right again—and my dear friend Reihana, for saying, “Just get out there, girl.” Each of you bestow on me great gifts. You make me laugh, keep me grounded, and keep me focused.

But I do have to mention a couple of special people: Caity and Mitch. It has been my privilege to be your mum. I know how much you missed out on because I was always working. I remember how many times I have left you on the side of the road, waiting to be picked up, but you’ve always forgiven me, you’ve always stood by me, and you’ve challenged me, fought with me, and made me a better person. It is my great joy that not only do I get to love you as my children but I really like you as people.

I am aware I enter this House as somewhat of an anomaly. To be a first-time MP launched into this position is a very rare occurrence. My only experience with this place has been working in security, which is hardly a political credential.

It struck me as I took my seat in this House for the first time that this journey is no longer about me; it is about duty and responsibility. It is about service and accountability. It is about those who have gone before to pave the way and those who will follow after I leave. It is about the reverence and importance of this place, the tradition and respect it should be afforded. I will do my best to do justice to this great privilege.

I am a product of the strength and love of whānau, those that are here with me today and those across the world that I know are watching me now. I am one of six children, with my mother—who is here with me today—being just 17 and my father 22 when they married and started their family. My father was the son of a country schoolteacher and was himself one of seven children.

His mother, Renee Costello, descended from settlers who came here to this country in the 1860s. My grandmother was a tiny woman with unrivalled strength and intelligence. When I was a child, she was my quiet place to be. I could use up all my time talking of her achievements, of the seven children that she raised, and of my aunties and uncles and cousins, who have been an enormous part of my life. I know that from her I inherited my stubborn resolve to work hard, to work for those who depend on me, and to be the person who will sit quietly at the back of the room, observing and listening.

My father, John Costello, was lost to me five years ago. Despite being one of six, I know my siblings will agree that there was a special bond between him and me. He was a storyteller. He loved three things in his life with, I believe, equal passion: his family, the written word, and horse racing. He started his life as a journalist cadet, but after a few short years, combined his love of horse racing with his job. He considered himself the luckiest man alive to be paid to do what he loved.

He was the first journalist inducted into the Horse Racing Hall of Fame, he wrote Tapestry of Turf—The History of New Zealand Horse Racing, and was a champion for the industry. He will always have the last laugh, as he managed to get away with naming half of his children to have the initials of racing clubs before Mum found out and put a stop to it.

There were absolutely no airs and graces to him. He would drive into the members’ car park at Ellerslie racecourse with his beaten-up old Toyota Corolla, with different-coloured panels, without even noticing the fancy vehicles around him. He could walk into any public bar in this country and have a beer and spin a few yarns, and would greet everyone with the same level of respect. That is the gift he gave me: to see people for who they are as individuals and know that everyone has their own story that is worth listening to. There is not a day that passes that I do not think of him, and I cannot express how much I wish he was here today if for no other reason than to write this speech. I can feel him sitting above me, wanting to take out his red pen to correct my grammar and spelling.

As I said, my good fortune was family, and therefore I have to pay tribute to my mother and my tūpuna. My mother, Maryann Costello, not only gave me life but kept me alive. As a sickly kid, she rallied to do what she knew in her heart I needed. She made me strong; she literally taught me to breathe. It is her strength and warrior-like determination to provide for her family that has made me the person I am.

My grandparents, Hone Pane Tamati Waka Nene and Queen Esther-Louise Davis, were Māmā and Dangy to us. It was Dangy who we would trudge behind as he taught us how to find and harvest kai, and how that kai was then shared around to take care of our people. It was Māmā who would have a table of I don’t know how many children, my cousins, in her tiny kitchen and, magically, food would appear. Her grace, her dignity, her warm heart, and her wisdom made you know what unconditional love really meant.

It was my great-grandfather, Lou Davis, Popop, that hand-rolled a tennis court in the paddock and built a dirt floor shed for table tennis lit by Primus lamps. It was in that place that he trained champions who set records and represented New Zealand. A couple of them are here today. One news article I found aptly describes Popop. It says: “And you will know that he is Lou Davis, earnest champion of sport for youth and for the wellbeing of the Māori race.” This is another example of the legacy I have been given. Whether it is Māmā and Dangy, Māmādear and Popop, Poomama and Poopapa, Eru Nehua and Te Tawaka, I know by example what it means to do, not just talk.

I talk of my tūpuna, and of my whānau not to qualify for some credentials to be recognised as Māori. I know who I am and my strength comes from who has gone before and who are with me now. I tell this story because we are all a product of a journey that saw us come to this House. I am privileged to have lived my life with a connection to my hapū, to have spent my childhood on the land that generations before me walked and lived in Whakapara and Bland Bay.

I descend from Tapua, whose children were Tari, Patuone, and Tamati Waka Nene, the latter both being chiefs who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi and, in so doing, became part of building the nation we now enjoy. This is our story, and my truth is from our lived history. I am Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Hau, and Ngāti Wai.

I am also a product of another family. I joined the police as a wide-eyed 20-year-old, and that was where I grew up. I did most of my service in South Auckland and worked my way through to becoming a detective-sergeant. Very early in my career, I was a delegate for the Police Association, advocating for better conditions and protections for my police family—eventually being elected by my peers as vice-president, working in that role with one of your Assistant Speakers, Greg O’Connor.

Since leaving the police, I have worked in security and construction. I have managed teams of up to 300 employees. I know what it takes to run a business and make it successful, and I know what it takes to get people to work together. I know the terror of wondering if I have done enough to make payroll this week, and the delight of seeing people you employed learn a trade and go on to successful careers. It has been in my nature, in my genes, and in my heart to strive to make a difference. I have lobbied against Government waste and lack of transparency, and to demand accountability. I have fought for New Zealanders to be treated equally before the law, rallying against a narrative of race-based division. I have defended the rights of exploited migrants, advocating for victims in vulnerable communities.

I see the task ahead is to show leadership in how we respect and accommodate difference while getting on with the job of finding practical solutions and not commentating on the problems. It is not to respond to those who have the loudest voice and who make the most noise; it is our job to restore balance and deliver outcomes. Like all police who leave the job, I have the stories; the faces that haunt you. I know the face of inhumanity, of cruelty, and suffering. I have seen fear, despair, and more death than I want to remember. But I have also witnessed bravery, selflessness, and compassion.

I understand people and I know how, in unity, amazing things can be achieved. As I look ahead, I know we need so much more than faux indignation and misplaced guilt that makes us paralysed from making progress. I will not tiptoe around the difficult conversations. I will not allow noise and rhetoric to distract from delivering on what we have promised. I will not allow the most vulnerable to be used as a bargaining chip to gain political relevance.

I will close with the words from my grandfather, Hone Pane Tamati Waka Nene Davis, who said over 35 years ago: I believe that racism among a people, and in a country such as ours, is an evil that must be completely eradicated from our midst, and replaced with a better love and understanding of our fellow men. Racism raises its ugly head in so many different areas that it causes friction between two worthy people—Māori and Pākehā—and may even go further and cause disruption between Māori and Māori. To add to this, it may even go further into a community and cause a rift in family relationships.

Where it causes the greatest havoc is when it enters into individuals who become distrustful, suspicious, and even antagonistic of their fellow men. This, in turn, following along a natural sequence, breeds violence. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the situation we are in today and the monster has entwined me in its evils. I will honour my grandfather’s words. This is my legacy, and for this legacy, I will make my stand in this House and for this country.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and congratulations on your role as Speaker. I would like to begin with some acknowledgments. Thank you to Bruce Partridge, who’s in the gallery today, my Kaikōura campaign chair for the last three general elections. Bruce is a long-time New Zealand First supporter. The many hours we have spent campaigning at meetings, delivering pamphlets, and putting up hundreds of hoardings has today been rewarded. The reason for Bruce doing this work has been simple and it’s one I will not forget—as he says, it’s not for him, but for his children and grandchildren. He believes the New Zealand First Party has the right principles and policies for our future.

I would also like to thank the rest of my campaign committee, Bess and Greg Colquhoun, Jack Reddan, and Bill Holvey. For the hours you have volunteered over the years, I am for ever grateful. To the many supporters in the Kaikōura electorate, thank you. Jessica Bagge; for the political journey we have been on since 2010 when we were both elected to the Marlborough District Council. The many highs and lows along the way, you have continued to support my endeavours and I will be forever grateful for the belief you have in me.

The Rt Hon Winston Peters—the legend of New Zealand politics. You have my full respect for your hard work, energy, and drive to stand for what is right, and put New Zealand and New Zealanders first. A moment he may not recall, but one that I do, is from my younger years, of my late mother grabbing him and giving him a hug on the campaign trail on one of his early visits to Blenheim when the party was first formed.

The New Zealand First Board and President Julian Paul; thank you for your time and commitment to seeing New Zealand First returned to Parliament and now Government. And to the members and supporters of New Zealand First who have put your faith in myself and the New Zealand First caucus to represent your voice in Parliament, thank you.

My wife, Sally, and our four children—Jaxon, Paige, Dale, and Keira—your understanding of the many interrupted moments that occur from being a politician, where even the simple tasks of going to the supermarket can mean a long, drawn-out discussion on the politics of the day. To my wife, Sally, who said she would never marry a “suit”: well, you have! When we first married over 20 years ago, you will remember the early years of my rather bad dress habits of ripped Barker pants and jerseys, while working endless hours on the orchard to pay the bills. Even the consistent resistance to using a cellphone, and then my attachment to my old flip phone—so much has changed. With our recent achievement of both being elected at the same time to the Marlborough District Council, which is something rarely, if ever, heard of, I am so proud of your achievements.

I would like to acknowledge Sir Douglas Kidd, the 25th Speaker of the House of Representatives. He was an MP from 1978 to 2002. He represented the Marlborough and Kaikōura electorate from 1978 to 1999, and then was a list MP until his retirement in 2002. He was also one of the pioneers of the Marlborough aquaculture industry in the iconic Marlborough Sounds.

I would also like to acknowledge former MP Colin King, who served as the Kaikōura electorate MP from 2005 to 2014, who has been very supportive of my time in local body politics and my ventures into central government. And MP Stuart Smith, the current Kaikōura MP, for your commitment to the electorate, and as you often say when we are debating, that “politics is a contest of ideas”.

My wider family tree is difficult to explain at the best of times. What I would like to say is I have always been loved. My mum was, in her way, the greatest politician you would ever meet. She had a knack of knowing how to press someone’s buttons and the skill to walk away and watch the all-mighty eruption happen, while someone else would be taking the blame. Through no fault of my own, I don’t know exactly who my biological dad is, but I have two that say they are. One of those, who has now passed, would be super proud of this moment; the other is a local legend in his own right. The traits they both share is working the land and being practical, hard-working people.

In my early years until my late teens, I was raised in Rapaura in Marlborough, now known as the golden mile of the world-proclaimed Marlborough wine industry. My family owned multiple orchards and was heavily involved in exporting apples and cherries. As a young boy, I would spend endless hours picking fruit, helping in the packing shed or acting as the shopkeeper in our fruit stall. I attended a small rural school, Rapaura School, and played various sports, with cricket, athletics, and rugby being my favourites.

I then spent my college years at Marlborough Boys’ College. In Year 12 at college, I remember studying business studies and doing the Young Enterprise Scheme. We were tasked to set up a business and invent a new product. The inventing of a new product was lost on me, but the thought of making money did very much appeal. Soon I had organised our small group into selling fruit at the local markets. My teacher of the day didn’t seem to mind as we had sold shares in that business to get it up and running. When the final dividend was paid, with something like $100 return for every dollar invested, the teacher’s $5 investment looked very good. Instead of finishing the business, I decided to carry it on in a personal capacity, and 22 years later, I finished my weekly ritual at the Redwood markets but continue my fruit growing today with a horticultural block I am developing in Renwick.

I remember being in my garage, bagging fruit at the tail end of the global financial crisis, when it was suggested to me to stand for local council. Though I knew very little about local politics, I did have a lot of local media exposure with my time at the markets. I decided to run, and as no one else was standing against the incumbent mayor, it was suggested that would be a good platform to get some free coverage of my campaign. After a bit of study about local issues, such as locals missing out on tendering contracts, and closed-door council meetings, I was set for my campaign. The result was that I was the highest polling Blenheim Ward councillor, something I have achieved now five times in a row.

My early local government career was difficult and controversial. Obviously, standing for mayor may have helped to gain a seat as a councillor, but it also exposed me to the full force of some unhappy longstanding councillors and bureaucracy. Soon came attacks on me to put me in my place. Instead of being quiet and sitting on my hands, and keeping my mouth closed for the first term, I spoke out. Doomsday was about five months into my first term when discussing council tendering, when my comment replying to a question on whether council staff were tampering with tender papers, I replied “That could be the case.” The resulting report and conflict of this was something rarely experienced in Marlborough. Standing up for those who I saw had no voice or ability was my duty. The resulting report that cleared the council of wrongdoing did change the council, moving forward, for the better.

In 2017, I was a late inclusion to stand for New Zealand First in the Kaikōura electorate. The experience was fast paced and one I enjoyed. The ability then to tap into MPs in the 2017-2020 Government was appreciated. I thank Mark Patterson, especially, for your time and commitment. From my perspective, the New Zealand First caucus performed well and was the handbrake on bad ideas, and the accelerator for good ideas such as the Provincial Growth Fund. The Provincial Growth Fund in Marlborough helped to fund a number of incentives, including the now completed Blenheim Library. The Working for Nature programme was a great incentive for local jobs and the improving environmental outcomes.

After the disappointment of the general election in 2020, I was eager to help New Zealand First back into Parliament. I joined the New Zealand First Board in 2022 and developed the ground game blueprint that was rolled out in the 2023 campaign. The announcement of the New Zealand First list, and being placed at number six, with the successful election result, means I stand before you today.

Over my 14 years in local government, the past three years on council have been the most stressful and uncertain times. The constant and major reforms like three waters and many more, have taken a major toll on the relationship between councils and central government. The central government approach of “big brother knows best” needs to be seriously questioned. The constant demands of the previous Government in the case of Marlborough saw many councillors at the last local body elections retire, and the loss of many key council officials and staff who delivered vital services to the community. This is a constant cry from councils across New Zealand. The new Government has a major challenge to repair this relationship, and we need to work together as it is both local and central government’s roles to deliver positive outcomes for our constituents.

Consultation—the most rewarding aspect of being an elected member is hearing from your community. I have sat through many annual plans and long-term plans. Such processes can always be refined, but the importance of democracy and being heard is undeniable. The previous Government often called for submissions but, in many people’s views, did not take the time to hear or listen to what people had to say. Three waters reform was very much a case in point of “we know better than everyone else”. I look forward to my select committee work and hearing from New Zealanders. The thing for all of us to remember is to not take this process for granted.

Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms—I have been an RMA hearings commissioner since entering local body politics and have sat on hundreds of consents and really enjoyed the opportunity to hear and make decisions on some key Marlborough activities such as marine farming. The role of decision maker is very much dependent on the legislation and the case law to grant or decline an application. The RMA reforms proposed by the previous Government, I would need to question whether they streamlined that process or made it more difficult and complex than ever. The new legislation looks less user friendly.

What has happened to the concept of the average New Zealander being able to put together a resource consent without the help of costly consultants, and being able to submit this to your local council? The answer to that is that the consenting regime has become a gravy train for consultants and lawyers. It is often a money game and not about the environment. I think of growth industries such as aquaculture, which needs a much more permissive status. We need to back opportunities that will deliver growth potential, high-paying jobs, and increase our export earnings. I have witnessed the worst of the RMA when those wanting to expand or try something new were stonewalled by legislation and environmental scaremongering.

Offshore aquaculture should be an industry we encourage and grow. The major hurdles we have seen on recent applications are something I want to see legislation change on. When offshore farming is being halted by amenity values and outstanding natural landscapes, one needs to question who benefits from those outcomes. Many of those remote sites will never be seen by the majority of New Zealanders, so to stop development on amenity or landscape values, in my view, needs to be reconsidered.

In Māori affairs, I see us all as one. I find it very difficult with the current tensions between some Māori and Pākehā. We all need to work together. In my lifetime, we all had the same opportunities, and it’s what one does with those opportunities that should define us. I want us to move forward as one, but we seem to be a country with an identity crisis. How we resolve those tensions of the past is something many New Zealanders are struggling with. In my time in Parliament, I would like to think we will all come closer to being “Kiwis” regardless of how long some of us have been here for.

With our rural regions and primary production, it is important that we don’t forget that our rural regions account for much of the country’s GDP. If our rural regions are supported, our economy will grow. Investing in infrastructure—whether that be road, rail, flood protection, or strategic assets—is good investment in the health of our rural regions.

Finally, the horse racing industry: my favourite pastime is harness racing. I have a fond memory of going to the Marlborough races with my family when I was young. The atmosphere, mingling with the people on course, and the thrill of the odd win is something I enjoy. For a lot of New Zealanders, a day out at the races is a symbol of New Zealand’s culture. I look forward to being back on course over the summer holidays to hear the race calls of Matt Cross and get in amongst the racing community.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity today. I look forward to my new role and standing up for the issues that are important to New Zealanders and New Zealand First.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and can I join all the other previous speakers in congratulating you on your new role. I also want to congratulate all the other members in this House for being elected to this House, especially those of you of the class of 2023, and just listening to some of the maiden speeches we’ve already heard, gosh, you are going to make an immense contribution to this House and to this country.

I also want to congratulate the Rt Hon Winston Peters, the Hon Shane Jones, and the dedicated team at the heart of New Zealand First. You’ve all given up so much and worked so hard to bring New Zealand First back to this House, and I want to congratulate all the New Zealand First team, supporters, and candidates right across the country. My personal thanks to the New Zealand First Wellington hub team, many of whom are in the audience tonight, for your hard work and wonderful support during the campaign. New Zealand First was written off by many, but, Winston, you have packed out halls up and down the land. You have achieved what some called a political miracle, and tonight you have brought New Zealand First back into this House. Even Lazarus could do it only once; New Zealand First has done it twice.

Ka mihi ahau ki tēnei Whare, te Whare kōrero i ngā whakatau nui. [I acknowledge this House, the House that discusses the major decisions.] I salute this House where many great decisions have been made. I salute those who have gone before us and on whose shoulders we stand. We now shoulder the responsibility for setting the platform for those who will come after. I salute those whose courageous service of our country is recognised in the famous names on the walls around us. They fought and sacrificed so that we and other nations might live in freedom and peace. And I salute those of you, my colleagues, who have themselves served our country with courage and sacrifice. Thank you.

We all come here to make a difference. We come here because we care. We care very much about this beautiful country. We care about our home. I’m proud to be a member of a Government that will work collaboratively, three teams in one, together on behalf of New Zealanders to make the changes that our country needs to be a Government of delivery. But, growing up, I had absolutely no interest whatsoever in politics. I don’t even recall politics being talked about round our family table, and my children now, when we talk politics, they just say, “Sigh.” and “Can you stop, please?”

Our childhood was pretty comfortable. Mum and Dad were good, honest, hard-working, supportive, suburban parents who taught us the values of honesty, hard work, thrift, service, and to treat others as you would have them treat you. We were part of several lovely communities full of other lovely young families. However, Mum and Dad had a much tougher start to life. Mum, who’s in the gallery today, and Dad, who’s sadly no longer with us, both grew up in London’s working-class East Ham during the Depression and the Second World War. As young children, both were evacuated. Dad at least got to be evacuated with his family; Mum’s father, though, was an engineer and he had to stay to keep the power network on as the bombs fell, so Mum was evacuated with her two-year-old sister, and mother. Picture a little family at the railway station, not too sure where they were going or who would take them in. Money was always tight, and it became too expensive to keep the family going in two places, so they had to return to London to finish the war together in East Ham. Both Mum and Dad recorded separate stories about bombs landing on the houses next door.

But I share this part of my family story also to make the point that we human beings aspire to a better life. Most of us work diligently to achieve that. Dad worked for Shell, as his father had before him, and studied for a degree in the evenings. Career options were limited, especially for women. Mum was told by her father that university was unaffordable, and so she trained as a primary school teacher, but she did get that degree later in life. My parents married and moved to a new life in the county of Kent, south-east of London, where my brother, my sister, and I were born. It’s a beautiful area, if you haven’t visited it, full of history, castles, and stunning villages, and a whacking great motorway and railway to the continent.

I’d only just started school when we made another much longer move. Dad was wanted by Shell to help run the new Marsden Point Oil Refinery, and so we moved to New Zealand, first to Whangārei and then to Wellington. After four years, Shell wanted Dad back in London, but it wasn’t long before the lure of a better life in New Zealand brought us back to Wellington—happily, this time for good. Mum was a primary school teacher and Dad ran our coastal oil tankers and fuel storage system. His job was to ensure that every part of the country always had the necessary supplies of each type of product—fossil fuels, of course. We enjoyed a good childhood, although it did mean eight different primary schools in eight years—and no, I wasn’t kicked out of any of them.

In the brief time I’ve been in this House, I’ve already heard a lot of reference to Rogernomics, none of it very positive. It was Rogernomics that got me to take notice of politics. It was that topsy-turvy political period when the left became the right and the right wasn’t quite sure what to do about it. By the time Rogernomics hit New Zealand, I was teaching in Nelson, I’d already graduated from Victoria University and Christchurch Teachers College. I’d worked in hospitality—I’ve seen that’s been raised in the last couple of days—during holidays, evenings, and weekends; spent time in the naval reserve; and had a couple of years working in the heady world of investment finance.

I’m sure we all know the Lange-Douglas Government story: radical, rapid, crash-through political changes; one of the most protected, regulated State-dominated economies transformed almost overnight into the most open free-market economy anywhere. Changes were needed—yeah, I see the ACT guys like it; the Labour guys don’t, ha, ha! Funny that—but the speed and brutality came at enormous cost to people. Inflation, interest rates, and the Kiwi dollar all soared. Mortgage rates touched an eye-watering 20 percent. The sharemarket soared and then crashed just two months after Labour was re-elected—I wonder, if it’d been the other way round, if they’d have been re-elected. There were massive redundancies across the public sector. Rail was saved by sacking three-quarters of the staff. Then, after being re-elected, Labour went on a massive State asset sale programme, and I’m not sure that they signalled that very clearly. Many manufacturers went to the wall. The experience taught me a number of things: to dislike government by ideology, to dislike hidden agendas, and that the checks and balances in our system are weak.

But rather than grumble, I thought I’d join the left-wing party, and joined the National Party. I was the youngest party member in the Nelson electorate by about 50 years, so what did they do? They promptly made me the electorate chairman.

After teaching, I had two brilliant years on a great Kiwi OE, working and travelling but keeping a close eye on what was going on back home. I was a camp director in the USA, worked on an Israeli moshav, in a Swiss hotel, in London offices, and on building sites.

I got back just in time for the 1990 election. Labour was swept out of office, FPP was shortly replaced by MMP, and I think that was the Kiwis saying that they wanted to reduce the unbridled power of single-party Governments and wanted minority voices to be heard.

I got my first introduction to this House, a job in the new National Government’s parliamentary research unit, and I’d like to acknowledge my former boss Wayne Eagleson, who’s in the gallery.

I’ve always had a very strong involvement in community. In 1992, I was invited to stand for election to the Wellington City Council and was privileged to be elected. I might also say I had the privilege of standing alongside an even younger James Shaw. He didn’t make it. I’m not sure who got the booby prize on that one. I stood on three values, values which remain core to me today: authentic listening, careful use of public money, and caring for the environment. It was a privilege to serve 10 consecutive terms on the council—the last of them as mayor. It’s effectively half of my lifetime. I’m deeply grateful to the many thousands of Wellingtonians who voted for me over so many years and, in this election, to the good people of Mana. Though I’m now a list MP, I know very well what it is to help thousands of constituents with all manner of issues. I know what it is, Jamie, for that supermarket shop or the walk through town to take twice as long because there are always people to talk to. I love that; I’m not sure that my wife is so keen.

I know what it is to work with my community to drive projects and programmes, to run events and festivals, to spearhead the development of many, many community facilities like parks, pools, and libraries. I know what it is to fight with my community against the odds on behalf of your community when the council was not listening to them. And I recognise some of my friends from the Miramar community in the gallery for their courage in fighting together against city hall.

But together on the council we made a huge difference to the city. We built sewage treatment plants, built the railyards stadium, opened up the waterfront, supported the opening of Te Papa, built a new airport terminal and a beautiful convention centre. We supported the emergence of new creative industries, like film and digital tech. We liberalised the planning rules to energise the central city. And for several years, Wellington CBD was the fastest-growing population area in the whole of New Zealand. The once-grey, walk-short city became a centre of fashion, film, arts, culture, and events, and a significant tourism destination. We led the way in protecting, restoring, and strengthening heritage buildings. We grew public transport use after reversing its long-term decline.

But if there is one thing I’m personally particularly proud of as a councillor and as a mayor, it is in helping spearhead Wellington’s stunning environmental transformation. I can remember as a parliamentary researcher reading the then new Ministry for the Environment’s first state of the environment report. It was depressing. Unique biodiversity evolved over 70 million years in isolation was in steady and continuous decline. That began with Māori settlement, accelerated with European arrival, and, 150 years on, it was still getting worse.

But we could do something about it. Karori Sanctuary, now Zealandia, was Jim Lynch’s crazy, never-been-done-before idea to not just reduce environmental decline but to turn it around to make the environment better. The mad idea was for an innovative new-design fence around a former water reservoir to eradicate introduced pests and restore native species that were then largely confined to offshore islands. I was part of the original steering committee, a foundation trustee, and a long-time volunteer. The early journey was often tough. There were many doubters, people who said we couldn’t do it, and many roadblocks. But over time, it has truly taken flight. It is now, without doubt, a success—much loved, internationally recognised—a success for the environment, for education, for science, tourism, culture, and an amazing community builder. Zealandia has a staggering 16,000 members paid up and 600 active volunteers. And I’d like to recognise some of the team, particularly Phil Meyer in the gallery, who’s chaired the trust for the last six years.

As a councillor, I also drove the charge to piece by piece acquire, protect, and revegetate ridgelines right around the city fringe. Over 30 years, that has created one of the world’s very best greenbelts. The city’s wild reserve network is not quite complete, but it’s getting very close. And I also recognise the Hon Grant Robertson there for his work supporting the town belt.

And Wellingtonians in their thousands have come together to contribute to this world-leading restoration journey, trapping, planting, weeding. Wellington’s Miramar Peninsula has recently become the first urban area on the planet to eradicate introduced predators, including rats. The collective result of this kaitiakitanga is a very rare phenomenon, a city where wildlife is dramatically improving, and other cities are now copying our mahi, and that is awesome.

In some ways, that brings me full circle. Another one-party Labour Government inspired me to return to this House, and I thank New Zealand First for giving me that opportunity. There will be plenty of opportunities to debate our current condition but, suffice to say, across so many aspects of our society, demonstrably, measurably, we were going backwards, and that is why New Zealanders voted for change.

I expressed my dislike earlier of hidden agendas—saying one thing and doing another—but I think that this Government has been elected with a very clear mandate, and the coalition agreements articulate that very closely, and the 100-day plan is putting the first stage of that into delivery.

I want to finish off with two big areas where I think we need to make a difference. The first of those is in lifting our economic performance. New Zealanders, for the most part, work really hard, but that is not enough. We’ve fallen so far behind other countries. In the 1950s, some assessments had New Zealanders enjoying the world’s third-highest per capita incomes, equivalent to Switzerland. Today, our incomes are 66 percent lower than the Swiss, and we rank only in the mid-30s. We are 20 percent below Australia, and it matters. Imagine if everyone earned 66 percent more. We probably wouldn’t be having half the arguments we do. It matters to what public services we can afford. It matters to how much we are paid. It matters to keeping the skilled people we cannot afford to lose to higher wages and higher living standards to other countries.

But to create higher incomes, we must be more productive and grow the output per hour worked. We cannot borrow our way to wealth. We cannot redistribute our way to prosperity. This is not a zero-sum game. This Government is very focused on raising productivity. We need to be smarter; invest more in technology, research, and development; and support emerging creative businesses better. We need to grow savings and investment and reduce the handbrake of collective indebtedness. We need to reduce the burden of excessive regulation and heavy taxation.

I hear too often the stories of businesses and individuals frustrated, delayed, and financially impacted by slow, often uncaring responses from central or local government. That needs to change because time is money. We need to spend every tax dollar well. We need to plan better for the critical long-term issues, like infrastructure, immigration, urban planning, and superannuation. We must reverse falling school achievement standards and fix the tertiary sector. Our health sector is struggling and, I think, too often siloed. We’ve turned our back on prospective employees over the last three years. We’ve got a lot of work to do there.

The other big challenge we have is bringing our people back together. The concept of a team of 5 million together facing the common foe of COVID was powerful, emotional, and uniting. But less than three years later, poll after poll shows we are more divided than ever: COVID mandates, co-governance, rural against urban, gender issues, and generation against generation over housing. Social cohesion is essential. I spoke earlier of the need for authentic listening and for greater protections being built into our Government system.

The most special part of being mayor of our great capital city was working right across the diversity of our community, building a new relationship with our mana whenua iwi, working with our Interfaith Council, some of whom are in the gallery today, and they were internationally honoured for their efforts in showcasing different faiths to build friendship and understanding, following the awful events of 15 March 2019. During the parliamentary protest, I engaged with protesters, police, politicians, and press, and it was very special also to work with the LBGTQI+ community, including honouring community pioneers and supporting community at a vulnerable time. I loved working across our diverse ethnic communities, working with our disability community and with our diplomatic community, some of whom are in the audience tonight. Citizenship ceremonies were a highlight. My message to our new citizens was always that they should continue to treasure their original cultures while embracing their new one.

Our task is to bring people together, and I can say it no better than this: “Mā te rongo, ka mōhio. Mā te mōhio, ka mārama. Mā te mārama, ka mātau. Mā te mātau, ka ora.” Through listening comes awareness. Through awareness comes understanding. Through understanding comes knowledge. Through knowledge comes life and wellbeing.

There will be bumps along the way, but through kōrero and whakarongo, I believe we can be the best multicultural nation in the world. And there is an apposite African proverb about the journey: if you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go together. As a nation, if we walk together on the things that matter, we will go far.

And I want to finish off with my most important thanks. That is to my children, Brendon and Ella, and to my darling wife, Ann. Members here will know, or will come to know, that our families give up so much when a partner or parent is in political life. I’ve been a councillor, a mayor, and now an MP for Brendon and Ella’s entire life and all of our married life. The hours are often long. Work is often taken home; so, sometimes, is the stress. You’re often away from your families. You’re almost never off duty. Social conversation so often turns to politics. The media can be harsh, judgmental, and often unfair.

We politicians can grow a thick skin, but we’re not invulnerable. But our families often feel it the more. Ann, Brendon, and Ella, thank you so much for your support and for your love. I love you very much. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Dobar dan, poštovane dame i poštovana gospodo! Good afternoon. I begin my maiden speech today by congratulating you on your election to the Chair. I welcome my husband Grant, who is with my two brothers—Zeljan and Antoni—they are both present here today. I have a third brother, Nick, who was unable to be here today.

There are so many people to thank. To my supporters and volunteers, all who worked so selflessly—at times during all hours of the night. To my fellow candidates and colleagues, for whom I have the deepest respect, thank you all for your support. To all the loyal members of New Zealand First—so many working behind the scenes. Some of you have worked tirelessly for decades for the party. Your dedication and commitment have contributed to why we stand here today to represent New Zealand First and the people of New Zealand.

It is also of importance that I respectfully honour my late mother and father, Smiljan and Pavica Unkovich. It was in 1958 that my young parents—then only 26 and 27—with their first-born, Zeljan, made the bold move to leave their homeland of Croatia and sail to the other side of the world in the hope of a better life. Despite their uncertainty, they left behind their family and everything they knew to settle in Dargaville, Northland, as dairy farmers, soon affectionately being known as Ta Re Ra’s.

Unable to speak the language, their early years as immigrants were hard. My eldest brother recalls many a night hearing my parents both weep, unsettled in their new life, and grieving the family they left behind. Having grown up during the Second World War and despite being relatively young, my parents were incredibly resilient. They knew how to work hard, and they ensured their children learnt that same lesson.

It was the fire that burned our house to the ground—losing nearly everything—that was the catalyst for my parents to make the decision to leave Northland and move to Auckland, just prior to my eighth birthday, and where I have for the past 50 years called home. It is said that people with hope can endure incredible burdens, and this hope for a better life for their children was what my parents held on to during those difficult first years. They never gave up. Thank you, Mama i Tata, for the sacrifices you made for us.

It is said that the quality of your life is due to the quality of your decisions. My life has been a series of pivotal decisions, each has contributed to this little girl from the farm now having the privilege of standing here today. My first significant decision was at the early age of 14, when, at the end of my fourth form year, I came home with a substandard school report and received a loud, animated telling off from my mother. Not having a higher education, my parents wanted more for their children. They both worked physically very hard; firstly, on the farm, then Tata as a commercial fisherman and the remainder of his working life as a drainlayer. Mama spent countless hours sitting at a commercial sewing machine or standing at a kitchen bench. Her sadness on this day was not because of my poor grades, but because she knew I could do better, and here I was, possibly wasting the opportunity of the education that was available to me in this great country. Clouded with a lack of belief in myself and my academic abilities, I allowed this internal narrative to limit my efforts, and it showed in my results.

It was my mother’s powerful words on this day and her belief in me that was the leverage I needed to make the decision to work hard and at least try. I knew that the cost of not making this choice would be far greater. Which is why I’m committed, during my time in Parliament, alongside my fellow colleagues, to take heed and do what we can to reverse the declining outcomes we are seeing in our education system; to be a voice for our children and youth, who are our future; to show them, and their parents if necessary, that it is possible to choose a different path; and to break one’s self-defeating patterns, to see one’s worth, and, in time, to experience what is possible for their future. One pivotal decision could completely change the trajectory of their lives, as it did for me.

The following year, I showed up for school. I surrounded myself with a new set of friends, I worked hard, and I went on to excel during the remainder of my high school years. Which is why I again share this message to our youth—that, yes, you can, and what can happen for others can also happen for you.

By the age of 20, I completed my Bachelor of Commerce degree at Auckland University, became an auditor, which was then followed by four years in the corporate world. Soon after, I gained my membership to the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants. At 28, I chose self-employment, setting up my private consultancy practice. My timing was perfect, as it coincided with the launch of Mind Your Own Business in NZ, the new accounting software package. My practice grew very quickly as I helped sell, install, and train hundreds of business owners on how to transfer their paper accounting ledgers to a fully computerised system. My coaching career also commenced at this time, as many of my clients also wanted help with matters of the heart.

My own love of personal development commenced during times of self-doubt as a teenager. It was, however, when deep grief first knocked on my door in my mid-thirties that led me to obtain my Diploma in Counselling and, subsequently, life and business coaching certifications, becoming a member of the International Coaching Federation. Little did I know that my brief dance with grief during this decade was but a taste of what was to follow when, at 40, my then husband Philip Morrow was diagnosed with terminal cancer and passed away five months later. It was on the day of Phil’s funeral that I declared that no matter the extent of suffering that was ahead, I would search for meaning from this event and find purpose again and remain committed to being of service to others.

This significant life event, and the many that have followed during the past two decades, are one of the reasons I stand here today as a new parliamentarian and am so driven to advocate for mental health. Regardless of age, profession, or status, a decline in mental health can visit or revisit any of us without notice at any time. Financial stress, eating disorders, addictions, crippling loneliness, and unresolved grief are but a handful of what so many are silently struggling with in today’s world. Many want help. However, it is either unavailable or unaffordable—some feeling too ashamed to even admit to family that they are suffering and they try to keep up with the “she’ll be right” attitude, until one day all is not all right.

I was so fortunate to have support during my darkest hours. Many do not have this luxury, and I am speaking openly here today to those who are resonating with my message. Tell someone, anyone. It was again my mother who gave me the greatest advice I have ever received, and what I have shared with my clients ever since, and I will share it with you today. During one of the lowest points in my life, she said to me in her soft Croatian voice, “Tanya, you have got to make yourself happy.” Actually, it wasn’t so soft. She went “Tanya, you’ve got to make yourself happy!”

A part of me wanted to laugh out loud, as here I was, having read all the books and being educated in the field, and here was my mother, with a very simple education and not able to command the English language, who gave me the sagest advice: that happiness was an inside job and this choice was up to me. And right now, she’d be saying to me, “Tanya, don’t you cry.”, so I’m not going to cry. It was at that moment I once again made the decision to get back up again, to take personal responsibility for my life, and, no matter what, to choose joy over suffering.

My professional career since that time has been a fulfilling mix of finance, writing, speaking, and executive coaching. I have published four books on mental health, resilience, and how to overcome adversity, and one day I plan to write more.

My journey into politics was once again a decision. Just as I knew two decades earlier that there was a place for me to contribute to mankind, I knew on a deep level that this was my next chapter to a life of service. One of the other areas I’m so incredibly passionate about—and one of the many reasons that drew me to—New Zealand First, is my respect and love for the seniors in our community. It is no secret that my parents were everything to me, and walking beside them during the past decade of their lives dramatically increased my awareness of what it must be like for them and other seniors as they enter this stage of their lives. It served as a reminder that one day this, too, will be me—all of us. Our elders, our seniors have worked incredibly hard. They deserve care, respect, and, most importantly, they deserve human connection. I will work tirelessly to ensure our seniors are not forgotten.

Someone once wisely said to me as a teenager that the most important thing one can do in our lives is to always honour our parents, to be at peace and to be united with them. He then added that this would enable us to be more united and at peace with others, especially ourselves. This message of unity is one I have continuously written and spoken about, and one I wish to speak of, as I close my statement today, as it is my main answer when asked “Why politics, Tanya?”

A house divided cannot stand, whether it be within a marriage, a family, a community, or a country. Unfortunately, it is often a lesson not learnt, until we face our own mortality—or that of a loved one—and we see that much of what divided us in the first place was not worth the precious time wasted. Yes, our country now faces so many hurdles to overcome, costing our nation and our communities more than we could imagine. However, the cost of not bringing the people together might just be our real crisis. We, the people of New Zealand, now have a choice.

I am of the belief we are not made for comfort, but for greatness, and one of the highlights of my professional career was to have mentors whom I would class as extraordinary humans. Having the privilege of being part of the Tony Robbins international coaching team meant I was always surrounded by fellow coaches and clients who always strived to live at their highest standard.

Which leads me to why I would now like to pay proper tribute to the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the Hon Shane Jones. I am sure I speak for my fellow colleagues here today, to say how honoured I feel to now have you both as mentors. Thank you for your courage, thank you for leading by example, thank you for always having our back as a team, and thank you for your commitment to our country. On a lighter note, the humour and one-liners you bring are second to none and are a great reminder to us all of the saying that a day without laughter is a day wasted.

Now as a final word, I would again like to mention my husband, Grant Anderson. We met later in life, when many of us show up with that little bit of extra baggage; mine was called grief. Thank you for your patience as I slowly unpacked mine. You have been my greatest cheerleader on every venture, especially on this most recent path to politics. However, Grant, most importantly, you were a wonderful son-in-law and you honoured my mother and father as if they were your own, especially during those most difficult recent years. I feel unspeakably grateful that you now stand beside me and all of my colleagues here today on this most important journey, as we now have the privilege to serve the people of New Zealand. Hvala Vam and thank you.

SPEAKER: Members, I don’t want to interrupt the congratulations to Tanya—carry on, Tanya—but I just think, for a bit of smooth operation, I now declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clauses 1 and 2 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, when the committee suspended on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill, we were debating clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, the title and commencement clauses.

Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Sittings of the House

TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): I seek leave for the House to rise when debate on the third reading is concluded, rather than at 6 p.m.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been requested. Is there acceptance for that leave? Are there any objections? There appears to be none.

Bills

Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I move, That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill, which repeals Labour’s regressive ute tax—inequitable ute tax—scheme, is now before Parliament, ready to be passed into law, to end the ute tax on 31 December 2023. A happy New Year to our farmers and tradies, who have been punished by the former Government. This Government was elected with all three parties—National, ACT, and New Zealand First—committing to the repeal of the ute tax as part of our coalition agreement, and this bill gives effect to that as part of our 100-day plan. I want to acknowledge the ACT Party for their coalition agreement on this, and the support of New Zealand First as well on this particular piece of legislation.

As I’ve said in my other reading speeches on this particular piece of legislation, the policy which was put in place by the prior Government was fiscally irresponsible—a $300 million deficit left behind by the previous Government. It was inequitable, by taking money from people who have very little or no choice as to what type of vehicle they can use and giving money to people who can already afford to buy electric vehicles. That policy is something that this side of the House does not support. It also would constantly require changes that impact the car industry and car market significantly, creating uncertainty in the market, which is unnecessary.

The National Party, the ACT Party, and the New Zealand First Party are proud to stand here repealing that piece of legislation. We know that there will continue to be an increased uptake of electric vehicles as more and more car manufacturers produce more and more electric vehicles and bring them into New Zealand, and we will continue to invest in the electric vehicle charging infrastructure to support this uptake over time. I commend the bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It really is a sad day for this Parliament, which started on 12 December as the clocks in the Chamber do indicate, because this will, if successfully passed this evening, be the third piece of legislation that this new Government have brought to the House under urgency and it will make a huge difference in a negative way to families and communities all around Aotearoa, New Zealand.

You know, it’s often reflected upon—the use of urgency, which is a rare occurrence in the House’s experience. To set aside the time of the House to effectively sit through to midnight last night, to sit from this morning and right through to whenever we finish, is generally used for those issues that are the most pressing. Climate change is indeed an extremely pressing issue, but what the Government is doing with this piece of legislation is they are heading in the wrong direction when it comes to addressing climate change—providing an opportunity to meet the needs that our communities need to take up the responsibilities to do their bit when it comes to addressing that pressing issue of climate change.

This is a bill that is going to be devastating in terms of people’s opportunity and ability to make a difference. Small steps do actually matter. Small steps do actually count. What this is doing is it is removing, for households, the opportunity to make an easy choice around converting to a low-emission vehicle selection or choice. It’s really, really interesting that in the committee stage of this bill, members on this side of the House tried to put up—well, we did put up—amendments that were not accepted by the Government, amendments that would make it easier for our community.

I think of one particular amendment which was around an opportunity to provide those people who had taken the rebate since it had been introduced with an opportunity to return or refund to the taxpayer the money that they were very happy to pocket. Now, I’m sure that there are many in this particular community of ours that have taken the rebate and who may choose to speak out about it, but they do not want to support a proposal or a process that would easily allow people to if they choose to.

The Minister in the chair at the time, Minister Andrew Bayly, said, “Well, members are always able to do that, to return their moneys to the Crown.” Well, that is not exactly the case. And perhaps, actually, members opposite and others who are in that situation who don’t think that this rebate is actually required or necessary, may choose to do that if they wish to. But the legislative provision was voted down by this Government, so it’s not able to be included in there.

We heard a lot from the Minister of Transport recently around how this is a scheme that is fiscally unsustainable. Yet we know that with the changes that the Labour Government had put in place in July of this year, already the take of the rebate is $33 million higher than the actual cost. So what this Government is doing is in a point in time they are removing a particular amount of money that has been of benefit to the Government and the Crown when they are so concerned about things being fiscally more responsible and indeed unsustainable. It does not make any sense,

This is taking New Zealand backwards and it joins the other two pieces of legislation that this Government have rushed through this House over the last few days under urgency. There has not been a select committee opportunity for members to feed into this. There has not been an opportunity for organisations from within the sector and outside of the sector to make their views known on what they think about this bill. Of course, we have members opposite who believe they know better—they know better than communities around the country.

Hon Members: It’s called an election.

TANGI UTIKERE: They know better—and look, we hear about this all the time, and I think this is the third time that they’ve said, “It’s called an election”. Well, I look forward to their arguments about them progressing their smoke-free legislative change that they didn’t go to the community or to the electorate about, saying that they were going to change that—shame on them; shame on them.

There have been a number of people who have made contact with members on this side of the House to really express their concern around the pace within which this Government is actually making this change, and one such is Drive Electric—

Hon Matt Doocey: Your union mates, that’s who.

TANGI UTIKERE: Mr Doocey, don’t be afraid of the unions, they do some good work. Drive Electric is one example. But they have cited—and I used this earlier today—that the research that they’ve provided to all members of the House shows that the new Government’s policy that they are seeking to progress under urgency this evening, to remove the discount and also to weaken the Clean Car Standard, would mean between 100,000 and 350,000 fewer electric vehicles (EVs) on the roads in New Zealand by 2030. How is that going to help our country achieve our goals of doing what we need to?

Hon Rachel Brooking: It’s not.

TANGI UTIKERE: It is not going to achieve that—it is not going to achieve that. That is exactly why one proposal that was put forward in the committee of the whole House was to change the name of the bill, because it is about no action on climate—no action on climate change at all.

It’s also of interest that the Minister was not interested in providing this House or, indeed, anyone, for that matter, with a copy of the regulatory impact statement. Now there is a regulatory impact statement that has been prepared. The Minister has been quite clear about that. It is extremely unfortunate that the House has not had the benefit of being able to consider that alongside this particular bill. It’s also rather difficult for the community and folk all around the country to be able to participate in this process when they’re not around that. Yet we hear constantly that they’re all about process. Well, if this is an indication of the sort of process that they’re wanting to embark upon, it’s going to be a very, very difficult time for many, indeed.

This scheme that this Government seems so intent on removing is a scheme that is making a difference. It is a scheme that is working. It is a scheme that relates to and has been utilised by people from all walks of life. I’m sure we can all reflect on some members in our own constituencies who have, perhaps, had a conversation about the difference that it makes to their household, the difference that it makes to their daily lives. It is, as my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor said, a good investment in reducing emissions. This is something for which we haven’t actually heard any alternative from the Government. They’re, on the one hand, quite happy to remove this incentive that is making a huge difference for households but, on the other hand, they are not coming up with what the alternative is going to be, how they are going to ensure that there are opportunities for households, for businesses, for community members to do what they need to do in order to address the real and confronting issues of climate change.

This is an interesting point because they have also talked about EV infrastructure, yet we haven’t heard from the Minister—although the Minister has had ample opportunity today to tell us about that, to address that issue. There have been no comments on the roll-out of EV infrastructure. Isn’t that interesting?

Hon Member: Very.

TANGI UTIKERE: It’s very interesting, because, I understand, that was something that the National Party decided they would campaign on as well. But now there’s an indication that there needs to be a cost-benefit analysis before they start actually rolling all of this out all around the country, in terms of EV infrastructure as well.

One of the things that this Government also is not comfortable on progressing is an opportunity for those who want to purchase an EV, if this bill is going to pass the hurdle tonight, to actually still have the opportunity for any purchase agreements that might be in place before midnight on 31 December this year to be honoured. Right? We were challenged by the Minister, who said, “Well, actually, people can just turn up to a lot and get a car and then it’s all tickety-boo.” Well, the reality is that a lot of people who actually utilise this as an incentive do not have the means to simply rock on up to a parking lot and buy an EV; they are individuals who want to do what they should be doing, to take their responsibility well and seriously. But this is a Government that is not empowering those very people to actually take up that responsibility that they want to deliver on.

It is a sad day in the Parliament when it progresses legislation that is regressive. It is a sad day in the Parliament where many of the things that have been worked hard on for communities over the years have been undone. It’s a sad day when that happens. I do not commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou te Whare. There are many events happening right now in the world that are directly relevant to this legislation and the repeal of this legislation. The Conference of Parties at the UN has made an agreement and made it very clear that we have to transition away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible. The wording in that agreement is not as strong as it should be because there’s still too many vested interests—in some cases, controlling States like the State hosting it—who want to carry on burning fossil fuels as long as possible.

But our children are relying on us to be responsible. Our children are relying on us to take the steps that we can take now because they will not be able to take them in the future; it will be too late. If we don’t radically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, it will not be possible to adapt to a future in a world where we have increasing storms and droughts and floods. It will affect food prices, it will affect food production, it will affect security of people right around the world. It’s already affecting geopolitical stability in many parts of the world. I don’t know if the members in the new National - ACT - New Zealand First Government realise just how serious and urgent the situation is.

In truth, the Clean Car Discount should have been brought in 20 years ago. If it had been brought in 20 years ago, we would be far more advanced in terms of having a zero-emissions fleet that would allow people to move around our country without having to rely on fossil fuels. And we would directly be benefiting from that, because we’d be spending less money on imported oil, petrol, and diesel to power our vehicles.

The truth is that this legislation is repealing an incredibly practical, positive step that was leading to real change in New Zealand, a positive change in terms of reducing emissions of the vehicles coming into the fleet and, with it, less pollution, lower petrol bills. If the Government—the National - ACT - New Zealand First Government—cared one bit for equity, they wouldn’t be proposing substantial tax cuts for the people who have the most money. They wouldn’t be proposing tax breaks for landlords. They wouldn’t be proposing or actually undertaking the repeal of fair pay agreements. They don’t care about equity. That is a distraction; it’s a red herring.

The reality is this policy works to reduce emissions, and that’s why you have it in place. If you care about equity, we can address that through our tax system and through the public support that we give to people, through the way that we invest in our people, with our social welfare system, our public health system, our education system.

The policy was addressing a lack that we had of both fuel economy standards and a price incentive at the point of purchase. As I’ve already made clear, and as members will soon see, if you don’t have the price incentive at the point of purchase, you will get less uptake of the low-emissions vehicles, and then, if you’re relying on the emissions trading scheme, you will see higher fuel prices and people will have no choice to avoid those higher fuel prices because they’ve already purchased a vehicle that isn’t as fuel-efficient as it could be. So the evidence is that the policy was working really well, and I’m proud of the fact that we brought in such a constructive, positive policy that did make a real difference to a huge number of New Zealanders, and I’m sorry to see that progress not happening.

The new National - ACT - New Zealand First Government was elected on a hodgepodge of culture war slogans that were seeking to divide New Zealand rather than constructive positive, practical, evidence-based policies that will help us address the challenges that we actually have. For those who identify as blue-green, I say to you that there was not a better policy in terms of its marginal abatement cost. That is, we gained money; New Zealand gained economic benefit from this policy, for the carbon emissions reduction.

Now, the National Party and the ACT Party and the New Zealand First Party do not want agriculture to do anything to reduce emissions and yet, at the same time, they’re not doing anything for transport to reduce emissions. You would think for parties that believe that their entire strategy is electrification of cars, rather than actually making public transport work in our towns and cities and making active transport possible and making it possible for people to undertake the many, many short trips in our urban areas on foot, by bike, by e-scooter, by whatever means they choose that doesn’t happen to be in a car—they are car zealots. They’re obsessed with forcing New Zealanders to use cars for every single trip, and we see that through everything.

James Meager: That’s choice.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No, that’s not choice. It’s the opposite of choice, I say to the member. It is the opposite of choice. If people don’t have the ability to walk, cycle, or take public transport, they don’t have a choice. National wants to take away people’s choice and force them into cars, which they have to spend thousands of dollars a year to run and maintain.

But, see, this is the difficulty in dealing—they’re so far down the rabbit hole, so out of touch with reality, that this new dinosaur Government doesn’t understand that decades of Government policy have led to a situation where New Zealanders have no choice but to use a car. The whole point that the Green Party has constantly brought here is that if you actually invest in the alternatives to using a car—like the top five best countries in the world for roads that the National Party liked to cite before the election, until they realised all of those places were implementing Green-style transport and urban development policies, and that’s why they’re such good countries for people to drive cars in.

We don’t have the option for people to use public transport, because subsequent Governments have failed to invest in it and that has taken away people’s choice to get around without a car. So their entire strategy now is electrification of cars, and yet they’re taking away the one policy that was actually supporting and making it easier for New Zealanders to get into electric cars. The mind boggles.

But the reality is—and I know they must be really high on the success of the election and feeling good with all their repeals—that at some point, this Government is going to have to figure out how to actually solve the problem. The Prime Minister says he’s committed to the carbon budgets. He’s committed to achieving them, and yet all of the evidence we’ve received from the Climate Change Commission and the Ministry of Transport says that in order to achieve those carbon budgets, we need a price signal at the point of purchase of vehicles so that people can find it easier to get into more electric vehicles. And that’s what the Clean Car Discount was. It was a price incentive at the point of purchase and import into the country. Because once you’ve already purchased the vehicle, having the price incentive on a bit of fuel doesn’t work to influence the cars that are coming into the country.

I have done my best to share the evidence, to share the rationale, to explain to the members in the Government how they had an opportunity to do something that was good for the climate, that was good for people, and that people would have supported, and the saddest thing for me is that they chose to make people feel bad about contributing to the Clean Car Discount, when people could have felt good about it. I think New Zealanders do want to do the right thing. They want to be part of the solution, and if they—[Interruption] And they absolutely had the ability to buy the high-polluting vehicles. They had that ability.

They can also continue to contribute to cleaning up the other vehicles on the road. Because if they need that ute or if they need that Range Rover, that $150,000 Range Rover—if they need that to drop the kids off in Remuera and, you know, then if that’s what they need—and I respect that’s their need—then it’s fair to ask those people buying brand-new Range Rovers to contribute something to getting more zero-emissions cars on the road. Because we won’t be able to solve the climate crisis as individuals; we will do it together. We will do it by working together. People can feel proud of their contribution to the stunning increase in zero- and low-emissions vehicles that we’ve seen over the past two years. I want to give a shoutout—of course, many of the members of the Government, including the Prime Minister and a few senior Ministers, their families took the rebate for their electric vehicles. But then now they’ve repealed it, so other people can’t access that benefit, which is another stunning example of hypocrisy from this Government.

But people should feel good about the increase that we’ve had to electric vehicles on the road, and if they paid a little bit more for their high-emissions vehicle, they can know they were part of the solution and they were, for a brief time, part of a policy that actually radically reduced the average emissions of the vehicles coming into the New Zealand fleet.

We will hold the Government to account as we see what the consequences of repealing this are, but, no matter what, they can’t take away the two megatonne of carbon emissions that we saved. They can’t take away the fact that we kickstarted, in a big way, the rush to electric vehicles and electrification. They will slow it down, but they can’t take it away.

I just want to, finally, shout out to the Hon Michael Wood, who brought this policy through, who listened to the evidence even though the Labour Party hadn’t campaigned on the policy. He listened to the officials and said we have to have this price incentive, and he brought the policy in. So good on the Hon Michael Wood for doing that and sticking to his guns. The Green Party will continue to promote the positive, practical solutions that our country needs to address the real challenges.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank the Minister for bringing this bill to the House and honouring the coalition agreement between ACT and National. ACT campaigned strongly on the repeal of this law. It disproportionately affects some of the constituents we are most keen to represent, particularly the rural community, who this ute tax unfairly affected.

What I’ve just heard is—I mean, this has been an incoherent policy, as we’ve heard throughout the day. It’s unsustainable and it actually doesn’t make sense. What this Government is doing is actually restoring a sensible, coherent climate change policy that will actually work.

So I want to say ACT is very proud to be a part of the Government and to get this law repealed, and I want to say it’s actually a demonstration of where we identified bad public policy and we’re addressing it and actually putting correct public policy in place to address the serious issues that have faced New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill through the third reading. I have made in the first two—what are they called these days? I haven’t been here for—the first two readings, thank you. It was a late night last night. In the first two readings I’ve articulated my case, so I won’t.

But one thing I will do—as the new Minister for Rural Communities, I want to take issue with Julie Anne Genter. She talked about this taking options away. It’s taking no options away for urban people. They can still buy their Teslas. This is a deeply regressive tax for rural communities. It is a direct transfer of money from rural to urban, particularly utes. They’re not lifestyle choices, as the member over there tried to articulate before. They carry tools, they carry stock feed, they carry the dogs, they carry injured stock at times, and those utes don’t have viable alternatives. They don’t live near a cycle lane.

I went out on my first visit as Minister to Tairāwhiti last week. I went out to the Bruce Road, about an hour out of Gisborne. There were four families out there, all represented, all waiting on the other side of a river. Their bridge had been washed away. The culvert bridge that was put up as a replacement that they had to wait six months for had been washed away as well in an ensuing rainfall event. I’d like any of the members opposite to go and visit those families, who were really deeply distressed, who had to handle infrastructure that was absolutely devastated by, yes, a weather event and, yes, impacted by climate change. They don’t have the option. They have to get to town. They have to get to work. They have to get supplies in. They have to get stock out and get their kids to school and get them home.

So those are the sort of people that you’re not thinking about when you’re having your intellectual arguments about whether urban people have choices. If they want to have the choice of buying a Tesla, they can buy one, but don’t punish those that need a ute. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

DARLEEN TANA (Green): Madam Speaker, colleagues in the Whare, I would like to just start by acknowledging the honourable members who gave their maiden speech today in the Whare. It was really moving. One of the things that stood out for me in the kōrero was the need to listen to each other. I’ll confess, being a newbie MP in this space, I’ve been a little surprised, I suppose, at the behaviour, for what passes for rigorous debate. I would just like to echo the words of a new member spoken earlier this afternoon about the need to just listen to what is being said.

We are in a climate crisis. Irrespective of, you know, what’s going to go down today with respect to this bill, 2 megatonnes of carbon dioxide were saved thanks to this policy. This Government had an opportunity to achieve a net marginal abatement cost, and, frankly, I find that stunning coming from that side of the Whare which purports to know something about business. Earlier in the day, during the second reading, I suggested that we read the user manual on how to navigate the Clean Car Discount fee rebate system. We’ve missed a beat by getting us this far. I’m very interested to hear what the regulatory impact statement, when it is finally finalised, has to say about the fiscal neutrality of this policy. We see many overseas examples where the mechanism has been in place for more than 20 years and they have achieved fiscal neutrality.

I want to celebrate a little bit on behalf of New Zealanders who, thanks to the Clean Car Discount and Clean Car Standard, have a greater choice thanks to applying those mechanisms at the supply side so that the vehicle importers could bring a wider choice of electric vehicles into the country and at a faster rate.

Carl Bates: There’s nothing stopping them.

DARLEEN TANA: There is nothing stopping them, you’re right, but the thing is it was too early to pull the plug. As I say, I’m looking forward to hearing what the regulatory impact statement has to say about that.

I’m going to close. We do not commend this bill at all, but I would like to thank you all for listening to my kōrero this afternoon. Tēnā tātou.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Today is a good day. The Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill will get rid of the fiscally irresponsible and blatantly unfair Clean Car Discount scheme, also known as the “ute tax”. This ute tax and Clean Car Discount is a reverse Robin Hood scheme which is taxing hard-working Kiwis, for the vehicles they need, to subsidise other people to buy new cars.

To our hard-working famers and tradies: you have done it tough for the last six years. Under the previous Government, you were public enemy number one. Well, under this Government, we back you. You are the backbone of our country, and we are here to work for you and support you. I’m proud to commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 19 December 2023. Thank you, everyone.

The House adjourned at 6.22 p.m.