Wednesday, 10 April 2024

WEDNESDAY, 10 APRIL 2024

WEDNESDAY, 10 APRIL 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

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

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

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

CLERK:

Petition of Safeguarding Children requesting that the House review and amend the Children’s Act 2014 to broaden and strengthen its capacity to protect New Zealand’s children from abuse

petition of Rhodes Farming Partnership requesting that the House undertake an inquiry into virtual fencing

petition of Carjam Online Ltd requesting that the House urge the Government to reverse the decision to begin charging for free data as part of the planned “Fees review”.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Officers of Parliament Committee on the alterations to the 2023/24 appropriations for Vote Audit, Vote Ombudsmen, and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and the 2024-25 draft budgets for the Office of the Auditor-General, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

SPEAKER: That report is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Urgent Debates Declined

Closure of Newshub—Ministerial Response

SPEAKER: Members, I’ve received a letter from the Hon Willie Jackson seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the ministerial response to the confirmed closure of Newstalk—oh, sorry; of Newshub. [Interruption] Yeah, turn off the alarms! I should read that again. I’ve received a letter from the Hon Willie Jackson seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the ministerial response to the confirmed closure of Newshub. The member’s authentication shows that the Government has said it is working towards a solution. Urgent debates are a way of holding the Government to account for its actions, not for things that might happen in the future—Speakers’ rulings 216/4 and 222/2. The application’s therefore declined. I make this announcement now because the general debate is an opportunity for members to raise matters of concern that may be organisationally useful to know this decision now.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, I do, and especially our announcement of new targets for at least 80 percent of students regularly attending school and 80 percent of year 8 students at or above the expected curriculum level for their age in reading, writing, and maths. These are critical things to make sure that our kids can get the quality education they have and can follow the dreams that they have. Finally we have a Government that’s getting New Zealand back on track, getting our kids back to school, and making sure they’re going to do well.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he say yesterday that the Suicide Prevention Office would remain open, when the Ministry of Health officials were saying at the same time that it wouldn’t?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said yesterday, the Ministry of Health said that they did not adequately brief the Minister. The Minister has made it very clear the functions of the Suicide Prevention Office will remain open.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Were any Ministers in his Government briefed on the Ministry of Health’s proposal to wind up the Suicide Prevention Office before it became public knowledge?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I don’t know how to be any clearer: we’ve had the Ministry of Health come out and say they did not adequately brief the Minister. Within a very quick and short period of time, the Minister responded by saying he wanted the functions of the Suicide Prevention Office to remain, and they will remain.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Prime Minister might have missed my question. I was asking about any Ministers in his Government. Of course, there are multiple Ministers of Health. The Minister that he’s referring to is not the Vote Minister; that is the Minister of Health. I was asking him whether any Ministers in his Government had been briefed on the proposal before it become public.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he probably did answer that, but he could perhaps say something else.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, no, I feel like I have answered it. I’ve answered it yesterday; I’m answering it again today. As I said, the Ministry of Health said they did not adequately brief the Minister. The Minister of Mental Health has come out and said that he wants the functions of the Suicide Prevention Office to remain and they will remain. That’s the situation.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was the Minister of Health or any other Minister in his Government briefed on the ministry’s proposals before they were made public?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did Ministry of Health officials just yesterday say that the role of the director of the Suicide Prevention Office will not be filled, other roles in the Suicide Prevention Office will be cut, and the work of the office would be integrated into other ministry work, which to most people sounds like the office is being wound up?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can reassure you, the Minister has been very clear to say that the functions of the Suicide Prevention Office will remain.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that his Government’s proposal to cut jobs from the Ministry of Health, including from the tobacco regulation team, will not lead to an increase in youth smoking?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are determined as a Government to deliver on the smoke-free 2025 targets. As that member well knows, we’ve had good progress in the last 12 months, and we’re going to march towards a 5 percent daily smoker target under smoke-free 2025.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that his Government’s proposal to cut 6.5 percent from the budget of Customs will not lead to longer lines at airports, delays for our importers and exporters, and more illicit drugs entering New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I can say to that member is that we finally have a Government that can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can end the wasteful spending, we can prioritise front-line services, we can deliver tax relief for low- and middle-income workers—folk that that member’s party used to care about—and we can make sure we can grow this economy.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That can’t possibly come anywhere close to addressing the question that I had asked the Prime Minister. I asked him whether he would guarantee that there wouldn’t be more illicit drugs coming into the country, longer lines at airports—

SPEAKER: I know what you asked him, and that is the problem. You’re asking him to give a guarantee which is in the nature of a yes/no answer, and I ruled those out yesterday.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Yeah, but he at least needs to address the question. I admit I can’t make him say yes or no, but he at least needs to talk about the question that was asked, as opposed to whatever he feels like.

SPEAKER: I’m not going to debate it with you, but I don’t think asking someone to guarantee something and then saying they must address that is in any way different from asking for a yes or no answer. Please ask another supp.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee that his proposal to cut 6.5 percent from the Customs budget won’t lead to longer times at airports, won’t lead to delays for our importers and exporters, and won’t lead to more illicit drugs entering New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can reassure that member is that this’ll be a Government that will rebuild our economy, restore law and order, and deliver better public services in health and education.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made about tax?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The answer to this question is that two weeks ago I released the Government’s Budget Policy Statement. This confirmed that there will be personal income tax relief in the Budget, and it noted that New Zealanders have not seen any changes to personal income rates and thresholds since 2010, apart from Labour’s introduction of a higher top tax rate. Now, for 14 years, people have been taxed more and more as their incomes have risen, much of that due to inflation. This Government will start to address that in Budget 2024.

Stuart Smith: What have been the consequences of not adjusting tax brackets?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I can give the House an example, because I’m acutely aware that there are members of this House who adamantly oppose tax reduction for working people. In 2011, the median full-time wage and salary worker earned $48,000 and paid 15.5 percent of their income in tax. Today, the median full-time wage and salary worker earns $73,400.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s because wages are going up—that’s a great thing.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: He may not like it, but he should listen to the fact, because today that wage earner pays 20.6 percent of their income in tax, as compared to 15.5 percent in 2011. In other words—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: They don’t like growing wages—they don’t like growing wages.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —and, actually, the Leader of the Opposition should listen rather than interrupt—the average tax rate for someone who by definition is right in the middle of the income distribution has gone up by more than five percentage points, and that has happened because of the neglect and indifference of what long ago was known as the party of the worker.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government continues on a daily basis to directly challenge your ruling as the Speaker, and that was another blatant example of it. Not only did you not stop Nicola Willis for a blatant attack on the previous Government but you actually allowed her to deliver a speech rather than an answer to the question.

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, there was quite a lot of interjection going on during that time, and I think that while the speech was too long—sorry, the answer was too long—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I rest my case!

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I’ve never been one for long speeches, but it was too long an answer. But I don’t think that you could say that was an attack on the previous Government. Talking about what has historically happened is not unreasonable and not outside the Standing Orders.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The last bit of her answer absolutely was.

SPEAKER: Well, maybe I didn’t hear it because of some of the noise that was going on, but I will have a look at that on Hansard. I’m trying my best to be fair and even.

Stuart Smith: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is the Government concerned about fiscal drag?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I note there’s a lot of sensitivity about the answers to these questions. The fiscal drag—

SPEAKER: No, with all due respect, that doesn’t help things either, so just start the answer again.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Sure. Well, the fiscal drag I have described affects people at all levels of income. As the years go by, they find themselves paying an increasing share of their earnings in income tax, and this can affect people’s perceptions of fairness in the tax system and as a result have a negative impact on compliance. Also, as people move into higher tax brackets, they face higher marginal tax rates, which can be a disincentive to work. This Government wants people to see a future for themselves and their families in New Zealand where they can get ahead if they work hard and keep more of their own money.

Stuart Smith: Will personal income tax relief in Budget 2024 be inflationary?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. Tax relief will be funded by reducing Government consumption and increasing revenue elsewhere, all sitting within the Budget 2024 operating allowance. Furthermore, that allowance will be lower than the allowance set by the previous Government. This means that tax relief is affordable, we will not be borrowing extra to pay for it, and tax relief will not add to inflationary pressures.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) 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 our announcement of nine priority targets, including reducing New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions to align with our 2050 net zero climate goal. Of course, we’re going to achieve that by fast-track consenting so we can get more renewable energy, like windfarms, built, we’re going to remove the GE ban to empower our world-class agriscientists to actually manage methane emissions down, and, of course, we’re going to restore integrity to the emissions trading scheme.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister stand by his answer to me at question time yesterday that the Climate Change Commission’s draft advice on biogenic methane is “speculation”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t think I expressed it in those terms.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I can quote directly from the Hansard—

SPEAKER: Hang on, wait until I call you.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Point of order, Chlöe Swarbrick.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I would quote directly from the Hansard, in which the Prime Minister responded to a direct quote from the Climate Change Commission’s report.

SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Chlöe Swarbrick: All right, Mr Speaker. May I have another supplementary, then, to probe this point?

SPEAKER: Certainly not an extra one. Carry on.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What does he understand the role of the Climate Change Commission to be?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it provides important advice to the Government about the state of climate change in New Zealand.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he then agree with the Climate Change Commission, who said on Monday, and I quote, “there has not be an important or notable change in the understanding of the physical science on methane and how it warms the atmosphere”; or is he to extend his logic also to reopen the science on, say, gravity?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t know how to answer the last part of that question, but what I would just say is that we are determined to make sure that we update the science base on methane. It has changed over the last five years. It’s changed over the last 10 years. It will change in the next five years and in the next 10 years. It’s important that we get a common base of understanding of science knowledge so we can set the right targets.

Hon Marama Davidson: Science denier.

SPEAKER: Just wait—OK.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What exactly is wrong with the Climate Change Commission’s science such that the Government feels compelled to open a secondary review on the science of methane?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry—I missed the question.

SPEAKER: Could the member ask the question again?

Chlöe Swarbrick: What does the Prime Minister consider is wrong with the Climate Change Commission’s science on methane?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Nothing particularly. We have two reviews going on, answering slightly different questions to make sure that we get a common understanding of the science base.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What process, if any, has she established for portfolio Ministers and Cabinet to review and approve the cost-saving proposals currently being consulted on by agencies through the Initial Baseline Exercise?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Ministers were asked in late December to work with their agencies to develop credible savings options for Budget 2024. Chief executives were expected to exercise good judgment in putting forward savings proposals, and Ministers have worked with agencies to refine them. The savings exercise is an ongoing and iterative process, including through Budget bilaterals between myself and various Ministers. Cabinet will be asked to approve the full Budget package.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it her expectation that Ministers will understand the full implications of their agencies’ final cost savings plans prior to Cabinet considering the Budget package, as set out in question time yesterday?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she concerned, then, that agency cuts won’t be finalised prior to Cabinet considering Budget 2024, and how does she expect her colleagues to consider and reject those proposals if the Budget has already been finalised?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, there’s two things happening here. The first is that agencies, as a matter of course, routinely, and have for many years made decisions to restructure their entities in order to focus on their core priorities and to drive efficiency. Some of the changes that are under way and change processes that are happening across the public service now are actually the result of reforms by the previous Government. For example, in the case of Health New Zealand, it was always an expectation that there would then be reductions in the number of roles at the Ministry of Health. The second thing that is happening here is that in some cases, agencies have made decisions at an operational level to begin change processes and to consult on those change processes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can the Minister of Health meet her expectations to understand the impact of the Ministry of Health’s cuts prior to Cabinet agreeing the Budget when final decisions are not expected to come until June?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I think I just answered that in my previous answer.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she say that her colleagues are able to reject proposals to freeze hiring at Oranga Tamariki and Police, or cut jobs from the tobacco regulation team at Health or the Suicide Prevention Office, when these are being finalised after Cabinet agrees her Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because many entities have put forward proposals that Ministers have rejected. That is happening, that has happened, and I suspect it will continue to happen.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it not the case that she will pursue significant cost cutting to pay for her tax cuts package without knowing the full impact on the public, while leaving her colleagues to front the consequences of her decisions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I want to tell you about the impact it had on the public when that Government chose to increase spending—

SPEAKER: No, no—

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —at a rapid rate and the decisions—

SPEAKER: Sorry—resume your seat. No—take your seat. After all the discussion that we’ve had in recent days, don’t start an answer like that. Attacks on the Opposition for their political activities are not reasonable. Referencing decisions they’ve made and the consequences of those decisions as they affect portfolios now is in order, but the way that was presented was not quite to form.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: To the rescue!

Hon Chris Bishop: The only one that needs rescuing is your deputy leadership. But anyway—Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on; just a minute. We’ve got a point of order being taken. They are heard in silence.

Hon Chris Bishop: There’s been a protocol, Mr Speaker, that political questions get political answers. That was quite a political question—very serious, quite charged, a politically charged allegation inherent in the question—and the Minister of Finance is responding in a political way. That’s always been the rule, sir, that political questions get political answers; straight questions deserve straight answers. Is the rule now that political questions can’t be political in their answers?

SPEAKER: No, of course not. But your version, your assessment of what is a politically charged question and mine, are clearly different. Your view on what is a reasonable answer and mine are different, but mine will prevail. Does the Minister wish to—point of order, the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We absolutely accept that point of orders will be heard in silence, but we also believe that the rule that points of orders should solely be points of orders should also be followed, and when they’re not, it’s likely to lead to disorder in the House.

SPEAKER: That is true, but given the nature of the ruling, I decided to let that slide. But it won’t be happening again. So, Minister, would you like to answer the question—or would you like to hear it again?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Oh no, I’m fine. Look, I can offer the member opposite real reassurance that every single member of this Government supports our decision to offer tax relief to working people by reprioritising some of the wasteful spending that was put in place by those members.

Question No. 5—Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills)

SPEAKER: Question No. 5, Mark Cameron. [Interruption]

Mark Cameron: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just wait a minute. Just giving the House a moment to settle.

5. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills): What recent announcements, if any, has he made in his portfolio?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills)): Today, the Minister of Agriculture and I announced our intention to improve freshwater farm plans to make them more cost-effective and pragmatic for farmers. I see freshwater farm plans as a key tool to support farmers to enhance the freshwater environment in the future, but the current system is too costly, too complex, and too inflexible. This announcement signals the Government’s intention to make farm plans fit for purpose and align to the particular circumstances of each farm and catchment.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. Point of order. Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just seeking your guidance—given that this is a patsy question, it was filed to the Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare, Skills), the press release which is being alluded to—

SPEAKER: Sorry, that’s not a point of order.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, the press release that is being alluded to is—

SPEAKER: It is entirely the Government’s decision which Minister will answer a question.

Mark Cameron: What changes to freshwater farm plans is he considering?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: The sector has told us that the current system is rigid, with time and money needed to complete a farm plan not lining up with the level of risk for many farmers. Among other things, we will take a look at the certification and auditing requirements of the system, with a view to ensuring that future settings are justifiable on the basis of cost and environmental benefit. We will also make sure that we are doing as much as we can to reduce duplication in farm planning. Many farmers are already doing comprehensive farm plans that, in many cases, could easily be recognised as equivalent.

Mark Cameron: What value will an improved farm plan system provide farmers?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: In addition to supporting and to protect and enhance the environment, we intend to develop a flexible but robust system where farm plans can be specifically targeted to the unique needs of each farm and catchment. Ideally, these plans can stand in the place of local rules and consents for a range of common farming activities.

Mark Cameron: What does he intend to do for farmers in areas where a freshwater farm plan system is already being implemented?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: The system roll-out began under the previous Government in parts of some regions, including the Waikato and Southland, where farmers have to put these plans or have them developed by early next year. We want to give as much certainty as possible to farmers as we work through these changes, especially those that may already be putting their plans together. As part of that, we may look into whether the current requirements to complete freshwater farm plans could be paused.

Question No. 6—Māori Development

6. TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by all the Government’s policies and actions?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Āna, āna. Kei te tino tautoko i te anga whakamua o tō tātou Kāwanatanga, me ngā mihi matakoakoa ki tō tātou Pirīmia i āna kōrero tongarerewa i te Mane e hangā mai nei he whāinga mō tātou katoa.

[Yes, yes. I very much support the forward direction of our Government, and happily acknowledge our Prime Minister for his precious statements on Monday that goals will be created for all of us.]

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his level of involvement regarding the Government’s policy to remove section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, which iwi leaders have stated really clearly will sever iwi partnerships, will further alienate tamariki Māori from their ‘hakapapa, and lead to more harm of tamariki Māori in the Crown’s care?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: He mema au nō te Kāpenata, ā, ka wānanga ērā momo kaupapa ki te Kāpenata.

[I am a member of the Cabinet, and those types of topics were considered by the Cabinet.]

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Was he consulted on the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority, and, if so, what is his view on the impacts this will have on Māori health inequities?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Ka nui hoki ngā kōrero i kawea atu e mātou o te Pāti Nāhinara me ngā rōpū haumi ki te Kāwanatanga haumi ki tēnei take mō Te Aka Whai Ora i te wā o te pōti, me te mea nei kua tukuna mai e taku manu hauora nei ngā pepa ki te Kāpenata. Kei roto au i te Kāpenata, kua kite au i ērā pepa.

[There were a lot of statements that were taken by us of the National Party and the coalition parties to the coalition Government about this issue for the Māori Health Authority during the election campaign, and my health leader here has passed those papers on to Cabinet. I am in the Cabinet; I have seen those papers.]

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Was he consulted on the decision to repeal Aotearoa’s smoke-free legislation, given that the Smokefree Aotearoa campaign was initiated and led by Māori, and smoking is the leading cause of preventable death of our people?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Ēnei pepa i kawea mai nei e te Minita, e Casey Costello, tērā uri o te Nōta, ā, i kawea atu ki te Kāpenata me te mea nei i kite hoki au i ērā pepa.

[These papers that were brought by the Minister, by Casey Costello, that descendant of the North, were conveyed to Cabinet and I also saw those papers.]

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What advice did he seek regarding the disproportionate impact that scrapping funding for section 27 reports in sentencing will have on Māori, which experts have stated will lead to further discrimination of Māori in the criminal justice system, higher rates of offending, and higher rates of Māori in prison?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I kite hoki au i ngā pepa i tukuna atu ki te Kāpenata, me te mō’io hoki ahakoa kua takahi i tērā ara ki te whakakore i ngā pūtea tautoko mō ērā ripoata, e taea tonutia ana e te marea e tae ana ki ngā kōti ki te kawe mai i ō rātou nawe e pā ana ki te āhuatanga, te tuakiritanga o te tangata, tōna hītori, her-tori rānei. Koirā hoki te ara i ngā rua tekau tau, tekau mā rima tau i muri.

[I also saw the papers that were given to Cabinet, and I also know that although that path to disestablishing the support funding for those reports has been walked, the public that appear in court continue to be able to bring their issues with respect to the character, the identity of the individual, his history, or her-story. That has been the way for the last 20 years or 15 years.]

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What level of involvement did he have in the decision to reintroduce referendums on Māori wards which breaches Māori rights to representation in local government?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: It’s absolutely marvellous to see so many Māori councillors on councils throughout the country, and the coalition agreements have stated that the Māori wards issues will be put to all constituencies that have not already agreed to the Māori wards. That’s what the coalition agreement stated and that’s what we are following today.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If I can just clarify, my question was specifically on what level of involvement did he have in the decision to reintroduce referendums on Māori.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you for that question. I am a member of Cabinet and we have received papers in relation to that matter, and Cabinet has taken decisions accordingly.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his view on the implications that policies such as the Fast-track Approvals Bill, the Treaty principles bill, the removal of section 7AA—

Hon Shane Jones: Matua’s bill.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: —from Oranga Tamariki—

SPEAKER: No, just hang on—hang on. Wait please. The deal is—I don’t want to name anybody here, but we don’t speak while the question is being asked, so please start that again.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his view on the implications that policies such as the Fast-track Approvals Bill, the Treaty principles bill, the removal of section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, the ministerial alienation of te reo Māori, and the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority will have on Māori fundamental rights and interests, and on the wellbeing of your and my mokopuna?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I am a member of the Cabinet, and as a result I take very close to heart the notion of collective Cabinet responsibility, and there have been a number of issues that have emerged out of various bills and pieces of legislation and policies that you’ve referred to. I am absolutely strengthened and motivated to ensure that the rights and interests of Māori—such as Treaty settlements—are preserved through those processes, as you can see in the draft legislation for the Fast-track Approvals Bill, which I hope ultimately will be passed, and iwi and other Māori groups can take advantage of that legislation.

Question No. 7—Health

7. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made about shorter wait times for elective treatment?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister launched ambitious health targets as part of the Government’s target suite. This will help improve the lives of all New Zealanders. One of these targets was shorter wait times for elective treatment. This target aims to see 95 percent of people wait less than four months for their elective treatments. This won’t be easy, but the Government is committed to improving the lives of all New Zealanders through better, more efficient public services. We look to deliver the public services that New Zealanders deserve.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Why is an elective target important?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This target was chosen because the treatment times that we used to expect and achieve just six years ago have reduced. Wait times for elective treatments have turned into a highly stressful experience, with patients having no certainty as to when they will receive access to the care that they need. As of September 2023, only 62 percent of patients waited less than four months for their elective treatments, down significantly from around 97 percent in late 2017. This is not good enough, and we want to deliver better care.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Is this target too ambitious given the current state of the health system?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This target is not meant to be easy to achieve. We’re not here to do what is easy; we’re here to do what is needed. Despite the very hard work of our front-line health workforce over the past six years, our wait times have continued to grow. That’s why we are taking a different approach by putting targets back at the forefront of our decision making. These targets will direct attention and resources and set a clear agenda for where our health system should be heading.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does his ambition include a reduction in the ESPI 5, or planned care treatment wait list, in the coming financial year?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Our ambitions are to improve all of the wait times that we announced in our targets and, as we have said, the baseline will be set as of 1 July 2024.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How will the Government track progress against this target?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We last achieved 95 percent between early 2015 and the end of 2017, so we know it’s possible. The health agencies will report results each quarter, with the first quarterly result expected to be for the July to September 2024 period. This reporting will be robust to ensure we can target resources appropriately.

Question No. 8—Mental Health

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to point out I am pre-empting this question a bit, that it will be around the Suicide Prevention Office. I’m happy to proceed with the question; I just want to point out my delegation for suicide prevention is not Associate Minister of Health; it’s for mental health. It’s in the sheet, yeah.

SPEAKER: It’s not necessarily a point of order, but you managed to make a point, I suppose.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. Noting that, it is, I believe, actually fair to say because the question was put to the Minister for Mental Health. The Minister for Mental Health is confused as to why it’s down as the Associate Minister of Health, and given we didn’t put it there, I think it doesn’t have to be right away but it would be good to know how it’s ended up here like that.

SPEAKER: That’s fair enough. There is a process that you’re well aware of as to how those questions do get put down. It is the—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s why I didn’t do a point of order.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s right, and so I’ll take a good look at it. Thanks very much.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Mr Speaker. It does raise a reasonably substantive issue. The Government is ultimately responsible for determining which Minister is responsible for answering a question, but where the question is a broad one, like whether the Minister stands by all of their statements and actions, there can be very limited grounds for transferring that from one Minister to another, because, ultimately, the Government, if they have transferred it, have determined that the Associate Minister of Health is better to answer questions on whether the Minister for Mental Health stands by their statements and actions, or not. That seems a slightly odd decision, given that the Minister for Mental Health is the same person and is in the House. So if the question’s been transferred, it must have been the Government that transferred it and they must have a rationale for doing that.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Speaking to the point of order. This is mysterious. I’ve just checked, Mr Speaker. The question was lodged to the Minister for Mental Health; the Government did not transfer it to the Associate Minister of Health. Somewhere along the line—and I think the Clerk is checking right now—the question has made its way from being lodged to the Minister for Mental Health, which I think the Minister for Mental Health is happy to answer in that capacity, and it’s gone on in the Order Paper as the Associate Minister of Health, but the Government didn’t transfer it—

SPEAKER: Well, we could have a massive inquest here, or someone could seek leave for the question to be directed to the Minister for Mental Health.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Mr Speaker, I seek leave of the House for the question to be directed to the Minister for Mental Health.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

8. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister for Mental Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): First, can I just take a moment to acknowledge how triggering the conversations have been around suicide for many people in New Zealand who have been affected by suicide in their families and their communities. Yes, I do stand beside my statements and actions, specifically that mental health and suicide prevention is a priority for this Government. My priorities for mental health, addictions, and suicide are to increase access to timely mental health, addiction, and suicide prevention support; number two, to grow the mental health and addiction and suicide prevention workforce; and, three, strengthen focus on prevention and early intervention.

Ingrid Leary: Does he stand by his statement this week insisting that the Suicide Prevention Office would not be a victim of the Government’s cost cutting?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Yes. Look, can I take the opportunity to clear something up. I saw the change document for the first time, with the officials taking me through it, on Monday. They have taken me through it and showed, with the change proposal, the proposal is actually to go from 5.5 fulltime-equivalents (FTE) in the Suicide Prevention Office, which it currently is, to 6.5 in the change proposal, which is only a proposal but it will increase capacity and capability in that office that will remain open. It has been misleading: the Public Service Association put out a press release that it was to close; I was never informed of that, and it was not to close.

Ingrid Leary: Why did his health officials double down on their advice to the media yesterday, saying that the number of roles to be disestablished and the number of roles to be integrated were, essentially, exactly the same as what they advised last week?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, in response to that question, I can only go by the assurance I got when I was given the change proposal for the first time on Monday. They took me through it and showed me where it has gone from 5.5 FTE to 6.5 FTE. I want to be very clear—and the officials have acknowledged I wasn’t sufficiently briefed—I was not told it was to close. I’ve always been very clear. There’s been a lot of discussion in the sector that is critical of the Suicide Prevention Office. One major commentator has called for it to close. I do not want it to close.

Ingrid Leary: What is the practical difference between retaining only the functions of the office and closure, given that the Prime Minister has just confirmed in the House today that there are current roles that will no longer be filled?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I’ve been very clear—and I was even interviewed by Jack Tame on Q+A—that I’ve been disappointed by the Suicide Prevention Office; I think it’s lacked real leadership. The sector has been disappointed. But I’ve never been of the view to delete it; I’ve always been of the view to, actually, how we can give it clear expectations, manage it, targets, and goals. As part of the review of the Suicide Action Plan that I’m due to take in the next couple of months, I will be doing that with the Suicide Prevention Office.

Ingrid Leary: Why did he ask his officials to publicly apologise?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I did not ask the officials to publicly apologise.

Ingrid Leary: Why are officials publicly apologising when they’re actually just following Government directions to find 6.5 percent funding cuts across health?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, that’s very simple, because the fiscal sustainability programme clearly states to find savings while still delivering quality public services, and delivering a Suicide Prevention Office is a quality public service.

Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment

9. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s recent statement that the average adult now is on the benefit for 13 years on average, and the under-25s are on the benefit for an average of 24 years?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, in its full context. The Prime Minister was referring to independent evidence produced by Taylor Fry in 2022, which reported that someone on the jobseeker benefit is expected to spend 13 years on benefit throughout their lifetime. The same evidence shows someone on a youth benefit is expected to spend 24 years on benefits throughout their lifetime.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she aware that the Taylor Fry report she just quoted actually says that only 0.5 percent of people on the benefit are expected to spend 24 years on a benefit throughout their lifetime?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Anyone that spends up to 24 years of their future lifetime on welfare is a major issue for this Government, and that’s why we are focused on fixing it.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why, then, has the Prime Minister and the Minister continued to say that under-25s are on the benefit for an average of 24 years?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because that’s what the Taylor Fry report has said. For someone who goes on to youth payment or youth parent payment, unfortunately, the future lifetime expected that they will spend on welfare is up to 24 years. That is a disaster from anyone’s book and why we are focused, with a social investment approach, on where the group have the highest risk of poorer life outcomes and interrupting it. We are not interested in allowing young people in this country, whether it’s a small number or a large number, spending that amount of time stuck.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she aware that for that tiny 0.5 percent proportion of people, the modelling has taken into account seven additional risk factors, including acute unplanned care from a public hospital, interaction with Oranga Tamariki, and exclusion from school, and, if so, why didn’t she create a target to reduce those risk factors, as opposed to just getting 50,000 people off the benefit?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The Taylor Fry modelling is based on really careful analysis of the IDI data, which is why it is so rich. It looks at people’s past outcomes with the intention of trying to disrupt that from happening in the future. Whether it’s one person, whether it’s 100, or whether it’s 100,000, every one of those people counts, to me, and I am unwilling to sit by and let them get stuck.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she confident in the accuracy of her and the Prime Minister’s comments that the average young person is spending 24 years on a benefit?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my primary answer, the context in which that was given was a discussion about long-term welfare dependency—the horrendous change that we have seen under the last six years with a significant increase in young people going on to welfare and staying on it—and the Taylor Fry report was one piece of the evidence that shows why we must prioritise this group.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will she commit, going forward, to be clear that only 0.5 percent of people are predicted to spend 24 years on the benefit, as per the Taylor Fry report?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What I will commit to this House is that for every single person, we will do our best to get them off welfare and into work, because that’s what improves their life outcomes. Whether it’s one year or 24 years, it’s not good enough.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Taylor Fry report released under the Official Information Act—

SPEAKER: Sorry, when the House is silent, we can all hear what you’re saying.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Taylor Fry report Social Outcomes Modelling—2022 Results, released to me under the Official Information Act.

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

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Justice: What target has the Government set for a reduction in violent crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The Prime Minister announced on Monday that the Government has set a target to see a reduction in the number of people who are the victims of an assault, robbery, or sexual assault by 20,000. By setting a focused and ambitious target to reduce the number of victims of crime, we can focus attention, resources, and accountability towards achieving better results.

Cameron Brewer: Why does this Government want to see a reduction in violent crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It’s important that all New Zealanders feel safe in their homes and in their communities. It’s estimated that around 185,000 Kiwis or 4.4 percent of the population are victims of an assault, robbery, or sexual assault, and we don’t regard that as normal or acceptable. The previous Government targeted reducing the prison population while violent crime increased. We have changed the target to reduce the number of victims of crime.

Cameron Brewer: What steps have already been taken to help reach the target to see a reduction in violent crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Government’s already taken a number of steps, including the introduction of a significant legislative package aimed at tackling gangs; we’re boosting the powers of police to search gang members and other high-risk offenders, in addition to providing more access to rehabilitation for people on demand; and we’ve stopped funding for cultural reports.

Cameron Brewer: What steps are next to help reach the target to see a reduction in victims of violent crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We’re restoring the three-strikes legislation that the previous Government repealed, showing that we will not tolerate repeat violent offending in our communities. We’ll give judges additional tools to deal with serious repeat youth offenders, including military-style academies. We’ll also limit excessive sentencing discounts so penalties actually fit the crime. There are, of course, many factors that have contributed to an increase in violent crime in our communities, but one of the immediate tools available to us is to restore real consequences for crime.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: How will his gang patch legislation assist in achieving those targets when advice provided to him by the Ministry of Justice on 27 November states clearly that there’s no strong evidence to show that such actions work to reduce long-term offending and, in fact, risks making it more difficult to change offending behaviours and may drive an increase in gang numbers?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I think it was the mixed attitude towards gangs over the past six years that led—a contributor, no doubt—to a 50 percent increase in gang membership in our community. And so I think everybody acknowledges the negative impact that gang membership and intimidation in our communities have on our towns and our communities. And so that bill is designed to give the police extra powers to deal with gang intimidation, and that will help.

Question No. 11—Disability Issues

11. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: When did she receive the briefing titled “Changes to Equipment and Modification Services and flexible funding to manage Whaikaha expenditure” and what actions did she take upon receiving the briefing?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Disability Issues): I received the briefing on 23 February 2024. I noted that Whaikaha was making changes which were needed to reduce its forecast deficit as recommended, and, as I have said multiple times, these issues are inherited from the previous Labour Government, and I am taking urgent steps to address the situation with a review. We have also put extra funding in to support Whaikaha through to the end of this financial year, and we have signalled that Whaikaha will get more money in the next Budget.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How does she rationalise that with answers she gave in the House that suggest the first time she knew about the changes to reduce flexibility of disability support services was when she signed out a briefing on 14 March?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I certainly received the briefing on 22 February that these were initiatives that Whaikaha was considering, and then they confirmed on 14 March that they would be implementing those changes. They also informed me in that briefing that before implementing these changes, Whaikaha had a comprehensive communications and engagement plan outlining the changes being implemented. They also said they had tailored messages for each audience focused on ensuring people needing disability support the most continued to receive support.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why did she only formally advise the finance Minister of eligibility changes that resulted from Whaikaha’s funding shortfall on 20 March, two days after the announcement was made and implemented, as she has confirmed in written parliamentary questions No. 3593 and 3599?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Because we were discussing Budget issues at that meeting on the 22nd.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why, given she was first aware of the proposed changes on 22 or 23 February, did it take her till 25 March to first go to Cabinet, considering over 26,000 carers have been impacted by these changes?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Because in that paper on 22 February, Whaikaha had outlined two initiatives that they were taking to reduce its projected deficit. They also outlined that they were working with Treasury to see if their bid for cost pressures could be considered early. Also, in late February and late January, Whaikaha had informed me that their updated forecast showed that they would be within 2 percent of the threshold, which is manageable by me as a Minister, and they were working to reduce it to a zero deficit.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Is the Minister therefore saying that this time line is correct: that she first became aware of Whaikaha’s funding issues on 15 December 2023, was briefed on proposed changes on 22 February, signed out changes on 14 March, the changes were then announced and implemented with immediate effect on 18 March, but that she didn’t act till 25 March?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No. No, I’m not saying that. I am saying that throughout this process, Whaikaha were updating me on their financial situation. In January, they updated me that they had reduced the deficit and they were working to bring it down to zero. In February, they put forward initiatives that would further reduce the deficit. In March, they weren’t able to fulfil that reduction, and therefore it was discussed at a budget meeting.

Question No. 12—Education

12. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on curriculum and assessment?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Last week, I announced significant changes to the NCEA Change Programme that has been under way since 2020. It is a priority for this Government to ensure that we have a world-leading curriculum. This document should be the foundation of a high-performing education system supporting teachers to excel and learners to reach their potential. The current approach puts the cart before the horse, designing assessments before having a curriculum in place, and it is not best practice to design assessment before knowing what is to be assessed. Curriculum is the priority so that we can then deliver well-designed assessment standards that we can have confidence in. And to achieve better public services, I will be delaying the NCEA Change Programme by two years while we complete the curriculum.

Dan Bidois: What feedback has she received on this announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The support for this announcement from principals, parents, unions, and teachers alike has been overwhelming. The Post Primary Teachers’ Association president Chris Abercrombie was quoted in the New Zealand Herald this week saying, “It’s important that we get a really good curriculum base … good assessment folds out of good curriculum.”, while Dr Nina Hood, founder of The Education Hub, agreed that the curriculum refresh needs to be finalised before redeveloping NCEA to ensure that it was “a robust and fit for purpose qualification.”

Dan Bidois: How will this announcement lift student achievement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Parents want to know that their children have every opportunity to succeed, and success starts with strong foundations. In addition to teaching the basics brilliantly in our primary and intermediate schools, this Government has a laser focus on delivering a knowledge-rich curriculum to all students, right up to year 13. This decision will lift student achievement by delivering a knowledge-rich world-leading curriculum which acts as a central resource for teachers and a crucial tool to guide assessment and qualification design. The decision will ensure consistency across the country so that every child, no matter where they live or attend school, will have access to the same knowledge at each year level.

Dan Bidois: What recent reports has she seen on the curriculum?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve seen the recent Education Review Office report into the Aotearoa New Zealand histories curriculum. This report highlights issues within the New Zealand histories curriculum but that are also issues experienced across all curriculum areas—high level, vague, and lacking in specificity is not what the sector wants. The report shows that teachers want a more explicit curriculum with more off the shelf material and resources. Teachers are the most valuable resource that we have, and I will be working at pace to deliver what they need to experience success in the classroom, lift student achievement, and get this Government on track to meet our ambitious targets and deliver better public services.

General Debate

General Debate

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Fundamentally, governing is about choices, and when it comes to the choices that they are making, this Government has its priorities all wrong. One of the first decisions this Government took—not only took but actually found the money to do—was $2.9 billion worth of tax breaks for the country’s landlords. They made the decision to prioritise that nearly $3 billion in tax breaks for landlords whilst considering cutting school lunches, whilst cutting our defences at the border with cuts to the Ministry for Primary Industries and Customs, whilst cutting funding for the Ministry of Health, whilst cutting support for those with disabilities, whilst cutting support for the conservation estate—the list could go on. Every day the list continues to grow, and it is because this Government has made the wrong choices and has the wrong priorities.

Let’s talk about some of those examples in more detail, and let’s start with the free and healthy school lunches, because the kids were here today, asking—

Hon Nicola Willis: That you left unfunded.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —the Government to continue their programme. Nicola Willis says we should have continued to fund it. Well, here is an example of where the Government’s priorities are simply wrong: for the price of the tax cuts that they have given landlords, you could more than double the size of the free and healthy school lunches programme. This Government instead have decided that the landlords need the tax breaks, and here’s the thing: they won’t even guarantee that the benefits of that are going to flow through to the tenants. They think the tenants should be grateful for the fact that the landlords are getting the tax break, and, in many cases, they won’t see a cent of that extra money.

Let’s look at the primary industries and customs and the cuts that the Government are making there. Have they forgotten Mycoplasma bovis—a very good example of why we need a strong and secure border. A biosecurity incursion that had the potential to bring our dairy industry to its knees—that is what we inherited in 2017. We focused on elimination, and all evidence to date suggests that we have succeeded in doing that. That is what we get for the extra investment that we made in our border security, and that is what this Government is threatening to cut.

Let’s look at health. They actually think we did a good job of managing smoking and managing down smoking. It’s amazing, then, that they’re cutting the funding for the very people who achieved those good outcomes.

It is easy to attack public servants, because they cannot answer back. When the Government talks about bureaucrats, those are people who cannot answer back. But let me give you a really good example. If anyone had said five years ago that there’s a team of people working at the Ministry of Health planning for an event that may never happen, the members opposite would have said, “Why are they doing that? That’s wasteful spending.”, until that very thing did happen. It was called a global pandemic, and suddenly the members opposite wanted to know why we weren’t better prepared for it—why we didn’t have more people working on preparing for the global pandemic—because the reality is that some of the work at the Public Service falls exactly into that category: preparing for a pandemic, preparing for a rupture of the Alpine Fault line. These are supposedly faceless bureaucrats that the Government refers to as wasteful spending. They are doing critical work for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

But I did note that the Prime Minister finally has found a bit of a vision. He thinks we should be more like Estonia. I was interested in looking at what that might mean: universal free school lunches for every child attending school in Estonia; a light rail system in their largest city, in Estonia; heavily subsidised kindergarten education in Estonia; and teachers focused on not just the basics but digital skills, on coding, and on other skills that their learners are going to need for the 21st century. So I think we should be more like Estonia, and I look forward to the Government embracing those very things.

Unfortunately, though, I’m not going to hold my breath, because we’ve got a Government with no vision, a Government that has the wrong priorities and that is focused on taking New Zealand backwards rather than leading New Zealand forward, and a Government that is focused on managing New Zealand’s decline, rather than actually leading the country forward. At a time when New Zealanders are looking for hope, they’re getting nothing from this Government.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The current Leader of the Opposition decided to begin his speech talking about choices, and is it any surprise when everyone behind him was sitting there thinking about choices: thinking first about a choice the New Zealand people made so definitively to boot them out, and then thinking about the choice they need to make in the coming months about who, in fact, should lead them into the future. So it’s right that it’s on the Leader of the Opposition’s mind.

But, actually, that’s not the speech I came here to give. I came here to give a more serious speech: a requiem for the worker’s party, because, not content with delivering an intergenerational cost of living crisis to the working people of New Zealand, we now have a Labour Party whose reason for being, whose very reason for getting up in the morning, is to rail against tax relief for working people. This so-called worker’s party has its one political reason for being, and it is to rail against the right of working people to hold on to just a little bit more of their own money.

Now, New Zealanders have had no change in tax rates or thresholds since 2010. For 14 years, workers in this country—middle-income earners, squeezed; middle-income families—have been taxed more and more as their incomes have risen and as inflation bequeathed to them by that party has pushed them into higher tax brackets. In 2011, a median-wage earner paid 15.5 percent of their average income in tax. Today, that number is 20.6 percent, and I know that these may just sound like numbers, but can I tell you what they mean to people. That increase in effective tax is the difference between families being able to get their kids swimming lessons. It is the feeling in the supermarket aisle that stops mum putting a pack of chocolate biscuits there. That 5 percent is the number that makes people a little less hopeful each week, because the pay packet gets stretched thinner and thinner and the idea of saving some disappears.

The idea that their work and effort will let them get ahead disappears. Here, on this side of the House, we take that very seriously because we believe that those who work hard for a living deserve the rewards of their effort, and what do those members opposite believe, actually, at the end of the day? Well, what they believe is that if they only printed enough money, if they only borrowed enough money, and if they only spent enough money, then every tear from every eye would be wiped, and was it? Well, no, because all the while when they were spending New Zealanders’ hard-earned wages, the wait-lists grew, the education standards declined, violent crime rose, and dairies were ram-raided.

The members opposite have a special talent, actually—let’s give them that—of spending more and delivering less. An 80 percent increase in spending in six short years, an outstandingly bad cost of living crisis, and what do we have to show for it? Oh, three waters, the TVNZ-RNZ merger, KiwiBuild, Auckland light rail—failed initiative after failed initiative.

But don’t worry, because what we also got was 18,500 more public servants—so that really made the difference!—and sky-high inflation, and who paid for it all? Who paid for all of this? Working people paid for it. They paid for it with higher taxes, they paid for it at the supermarket checkout aisle, and they paid for it with crumbling public services.

Well, our Government is cleaning up the mess. We will deliver what working people deserve, what is overdue to them, and what that party would deny them, and that is tax relief. I cannot in my heart understand why the people opposite would deny them that—the opportunity to have a little bit more cash in their bank accounts each week—because the people opposite make the choice that they think it’s more important that they spend New Zealanders’ money. We will match that with targets, with accountability for the performance of our public services, with more police, and with rescuing the school lunch programme that they didn’t leave a dollar for.

We will drive better results. We will spend New Zealanders’ money with the care it deserves because it’s theirs—they earned it.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to speak about a topic that we are very firm on, and that is protecting our freedom and our democracy. More specifically, it is the commitment our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, made as he addressed his concerns about ending vaccine mandates, and also holding a full and independent inquiry into the COVID-19 response.

In early 2022, thousands of New Zealanders across the country who were frustrated about the COVID policies of the day converged on the Parliament grounds. Winston Peters was the only politician to walk amongst those who asked simply to be heard—Winston Peters was the only politician to walk amongst those who wanted to be heard. Now, as I was writing this speech, I was reflecting on why he did that, and I was reminded of the speech that he made at the state of the nation last week. I will quote the leader: “Labour left large numbers of people ostracised, demonised, shutdown and shut out, ignored and cancelled—all because those people fought for their right to say ‘No, we disagree.’ ” We will defend people’s right to disagree, because that is what protecting freedom is all about.

We continued to listen, and for those forgotten New Zealanders, our party advocated during the 2023 election to advocate again for freedom and protection, and upon our return to Parliament, we formed this unbreakable coalition. Very importantly, amongst those promises, the coalition committed to establishing a complete, full-scale, wide-ranging, independent inquiry conducted publicly with local and international experts into how the COVID-19 pandemic was handled in New Zealand.

Now, New Zealand First were very specific in our commitments, and there were four important areas that we wanted to cover: firstly, the use of multiple lockdowns; secondly, the procurement and the efficacy of the vaccines; thirdly, the social and economic impacts, both regionally and nationally, on the people of New Zealand; and, finally, whether the decisions made and the steps taken were justified. We remain steadfast in our commitment. We understand that the Labour-initiated royal commission of inquiry into lessons learnt does not meet the scale, the independence, or the breadth of what an inquiry requires. We welcome the first steps made to expand these terms of reference of this inquiry, and we applaud the 11,000 New Zealanders who made their submissions. Now, these experiences are what are going to shape and be used to inform what this inquiry covers. The decisions about the terms of reference and the make-up of the commissioners are yet to be made over the next few months, but it will be made.

New Zealand First has continued to listen to the people of New Zealand. In fact, just last month, the Rt Hon Winston Peters and I met with a group of Kiwi doctors who are concerned—NZDSOS, or New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science—and we listened to those people because they needed to be heard. Mr Peters has also since met with United We Stand, who are those New Zealand Defence Force personnel who are still concerned about mandates and vaccine orders.

New Zealand First believes that every New Zealander deserves to be heard and represented in Parliament, and we are committed to that. Our message to them is to be patient, to work through the process with us, and to know that you are all being heard and that we will remain steadfast in our commitment to protecting freedom and democracy for all New Zealanders. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Over the last week and a half, New Zealanders of Myanmar descent have been asking why this Government has extended an invitation to representatives of one of the world’s most reviled regimes—the military junta that run Myanmar today—and why the Government has invited them to come to this country to take part in an intergovernmental meeting. The communities of mostly former refugees and their families, from one end of this country to the other, who have made a new life in New Zealand after fleeing years of civil war in Myanmar and military oppression have written to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, asking him to refuse the visa for representatives of this regime to come to New Zealand.

They’re due to take part in an ASEAN dialogue meeting on 18 and 19 April here, in Wellington, and I want to give a shout out to the people who have been campaigning. They have organised public protests in Nelson, in Auckland, and, yesterday, out in the front of Parliament, and in Dunedin.

I don’t know why, after three years of New Zealand’s standing firm against the butchers of Myanmar and refusing to give them legitimacy and refusing to recognise them, suddenly this Government thinks it’s a good idea to invite them to come to New Zealand to take part in this meeting. But I want to give you three reasons why it’s a really bad idea. This regime is waging a war against its own people. It has killed more than 4,800 civilians. It carries out indiscriminate air strikes against villages and internally displaced persons’ camps within that country. It stole democracy at the barrel of a gun that arrested the president and Aung San Suu Kyi, dozens of legislators, and thousands of democracy activists, trade unionists, and journalists. Two and a half million people are displaced in the country at the moment because of this regime. It is one of the world’s worst military regimes, and we should not be giving it the legitimacy that it desperately craves.

The second reason is that New Zealand, for a long time, has been a country that has a reputation for speaking out on matters of principle internationally. The people in our regions—in the Pacific and in Asia—look to New Zealand to be a voice for democracy, for peace, and for human rights, and this decision to invite the butchers of Myanmar to come to our country after three years of denying them that opportunity flies in the face of New Zealand’s policy of consistently denouncing the military regime in Myanmar.

The third reason is that the democratic resistance in Myanmar, three years since the military coup, is on a roll at the moment. The National Unity Government, the Government in exile, and the ethnic resistance organisations that are such a significant part of the resistance have had a string of military successes, and 43 percent of the territory of Myanmar is controlled by the democratic opposition, not by the military regime. The level of political organisation, of people standing up for human rights and democracy and demanding a democratic federal union in that country to do away with the military dictatorship—that movement is stronger than ever before.

The military, on the other hand, is looking increasingly shaky. They recently introduced conscription. Young people between the ages of 18 and 35 are now being press-ganged into military service because the military is so desperate. They’ve had thousands of soldiers defect from the war because they don’t want to fight on the side of this brutal and illegal regime. Now is the very time that we should be isolating that regime, not inviting them to New Zealand to take part in talks.

I want to finish by quoting the former Prime Minister of New Zealand Helen Clark, who said, “Acceptance of the Myanmar junta representatives when the country’s ruling junta has been internationally condemned for crimes against humanity and its ruthless war against its own people, and is under severe pressure from the pro-democratic forces in the country, would seriously damage the international reputation of New Zealand. For New Zealand to grant a visa to a Myanmar junta representative because ASEAN has issued an invitation is an abdication of our national sovereignty.”

I say to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, to do the right thing. Refuse the visas, and keep the butchers of Myanmar out of our country.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. One hundred days have been completed, the second hundred days are on their way, and this Government is determined to rebuild the economy, restore law and order, and actually deliver the public services in health and education that this country needs and deserves. So, look, what have we got? If we look back over the past six years, debt went from $5 billion to $100 billion under the previous Government. We had inflation, the economy ground to a halt so that we were in a recession, and all New Zealanders—all New Zealanders—have faced higher taxes, and so they’re seeing greater opportunities offshore.

When you think about that, you think about Jacinda Ardern and her legacy, and Chris Hipkins. I often thought if they were to come up with a billboard that they should have run in the election, it would have been “It’s the thought that counts”, and that sums up Jacinda Arden’s whole approach—it’s the thought that counts. Well, actually, it doesn’t. It’s actually what you achieve and what you do that counts, and what the Government did is they managed to spend 80 percent more—nearly doubled Government spending over six years—and actually had worse outcomes just about everywhere you looked: longer waiting times, higher crime, fewer houses, and a real mess everywhere. How they managed to do it was they turbocharged spending during COVID, and then when COVID ended and people got back to their lives, they didn’t stop. They just kept on spending as if we were in the middle of COVID, and that’s how the damage was created.

So how do we get back on track? Well, you need a Government that’s careful about its spending. You’ve got to restore some discipline to Government spending, and over time, that will enable us to get back to surplus and to reduce debt. If the Government is more disciplined with its spending and it’s not stoking the fires of inflation, that will help New Zealanders with the cost of living.

Then you’ve got to have a growth agenda. You’ve got to have a strong set of policies, such as investing in infrastructure and skills and attracting investment to grow the economy, and then some modest tax relief as part of this thing, to give New Zealand households more money in their pockets, and, boy, do those members hate it—they hate it. Never will they release another cent. They will not give New Zealanders back another cent, and this Government is determined to return some of the extra money that has been taken out of their pockets by the Government over the past few years so that they can help with their weekly bills. The second area—

Hon Member: That’s kindness—that’s kindness.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, that is kindness. We don’t actually believe that the Government can spend every cent better than households can or than people can, and the people who have earned the money should be able to spend the money. It’s their money and we want to give a little bit more of it back to them.

So, over the next month, we’ll hear a lot of wailing from the Labour Party about how terrible it is to allow people to keep more of their own income, and that’ll be the message of the day. Well, we reject that and we want to give some modest tax relief.

The second thing is we want to restore law and order. We’ve all seen in our communities the trauma that’s caused by violent crime, by the massive increase in retail crime that we’ve seen in our communities, and particularly by that small group of serious young offenders. That’s why Christopher Luxon announced amongst the nine focused targets for this Government a couple in the justice space, reducing the number of victims of crime by 20,000.

Remember, the previous Government had a goal of reducing the prison numbers, irrespective of what was going on. If crime was going up, they still wanted to reduce prison numbers. Well, that is not actually how you keep the community safe. We want to reduce the number of victims of crime, and to do that, part of it is about restoring real consequences for crime, and that’s in the justice space. But there is a much broader agenda around ensuring that there’s better rehabilitation in prisons for people who are in prison and that we make progress on some of those long-term drivers, such as the inability to deal with drugs and addiction, and all those broader social contexts.

The other area is around youth crime. We want to reduce the number of serious repeat youth offenders, and that partly is about giving judges extra tools with which to deal with that small cohort. Having military academies are part of the mix, and also having a new category of young serious offenders.

So we do need to have some consequences for that small cohort of young people who are causing mayhem in our communities, doing the ram raids, and terrorising neighbourhoods. But, again, it’s part of a much broader discussion that’s around ensuring that those kids are at school. That’s the best thing we can do around youth crime, and that’s why we’re focused on that. It’s about ensuring that we deal with not having 3,000 or 4,000 waking up every morning in emergency accommodation in hotels in places like Rotorua. That was the most horrendous public policy failure that we’ve seen in recent times, and so that’s why we’re really focused on addressing that.

So there are a lot of things that we’ve got to do, but the good news is that this is a Government that’s determined, focused, and excited about the task. We know that this country’s best days are ahead of it. We want to take New Zealand forward, and that’s what our goal is. Thank you.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe, e te Pīka. Otirā, tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. When given five minutes to do a general debate speech, I can 100 percent confirm it’s almost like “What isn’t there to debate about?”, especially when us, as Māori, are getting hit left, right, and centre. I want to take this time to reflect on the first 100 days of this coalition Government’s actions, or, as I call it, the “Urgent Māori Grocery List”. This has to go down as the worst plan towards Māori and indigenous people since 1863. It is important that I break down for whānau at home, and especially rangatahi, what has just happened.

Upon shifting through and analysing legislation and bills, I would like to provide an overall context for this coalition’s bigger picture for Māori. Let’s point out the long list where this Government’s 100-day plan detrimentally affects us in every possible area. Within our court justice system, this Government has removed section 27 of the Sentencing Act, which experts have stated will lead to further discrimination of Māori in the criminal justice system, higher rates of offending, and higher rates of Māori in prison, when we, as Māori, are already the most incarcerated indigenous people on the planet—or within our health sector, which has seen Te Aka Whai Ora be completely abolished. Even in the bills that were received, some of the wording quite literally states, in black and white, the “Disestablishment of Māori Health”. Following from that was the repeal of Aotearoa’s smoke-free legislation, knowing that smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths of our people.

Within these bills represented, it also clearly states amending relations through Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This is a common theme throughout bills represented and the relation to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. There is the removal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, which iwi leaders have stated will further alienate tamariki from their whakapapa and lead to more harm of tamariki in State care. In our taiao space, the fast-track bill literally axes and tramples on our tūpuna whenua, pepeha, and wāhi tapu. Within our education system, there is the so-called rebalance of histories in school, which is just a nicer way of saying that our Māori history will slowly slip away, and in recent news, in our local government space, there is the referendum on Māori wards. I mean, there’s literally nothing left you can take away from us: section 27 in the court justice system, section 27AA in Oranga Tamariki, ministerial alienation of te reo Māori, disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority, the fast-tracking bill, the repeal of smoke-free laws, and the Treaty principles bill—what a list.

I bet members across the House have never had a child lobby to them for the protection of their own native language—imagine that. However, outside these four walls, te Iwi Māori is rising like never before. As we watch this Government dig themselves into a rabbit-hole, last week, in Parliament’s recess, I was absolutely privileged to perform at the annual Merrie Monarch in Hilo, Hawaii, and jeez, it felt great to be Māori without the fear of being criticised and without hearing the word “referendum” or having people roll their eyes every time I speak Māori, and without the fear of having to justify myself as to why I’m being Māori. It almost feels illegal to be Māori in this place, and I would never have known it was a thing until I entered Parliament.

Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa is on the rise. Our King and other Pacific leaders have signed He Whakaputanga Moana, which is a declaration—whakaputanga—on the biggest body of water: the Pacific Ocean. Nō reira koinei taku reo mihi, taku reo owha ki a tātou te iwi Māori, ki a koke tonu ki a tātou ki te angitu, ki tō mātou Hawaiki hou. Tēnā rā koutou.

[Therefore, here is my voice of acknowledgment, my voice of salutations to all of us, the Māori people, to push forward towards success, to our new Hawaiki. Thank you, all.]

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to bring attention to a silent enemy that is affecting countless lives in New Zealand, and that is cancer. While it’s not quite countless and we can actually put a number on it—it’s going to affect probably 25,000 New Zealanders this year—each one of us has probably either been touched personally by cancer or we know of friends or family members who have been affected by cancer. Most recently for my family, there’s been the passing of my cousin’s daughter at the age of 32—Rosaria—and I want to acknowledge all families that are going through that struggle and that loss.

I have a unique connection to cancer. I’ve spent a large portion of my professional career as a cancer scientist, both here and overseas. I want to pay special tribute to a special person that’s played a big role in that career, and that is my PhD supervisor, Professor Antony Braithwaite of the University of Otago, who has actually just announced his retirement as of next week. I don’t think he will be really retiring; I think it will be more symbolic—well, I hope it will be—and I hope he can contribute a lot of his knowledge to the future generations, going forward. Professor Braithwaite is a leading world expert in one of the most important tumour suppressor proteins in the human cell, and that is p53. I want to acknowledge his contribution to our understandings of how cancer arises. With over 150 publications, he is well-known worldwide.

It is important, because cancer does not discriminate. It strikes individuals of all ages, all backgrounds, and all walks of life. It brings fear. It brings pain and uncertainty, not only to those diagnosed but also to their loved ones as well, and that’s why on this side of the House we are committed to driving better outcomes for Kiwis with cancer. This includes enhanced screening: we’re increasing breast cancer screening eligibility for those between the age of 70 and 74. We’ve launched an additional mobile breast screening unit, which will take the national fleet to 13, further increasing access for up to 6,000 people in New Zealand. But don’t worry, males are also included: we are funding South Island PET scanning accessibility, which is especially important for males with prostate cancer.

Once cancer is detected, we also need to make sure that we can get treatment on time, because this is a very stressful time if you’ve just been told that you have cancer, and that’s why we’re introducing a health target that 90 percent of patients who receive a diagnosis will receive cancer management within 31 days of the decision to treat. Not only that, we’re going to ensure that there’s better treatment options. We’re funding two new cancer drugs, for breast cancer and also acute myeloid leukaemia (AML), and on a side note, I have a special connection with AML. It was the first cancer that I ever worked on and I discovered a genetic mutation in a Christchurch family with a predisposition to leukaemia. But I digress, and that’s what happens if you don’t have targets.

So, getting back on track, we’re also mindful of people in the regions who need to travel to get cancer treatment, or, actually, all treatment, so we’re increasing the compensation for mileage and accommodation rates for those who have to travel for treatment. We’re also helping deliver the first provincial PET/CT scanner, and that’s going to go into Whangārei.

I appreciate my time is going quickly. So I do just want to zoom out more generally from cancer and talk about our healthcare more generally and the targets that we’re going to introduce into the system, because, as they say, if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it, and that’s probably what’s happened for the last five years.

The Minister of Health, Dr Shane Reti, recently announced a number of targets, saying that we’re going to have a vigorous new direction in health from the previous Government and we’re going to deliver for New Zealanders. Now, I’ve talked about faster cancer treatments, but our targets also include improving immunisation for kids: we want 95 percent of children to be immunised by the age of 24 months. We want shorter stays in emergency departments (EDs), with 95 percent of patients being discharged or transferred from ED within six hours. We want shorter wait times for first specialist assessments: we want 95 percent of patients to wait less than four months for a first specialist appointment. We want shorter wait times for people with elective treatment: we want 95 percent of patients to wait less than four months for elective treatment.

It is important that we are ambitious in trying to achieve better health outcomes for New Zealanders. The healthcare system went backwards under the previous Government and it failed to drive targets. Having effective targets and reporting on them publicly helps identify where the problems are, and we’ll take action to improve it.

I know the other side is shouting because they don’t want better health outcomes, but I do just want to close and thank all the hard work of our healthcare staff, who work across the country to deliver better health outcomes for all New Zealanders.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Methane—that’s right. Biogenic methane, animal ruminant methane—the very gaseous emission that the left lambasted the rural sector for for the past six years, like somehow there’s a farmer amongst them. I ask them: what on earth are you talking about? Well, I say there are no farmers. Where are you farmers, that you speak of such things? What of Megan Woods or Chlöe Swarbrick yesterday and today offering evangelical sermons of what farmers should do to farmers? Debates offered from central Auckland of how farmers should live their lives.

This Government: we are farmer friendly. We listen to common sense. That is why I rise today in this House to speak of the Government’s split-gas announcement. That is why oral questions raised yesterday by the left highlighted their blatant ignorance of farming and on-farm practices. What—did you all fail third-form science? Gracious me! It’s a short-lived gas. That’s why this Government wants a genuinely non-partisan review.

Goodness gracious! Methane decays back to carbon dioxide—it decays back to carbon dioxide in 10 or 12 years.

Hon Marama Davidson: Woah! The independent climate commission.

MARK CAMERON: You all know this stuff, because what feeds plants? Oh! Or could—

Hon Marama Davidson: Are you going to call them? That’s not Chlöe; it’s the independent climate commission.

SPEAKER: Yeah, just keep it reasonable.

MARK CAMERON: —you go farming, or perhaps you’re just bereft of it? The agricultural contributions are, essentially—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

MARK CAMERON: —static. They’re static. Peak herd was in 2005 and 2006. Ruminant numbers have been falling ever since.

What do you, the Greens, know of farming? What, would you have us slaughter all our animals? If not, how many—how many should we slaughter? Bloody fantasy, I say to the Green Party, when it comes to that nonsense. New Zealand used to have over 70 million sheep—70 million. It’s now less than 25 million.

Peak dairy herd has been falling since 2005, and land-use changes are constantly evolving. What, did the left forget to account for all farm on-farm sequestration? The tens of millions of plantings by farmers—farmers—and existing offsets. Oh, the silence from the other side is deafening. So the true question is: what is the Government asking?

Hon Marama Davidson: So when are you going to listen to the science? Where’s your science?

MARK CAMERON: Are the methane targets fair? Are they fair?

SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt the member. I’ll ask the Green member to refer to Speaker’s ruling 64/2 and, for that matter, Speakers’ ruling 64/3 in the Speakers’ Rulings. A member, strictly speaking, has a right to be heard in silence. No one observes that because interjections can be rare and reasonable, but the barrage that is coming from there breaches that Speaker’s ruling absolutely. So we’ll just have the rest of Mr Cameron’s speech respectfully listened to.

MARK CAMERON: I am certainly grateful, Mr Speaker, thank you. I ask again: are the methane targets fair? What is fair? How will we, as a Government, prevent emissions leakage if we get the methodology wrong to less efficient jurisdictions?

We are the most efficient, friendly farmers in the world, second to none, and I am not shy about saying that, and yet we hear the left say all the time, “You lot”—the farming sector—“you need to do more.” Ivory towers—that’s all I say to them. Wake up.

Methane is simple. It’s the symbiosis. The morphology of gut bacteria—animal gut bacteria. It’s what we’re feeding these animals and their genetics. We’re a plant-based pastoral system, for goodness sake, and yet I hear the boffins say, “Use boluses”. Well, I’m a farmer that’s got five or six broken bones from drenching animals. What a nonsense! “Drive down the emissions.”, they say. Does anyone on that side of the House actually know how many mature animal bovines would have to be drenched annually, twice a year? I ask you—you do not know. I would ask that side of the House.

Further emission reductions will happen. Farmers embrace technology every day. The Government has announced GE as part of our future, moving forward. It is what we are feeding these animals, and having animal genetics and farmers that embrace that technology is our new future.

I know that that side of the House may struggle to comprehend that logic, but, then again, farm logic is beneath them; not this Government. Farmers always have and will continue to innovate their way out of these problems. With sensible, farm-gate logic, rural New Zealand will seek and mitigate the quandary which is methane science and emissions. We will no longer fester in the left’s ideology if we, as a farming community, are backed by the Government, and every day we thank them for it.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to begin my contribution by responding to a couple of the comments that were brought up today—in particular, the one from the New Zealand First member Tanya Unkovich, who talked quite a bit about the previous Government’s response to the COVID pandemic. Quite frankly, I found some of her comments absolutely sickening. When she questioned the efficacy of vaccination and the efficacy of other things that the Government put in place at the time to protect New Zealanders, I would ask that member: has she spoken to other members in the community?

For example, I was in the taxi coming back from the airport one day, talking to the gentleman who was the taxi driver, who had returned to New Zealand as soon as he was able to, when the borders allowed him to, from the UK. When he was in the UK, he was a police officer. They were doing 12hour shifts, day in, day out, simply removing dead bodies from homes in the UK—and the member opposite from New Zealand First can shake his head. But—

Jamie Arbuckle: The truth’s coming out.

Hon JO LUXTON: That is the truth—that is the truth, as this man experienced it in the UK. So he and his wife returned to New Zealand purely because of our response to the pandemic.

Another example I will give that member opposite is a woman whose daughter is a nurse in the UK, and the conversations she’d have at night with her daughter in absolute tears and despair because she was in hospital, COVID was rife, and there were dead bodies in the corridors. There were dead bodies piling up, and they simply couldn’t manage it.

Jamie Arbuckle: Lock us all down—lock us all down.

Hon JO LUXTON: And the member can dispute that, but this is what people are telling me from their firsthand experiences.

The Hon Paul Goldsmith talked about the previous Government turbocharging spending during COVID. Well, I would argue with Mr Goldsmith that that turbocharged spending saved businesses, saved lives, and saved livelihoods, and we make no apology on this side of the House for doing so by putting people first.

I want to pick up on something that the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins talked about in his contribution, about choices and the choices that we see this current Government making. This current Government, as he mentioned, is choosing to give a $2.9 billion tax cut to landlords. We heard the Hon Nicola Willis talking about the fact that it was important to give Kiwis more of their own money that they earn to put in their back pocket, and I’m not disagreeing with that. But what I find really interesting is when the Minister makes comments like that, and then we see people on the news at 6 o’clock saying, “Well, actually, what I’ll get for my tax cut is probably the equivalent of being able to buy two Chupa Chups.”

So for a Minister to stand there and talk on and on and on about how wonderful it is going to be for people to have more money of their own money to put in their back pocket—I agree that that’s a good thing. But for someone to brag when it’s only going to be the equivalent of a couple of Chupa Chups for some people, and yet a far higher amount for people like us here, in Parliament, as MPs—we don’t need the tax cuts that the Government is proposing or wanting to put in place.

One of the things that we definitely don’t need tax cuts for is when it comes at the cost of people’s jobs and livelihoods, because that is what is happening. Ministries are being stripped out. Public servants are being stripped out and are losing their jobs purely to pay for tax cuts—tax cuts that will provide lower-income earners with the equivalent of two lollipops in their back pocket. It is absolutely appalling.

I want to also quickly talk about early childhood, a passion of mine. We’ve heard this Government’s laser-sharp focus on the cost of living crisis, and yet their early childhood policy is simply going to create more bureaucracy for parents when early childhood is one of the most expensive in the world, here in New Zealand. I could say more, but my time has run out.

MAUREEN PUGH (National—West Coast-Tasman): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I’ve got to say this feels like a very strange vantage point to be speaking from in the House today. Today I want to focus on some of the great things that are happening in West Coast - Tasman, and, as the newly elected electorate MP for West Coast – Tasman and formerly a list MP based there, I know it’s been tough. It’s been tough for many communities as they’ve had to deal with the torrent of unpopular and damaging Government policy. On top of the consequences in the aftermath of closed borders, which has left New Zealand with massive supply chain issues and massive staffing challenges, the cost of living has gone through the roof, and it’s being fuelled largely by domestic inflation and many businesses are struggling to climb out of that hole.

But, never fear: our new Government is here. Common sense is back and we’re going to get the economy thriving again—back on track, as we say.

Hon Member: Tax cuts that are inflationary.

MAUREEN PUGH: There’s now—we know it, and we understand fully. There is no one silver bullet, so we’re going to use every opportunity we can to create economic gains, and we will do that in a small way by using my member’s bill, as an example.

It just makes another demonstration of economic common sense, and that’s my member’s bill, which has gone into the ballot today: the Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill, which will enable the Director-General of Conservation to decide on the harvesting of parts of trees irreversibly damaged in weather events. Now, this system was extremely well tested after Cyclone Gita, when some temporary legislation went in place, but it only lasted five years. This bill will give a permanent arrangement in legislation to enable the director-general to make those decisions about harvesting trees that come down in adverse events.

This is how we on the Coast can make the best of a bad situation. It is a bit of a silver lining, but what we want to do is create an economic benefit from an adverse event, helping to build the New Zealand economy.

Even as we speak, we may be testing this theory because the West Coast is currently experiencing a severe weather event. We’re no stranger to them—we know that—and we do understand that damage does get done, but if we can extract some economic benefit, then we should, and I’d like to take this opportunity to give a big shout out to Mayor Helen Lash, the emergency management teams, civil defence, police, NZTA, and all the volunteers and community groups that mobilise during these severe events. Unfortunately, they’re very well practised, but they do work closely to keep the roads and the businesses open, and they have done exactly that. The West Coast is still open for business, even though there is an orange weather alert coupled with king tides, but they want to make sure that everyone still understands that 300 millilitres of rain does not shut the Coast down.

One of the most effective things a Government can do is give people hope, and hope is now what we have in abundance in West Coast - Tasman. Much of that hope comes from the proudly proclaimed support for the mineral sector. With growing demand for minerals, we on the West Coast are home to an abundance, and it makes good, common, economic sense to reap the benefits of those minerals.

I am unashamedly in support of the mining sector, and if we want to use an example of how well the mineral sector supports a country, we only need to look across the Tasman to see Australia and how they have benefited. They navigated the global financial crisis well because they have a mineral sector that backs their country. It enables them to do things like invest in their schools, their hospitals, and their social services to make sure that they maintain their standard of living.

If we’re going to unlock the economic potential of New Zealand, we have to unlock the door to minerals, and that is exactly what this Government is doing. Mining is essential if we’re going to enjoy our modern lifestyle, and that is why this Government has introduced the Fast-track Approvals Bill. We’ve got to get this country moving. We’ve got to unlock the potential that we’ve got. The people on the West Coast have a skip in their step.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): We’ve just heard a speech from the National member Maureen Pugh which makes it quite blatantly clear why the Greens—[Knocks glass over] No, I support fresh, clean, water for everyone—which is why this environmental fast-track bill must not go ahead.

The speech that we’ve just heard makes it really clear that this is New Zealand’s most anti-environment Government in decades, continuing to play off the wellbeing of our people and our beaches, our bushes, our ocean, and our soil health for living a decent life. We can actually and should actually understand that protecting the integrity of our environment is key to us living decent, quality, enjoyable lives. This Government is so restricted in its view and its understanding that the only way we can have a good life is if we trash everything that makes us us—if we trash our soil, our ocean beds, our moana, our quality of water, our lakes, our air, and our democracy, which is what is being proposed in the fast-track bill.

It’s not just a trashing of the environment; it’s a trashing of the very democratic functions that we would hope this Government is holding up. Instead, this Government is proposing to concentrate power in an unprecedented way—into the hands of three Ministers—yet they’re trying to make it look like they’re going to have some level of independent consideration with some pretend panels that are going to have some sort of opinion. But the final power rests with three Ministers. Now, which Ministers? Not an environment Minister, not a conservation Minister, and not even a health Minister for proposals that are up for grabs on things like toxic and hazardous waste when environmental and local authorities have already declared that there is too much of a risk to human health. None of those Ministers will have any consideration in the final decision-making power. Instead, it is simply infrastructure, transport—what’s the other one there? I’ve got—

Hon James Shaw: Regional development.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Regional development. None of the environment, conservation, or human health considerations are included in this massive concentration of unprecedented power to Ministers—wow! This Government is just saying the quiet, naughty bit right out loud now.

They’re just saying quite clearly—we heard it in the speech from the previous speaker just now. We just heard them say, “Mining is the only way we are going to enjoy life as we know it.” What limited and under-ambitious thinking is that that cannot see the irreparable harm—it’s short-term thinking—that can come from the slaying of our precious wild places. It is such short-term thinking when we actually have what we need in Aotearoa to ensure that we can all enjoy good lives and have the housing and income and education and health that we need and can fund if we just would simply not have to scramble looking for tax cuts for rich, wealthy people and landlords. We could, actually, instead have well-funded public services and ensure that everyone is having a good life.

But, no, the answer is mining and taking school lunches off tamariki. No—that is shameful, that is short term, and that is not even creative or imaginative. That’s really old—it’s fossil thinking. It’s fossil thinking and it is not forward thinking at all.

We know that the rangatahi and the communities are standing up around the country. They are where our solutions are lying. They can see that the protection and conservation of Tiriti rights, of iwi, hapū, and mana whenua making sure our local communities and experts are discussing and are part of decisions about what we do and don’t fund when it comes to consenting and fast-track proposals—those are where the decision makers are. Those are where the inspirational leaders are. They know that, actually, our long-term health and wellbeing and quality of life relies on us being able to drink the blinking water—for crying out loud!—and being able to fish kai moana from our harbours and seas, for crying out loud! They can see where our longevity and endurance lie, and it’s not with fast-track proposals.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a privilege for me to stand and speak for the first time in the general debate.

A couple of weeks ago, I lodged a new member’s bill which would see convicted murderers be ineligible for parole if they do not reveal the location of their victim’s body. The Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill provides that offenders who refuse to disclose the location of a victim’s body may be denied parole. My member’s bill acknowledges the additional anguish faced by families who do not have a chance to lay their loved ones to rest because of an offender’s refusal to disclose the location of a victim’s remains. Furthermore, my bill will be another tool in the tool box to ensure our justice system prioritises victims over offenders.

This bill would amend two pieces of legislation. Firstly, it would amend section 9 of the Sentencing Act 2002 to include in a list of aggravating factors a sentencing court must take into account the failure of an offender to disclose the location of the body. Secondly, it would also insert a new section 28A into the Parole Act 2002. This would require the Parole Board, when considering an offender for release on parole, to refuse parole unless the board is satisfied that the prisoner has cooperated satisfactorily in the investigation of the offence to identify the victim’s location.

My member’s bill has been modelled on legislation from the United Kingdom and New South Wales. The United Kingdom passed similar legislation in 2020, and New South Wales in 2022. The United Kingdom law was brought due to the murder of Helen McCourt, who disappeared in 1988 and whose body has never been recovered. The offender was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years, and was released in 2020 and died in 2022, having never revealed the whereabouts of Helen’s body.

Similarly, New South Wales became the fifth state in Australia to introduce the legislation colloquially known as “Lyn’s Law”, after former Sydney teacher Chris Dawson was convicted in 2022 of murdering his 33-year-old wife, Lynette, who disappeared from their northern beaches home over 40 years ago. The body of the mother of two has never been found. This case was documented in the widely known podcast entitled The Teacher’s Pet.

Both laws in the United Kingdom and New South Wales have successfully acted as incentives for those who conceal the remains of victims to front up about their whereabouts, and have prevented those who refuse to do so from being released on parole.

Closer to home, Simon McGrath, the brother of Christchurch builder Michael McGrath, who was murdered by his childhood friend David Benbow in 2017, has been calling for a “no body, no parole” bill to be introduced here in New Zealand. Mr Benbow was sentenced to life with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years in March of this year for the murder. However, despite extensive police searches, Michael’s body has never been found, and his family have never been given the opportunity to have a proper farewell.

Recently, I spoke with Michael’s brother Simon about my “no body, no parole” member’s bill. In the coming weeks, I will be meeting with Simon in person to help broaden my understanding of the situation and the anguish Simon and his family are experiencing, and to say how my member’s bill can support them and other families across New Zealand who do not have a chance to lay their loved ones to rest.

Ultimately, my Concealment of Location of Victim Remains Bill puts the victims of crime at the heart of our justice system. It is the intention of this bill to deny offenders the opportunity to return to society if they are not prepared to give their victim’s family and friends the opportunity to be reunited with their loved ones. I look forward to this bill being drawn from the ballot, to working with the parties across this House to seek their support to ensure our justice system prioritises victims over offenders, and to giving New Zealand families the chance to lay their loved ones to rest and receive the closure they deserve.

SPEAKER: The time for this debate has expired.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

New Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Sustainable Environment) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon JAMES SHAW (Green): I move, That the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Sustainable Environment) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

Ten years ago, Patrick Gower, the former Newshub political editor, pilloried my maiden speech as a call for human rights for snails, because in that speech I had pointed out that, in my lifetime, fully half of all of the planet’s wildlife has been extinguished. This is ecocide: the destruction not just of species but of the habitats and the ecosystems that they need to survive. My proposition then was that legal personhood be extended to the natural world around us. If corporations have legal personhood, why not actual living things?

Te Urewera, Te Awa Tupua, and, as of yesterday, Te Pire Whakatupua mō Te Kāhui Tupua settlements do exactly that for Te Urewera, Whanganui River, and Taranaki maunga. I had hoped that we might be able to build on those remarkable settlements for a more universal law, a law protecting nature’s general right not to be polluted, the right not to be degraded, the right to exist—inherent, fundamental, and inalienable—just like us.

E tangi ana ngā reanga o uta, e mahara ana ngā reanga a taima ta aha rā e whakamahana taku ora kia tina. When the creatures of the land, river, and sea are in distress, then I have nothing to be proud of. In the decade since I gave that speech, I fear that we have made little to no progress in protecting the natural world from our predations at home or abroad. If anything, we seem to be going backwards. If you witness the current drive to repeal, unwind, and override nearly 40 years of environmental legislation, regulation, and jurisprudence, it appears to me that, in the current moment, there is actually less political consensus on even the most basic environmental protections than there has been for most of my lifetime.

This bill explicitly frames the state of the environment as a human rights issue, for which, I would hope, there would be more social licence and political consensus, because we are in the midst of a planetary crisis: of climate change; wilderness, wildlife, and biodiversity loss; and pollution. It is simply a statement of fact that each and every one of us depends on clean air, fresh water, healthy soils, and a stable climate for our very survival. You take any one of those away and our own human rights become untenable. The right to peaceful assembly, the right to freedom of expression or freedom of movement, all become less and less possible without a safe environment within which those rights may be exercised.

This bill creates a new provision in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: section 18A. This will provide that “Everyone has the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.” All the other features of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act will remain unchanged. This means that the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment will be subject to the same test of justified limitation as other protected rights. Now, some will argue, no doubt, that creating this new right will enable the courts to interfere with parliamentary sovereignty. It does no such thing, any more than the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act does today.

It would mean, under section 6, that existing legislation would be interpreted consistently with the new right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. And, under section 7, new legislation would be vetted for compliance with that right. The bill will have other considerations as well. For example, it will assist the courts in interpreting ambiguous environmental legislation. It will also become an element of administrative decision-making, which means that Government bodies would be required to consider the implications of their decisions on the right of New Zealanders to live in a sustainable environment.

Including the right to a sustainable environment as an express right within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is important for a number of reasons. First, it would require lawmakers to consider and to squarely confront the impacts of new legislation on our climate commitments, on our environment, and on future generations. Second, it requires Parliament to be honest and transparent with the public about the climate and environmental implications of new legislation. If the Government introduces legislation that is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement commitments, or legislation that is actively going to cause environmental harm, this right will simply require the Government to be honest about that.

Hon Marama Davidson: This is great, James.

Hon JAMES SHAW: Third, a standalone—I know; tell me, right? A standalone right recognises the implicit value of the environment rather than having its value depend on the sphere of already existing human rights. It equalises human interests with those of the environment, making clear that when we protect the environment, we protect people and communities now and into the future. It reminds us that we humans are not superior to or separate from the natural world. We do not exist independently of other life on Earth. We depend on it.

Finally, in this way, this right is consistent with tikanga Māori concepts around the connection between ngā tāngata and te taiao. And, on this last point, I do need to point out that the bill is written in a way to be consistent with the existing language and style of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And, as such, the operative part of the bill does not explicitly acknowledge the Māori world view, in which humans whakapapa, ultimately, back to Papatūānuku. So, in the general policy statement, there is a clause that refers to the tikanga Māori concepts of the connection between ngā tāngata and te taiao. Whakapapa, kaitiakitanga, mana, ki uta ki tai, taonga tuku iho, te ao tūroa, mauri, ritenga, wairua, wairuatanga—these concepts carry so much meaning and would add so much to our understanding of what the right to a sustainable environment looks like to us here in Aotearoa. And, if this bill is referred, I would hope that the select committee further develops the general policy statement in order to assist the courts in their interpretation of the right.

This bill is not a radical or even a new idea. While it is in my name, I do not consider it my bill, so to speak. I may be shepherding it through the House, but it was originally proposed by Lawyers for Climate Action NZ back in 2019 and supported by 59 then Queens Counsel in an open letter. We’re hearing about the respect that the members of the Government have for the courts and for the judicial system, and they’re heckling. It was proposed on an explicitly non-partisan basis, and that was out of a concern that the right to an environment that is capable of sustaining human life is so fundamental to our society that it should be explicitly recognised as a standalone right within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Now, New Zealand is in a shrinking minority of countries that do not legally recognise the right to a clean and healthy and sustainable environment. In fact, about 80 percent of countries around the world already recognise this right in their domestic legal systems. That means that New Zealand is amongst the 20 percent of nations that do not. But it is a right that we have recognised internationally, because in 2022 it was the subject of a historic UN resolution, and New Zealand voted in favour of that resolution. We know that the window of opportunity to preserve or restore what little is left of our wildernesses and our native wildlife, the forests, and rivers and oceans and air that we depend on for our very survival, is closing fast. All human rights ultimately depend on a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. The consequences if we fail are serious. This bill represents a simple legislative change, but an important one, and it is time for New Zealand to join the rest of the world and recognise the right to a sustainable environment. Whatu ngarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua. When the humans have left the world, the land will remain.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the Minister for the Environment, I rise to address the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Sustainable Environment) Amendment Bill, brought forth by Green MP the Hon James Shaw. I would firstly like to extend, seriously, my best wishes to the member for his upcoming retirement from politics—10 years is indeed a noble effort and co-leader since 2015, so my very best wishes. I had not heard that your maiden speech was being characterised as “human rights for snails”, but it increases the anticipation I have for your valedictory speech.

While we all share—and we do all share—an absolute common objective of safeguarding a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment for present and future generations, it’s imperative that we thoroughly deliberate the implications of this proposed legislation. Let me underscore that the Government remains steadfast in its commitment to environment sustainability. However, we must approach this endeavour with a blend of pragmatism as well as caution. Our belief lies—

Scott Willis: And fossil fuels.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, fossil fuels—it might be needed to be pointed out that the additional coal from Indonesia came in through the last Government. However, let me underscore that the Government remains steadfast in its commitment. We want to approach this with pragmatism and with caution, because our beliefs lie in attaining environmental objectives through intelligent and efficient measures that use the best science and the best technology to nurture economic growth rather than impede it.

The introduction of section 18A into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, though commendable in its intent, carries the risk of it inadvertently erecting barriers to economic development and investments. It is crucial to recognise that rigid interpretations of this bill—as the member himself discussed—might impose cumbersome regulatory obligations, potentially hindering growth and job creation. And this is just something that we simply cannot afford at this time in our country’s history.

What we truly need are sensible and pragmatic environmental regulations that so much of industry across the country is crying out for that will yield tangible results. The existing regulatory framework has grown excessively convoluted, complex, and expensive to implement, failing to deliver the outcomes that New Zealanders rightfully expect. We believe that cutting wasteful compliance, rather than adding to it, is the key to unlocking the full potential of our nation, both environmentally and economically.

Furthermore, we harbour reservations about the potential watering-down of existing environmental protection laws and the ambiguity that could come from interpretation of this amendment—how it might be introduced. We cannot afford to stifle innovation or constrain the evolution of future environmental policies in response to emerging challenges and scientific advancements. We know that in so many sectors, and particularly in the agricultural sector, we lead that innovation and advancement.

I note the environmental interests are recognised already in several statutes in law, including the Environmental Act 1986, the Resource Management Act, the Climate Change Response Act 2002, and the Local Government Act 2002. We understand that fostering a conducive environment for investment is fundamentally essential to unleashing the economic growth that will drive our nation—New Zealand—forward. We seek not to add burdensome red tape but to strip it away, clearing the path so that we do get innovation and we do get prosperity.

It is paramount, too, that our opposition to this bill does not diminish our dedication to sound environmental stewardship. We acknowledge the necessity for a balanced approach where economic prosperity and environmental sustainability can coexist harmoniously. We’ve seen many examples of where rather than legislation pushing down, actions on the ground pushing up have created environmental improvements—and we can see that across the country with the work that catchment groups do, and farmers are leading that work.

We must grow our economy not as an end in itself, but a means to an end; an end where we can invest in renewable energy in the form of wind and solar farms, infrastructure like a nationwide EV-charging network—and heaven knows in our very large Southland region, we need a much more comprehensive network—and provide investment into our research and our university sector to help them develop cutting-edge emissions reduction technology which will, in turn, generate more money to be invested back into the sustainable economy, forging a path towards a more sustainable future.

Some people say it’s very hard to be green when you’re in the red. I like to take a more positive approach: it’s easier to be green if you’re in the black. So there are some key things that we need to ensure that we have a better environment and also a stronger economy by cutting wasteful compliance, not adding to it. The greatest barrier to achieving a low-emissions, high-productivity, environmentally responsible economy is regulation.

So, in conclusion, this Government is of the belief that legislation passed serves the best interest of our economy and our environment if we work together to craft solutions that promote sustainability, without stifling growth as we believe this bill would. We need to ensure a legacy of both prosperity and protection for our country and for our grandchildren.

I do not commend this New Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Sustainable Environment) Amendment Bill to the House. I apologise that we are unable to do this for the member as he leaves Parliament, but again I reiterate that we do wish him all the very best as he leaves this House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to start, of course, by acknowledging the member who—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Speak for the fish.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —is bringing this bill, and that is the Hon James Shaw, who has done such a magnificent job in this place, speaking for the fish and the snails, and I’m sure he’s had something to say about Freddy the frog as well, and a little about climate emissions in there, too. He did say, when announcing that he was stepping down from the Greens’ leadership, that he wanted to progress this bill before he left Parliament. So that is, of course, why Labour is voting for it, because I know I, at least, want him to stay here and see this bill all the way through the select committee process. So I am disappointed about the National Party position, but, hopefully, those other parties on the other side of the House will see the sense of sending this bill to select committee.

As the member knows, I’m not a huge fan of rights and rights legislation—that sounds terrible, doesn’t it? I do like the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but there are some in my party and on this side of the House that are more about rights than I am. We have the great—one of my colleagues in my 2020 class was, of course, Vanushi Walters, who’s very much all about rights and doing better with our rights legislation in New Zealand. I was trained at Otago Law School—I think it’s something about what law school you go to, and I’m in a slightly different camp in that regard.

You know, I have real questions about the flood gates opening with any extension to our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Do we include housing?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Yes.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Housing seems like a sensible thing to include—I knew I’d get that response. But, then, do we include property rights? And I say, “Absolutely not” to property rights. Maybe housing and, of course, we’ve got this environmental question in front us today. So it would be very good for the Environment Committee or the Justice Committee to consider this bill and to really flesh out those arguments. Is this the right place for such a right to be—in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—should it be in its own separate piece of legislation? Those are the questions that it would be right for a select committee to interrogate. So we are supporting this bill, and other speakers will speak to some of those points.

But I really want to speak to why I really want to support this bill, and it goes to what the member said in his speech, and I agree with all of that. We are in a dire, dire environmental place at the moment. We know we have a biodiversity crisis as well as our climate crisis. The last Government did work really hard to address some of these issues with the very broken Resource Management Act. Everybody in the House agrees that the Resource Management Act was broken. It was both not doing what it needed to do for the environment and also not doing what it needed to do for an efficient economy.

So we had the Natural and Built Environment Act with some very clear limits and targets and bottom lines. What happened to that? Oh, it got repealed in December. What else has happened? Well, today in question time, we heard that farm plans might be paused and that they need to be flexible and robust. That makes no sense. We don’t know what that means, despite a whole lot of patsy questions.

Today, 130 people at the Department of Conservation might be losing their jobs. We see that in the media. How many jobs at the Department of Conservation are backroom? That department is all about the front line: pest eradication, looking after a third of our country.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister suggested that genetic modification was going to somehow sort out decarbonisation. That is head-in-the-sand thinking. It is not addressing the problem that we have in front of us. Of course, genetic modification—it may have a role to play. I’m not saying that it doesn’t, but it is not the silver bullet. It is not the be-all and end-all. It is not a reason to stop doing every single piece of work that was being done to decarbonise, like the electric vehicle discount, like public transport subsidisation—all that stuff, out the window.

Then, we have the full-on assault on the environment with that fast-track bill. We hear over and over again from Shane Jones that he is not interested in saving Freddy the frog, he is OK with extinction. That is not OK. We need everything that we can possibly do, every tool in the tool box, to remind people I how important our environment is to us, to the economy, and to future generations. Well done, Minister Shaw.

SIMON COURT (ACT): The ACT Party won’t be supporting this bill. I thought I’d ask: what is environmental sustainability, James Shaw? I mean, it could be defined as the ability to maintain an ecological balance in our planet’s natural environment and conserve natural resources to support the wellbeing of current and future generations. Well, that sounds really nice in a sound bite, doesn’t it? But this bill is actually an attempt to legislate for that same 1970s socks-and-sandal vision of a Green world that has failed. It’s failed when it’s been tried in New Zealand.

In the 1960s, 1970s, greenies like James Shaw believed that civilisation would end because we’d run out of water, we’d run out of food, and we’d run out of energy; it turns out we didn’t. Not only were those greenies wrong then but, since then, billions and billions of people have been lifted out of poverty by making one simple decision as nations, the Governments that led them—that they were going to get access to the mineral resources, they were going to use their water, they were going to do things more efficiently, like the people in Singapore who had very scarce resources. They were going to get these oil and gas resources out of the ground, and they were going to lift billions of people in the developing world out of poverty. Well, James Shaw is saying, “Oh, no, we shouldn’t do that—we shouldn’t do that.”, that the environment somehow should have a human right, or humans should have an environmental right. It’s the most confusing, incoherent approach to environmental management and actually delivering for people. It’s totally incoherent.

Now, Australians are much wealthier than New Zealanders because they’ve chosen to utilise their natural and physical resources. You know what? You can only dig the iron ore up once, but then you can sell it to somebody else for money and you can use that money to build better hospitals, better schools, and better roads, James Shaw.

Food production has increased so much over the past 30 or 40 years, it’s likely—now, I’m just reckoning, but no more reckoning than this bill is that might work—there’s probably more obese people in the world now than there are starving, because we produce so much food. That might be radical, but it’s probably true.

If all of these nations had to decide “Do we raise our people out of poverty now or do we lock up our resources and stay poor and unhealthy?”, James Shaw would choose the latter. That’s what his bill is driving for. Now, instead, could we use our resources to generate wealth, to treat water, to deliver energy so that we can heat our homes, healthier homes? Could we build landfills, instead of dumping waste in estuaries in the sea? These are all trade-offs that James Shaw’s bill would make impossible.

Adding another law which imposes costs on communities and individuals without any understanding of the benefits—that’s the trademark of lefties and greenies like James Shaw, the Green Party, and the Labour Party. No idea of the costs or the benefits from a former Minister of Climate Change who was part of the Government that banned oil and gas generation and then, just shortly after, millions of tons of coal started arriving from Indonesia; and set up a climate commission to provide sterling advice like banning natural gas connections from new homes for hot water and cooking!

Now, we just have to look back at this honourable member’s track record. The Labour-Green 2017 agreement shows you what they mean by “sustainability”. I just clipped a few things from that agreement: reduce congestion and carbon dioxide emissions by cancelling the East-West Motorway Link—that’s a piece of roading that’s supposed to get heavy trucks off local roads so that urban development can occur. That’s what he means by sustainable development: keep those heavy trucks on local roads. And what about “begin work on Auckland light rail”? Well, cancelling transport projects to get heavy trucks off roads and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on colourful drawings won’t get us to where we want to get to, even when it comes to human wellbeing or environmental improvement.

We’ve tried James Shaw’s method. It’s called the Resource Management Act. It’s failed us for 33 years. This approach is totally unsuited to resolving inherent conflicts between people, the wellbeing we seek, and our desire to protect the environment and those special places. The result of New Zealand’s socks-and-sandals sustainability experiment is that every year New Zealanders spend $1.3 billion trying to consent infrastructure so we can build more affordable homes and build transport—even infrastructure that’s desperately needed, like water treatment plants, held up. Every generation’s going to have to work hard to grow their health and their wealth so we can feed our children first. That’s the legacy we want to leave to our children and grandchildren, not this nonsense.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): I feel honoured to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to do this call on the Hon Shane Jones—beg your pardon, beg your pardon! How did I get that mixed up? On the Hon James Shaw—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Now vote for it!

TANYA UNKOVICH: What was that?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Vote for it!

TANYA UNKOVICH: Yay!

Hon Member: Brothers from another mother.

TANYA UNKOVICH: Brother from another mother, that’s right. But look, I firstly wanted to acknowledge you and your contributions, and to wish you all of the best, on behalf of our party, for your future.

Hon James Shaw: Kia ora.

TANYA UNKOVICH: Thank you. So the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Sustainable Environment) Amendment Bill—now, this aims to introduce a new section, section 18A, into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Now, this section would ensure the right to a sustainable environment into law, affirming that every individual has the right to live in a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. Now, New Zealand First recognises the importance of environmental stewardship and believes in achieving a balance between environmental protection and the responsible use of natural resources. The party advocates for evidence-based approaches to environmental issues and supports cooperation between Government and industry to achieve better environmental outcomes.

New Zealand First also emphasises the importance of conservation, productive policies, and engagement with local communities to protect New Zealand and, of course, our unique ecosystem for our future generations. We have a fundamental principle and that is that all environmental policies are to be proactive with a view to creating employment and sustainable wealth, whilst improving one of our few competitive advantages.

So New Zealand First will not support this bill. Now, while we acknowledge the importance of environmental sustainability, the party is cautious about enshrining specific rights in legislation without considering the broader implications. New Zealand First believes that any right must be balanced with corresponding responsibilities and that the proposed amendment may not adequately address the complexities of environmental policy and decision making.

Now, another reason that we do not support this bill is because of its potential impact on economic development. We prioritise sound economic policy alongside environmental stewardship. The party is concerned that the inclusion of a right to a sustainable environment in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act may inadvertently restrict economic development—any opportunities—or even create a legal uncertainty that could deter investment and growth. Also, New Zealand First is somewhat concerned with a lack of clarity on implementation and while the bill aims to recognise and protect the right to a sustainable environment, New Zealand First seeks clarity on how this might be done and how it can be implemented in practice. The party is concerned about potential conflicts with existing legislation and the practical implications for policy development and the decision-making processes in the future.

So, in summary, while New Zealand First shares the goal of environmental sustainability, the party does believe that the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Sustainable Environment) Amendment Bill may not be the most effective or appropriate way to achieve this objective. Hence, as mentioned, New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill any further.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. Tuatahi ake ka nui taku reo whakamiha ki a koe, e James otirā tō koutou tira kua kōkiri i tēnei kaupapa, otirā tēnei pire e whakamana ana i tō tātou nei taiao.

[Firstly, I’d sincerely like to show my appreciation to you, James, and your group who are leading this matter, this bill, to enhance our environment.]

I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori in full support of this bill, the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Sustainable Environment) Amendment Bill. The human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, with tikanga Māori concepts of connection between te ira tangata me te taiao [the human element and the environment.] For the majority of us on this side, this is the whole reason why we are here. That is why I’m going to fully use my five minutes as much as I can.

Everyone has their connection to the land and water, which grounds us to our ancestral way of life. However, my personal connection will be our awa. As a Hauraki-Waikato kaitiaki, as a mokopuna of Waikato, our awa is our biggest asset on a spiritual level. We have been stripped of our right of connection to our awa due to the overwhelming capitalism that continues to take from our pepeha. The climate is constantly evolving—that is its sole purpose. It’s been changing since the beginning of time; however, it is the human change that needs to seriously be addressed. Without our kāinga of Rāhui Pōkeka next to our tūpuna awa, the detrimental harm that our tūpuna goes through—for context, our awa gets hammered left, right, and centre, from big corporations like AFFCO, Fonterra, Tegel, Genesis Energy, and the old coal mining industry.

Now, I come from a third generation freezing works whānau, and as an iwi and hapū we have a long relationship with Genesis Energy. I have many whānau that work within these industries because they need to provide kai on the table for their whānau. They heavily over-contribute to the 98 percent of our country’s economy in the meat and dairy industry. They are providing kai for many people on an international scale; however, they can’t even afford the bread and butter in the supermarkets, and we are left to continuously hurt our awa without even realising how much harm we are causing due to needing to put bread and butter on the table.

The reason I bring this up is because this is the whole overall contributing system that most rural communities face for tangata whenua in real time. This is our everyday reality that we face. In a study by the Environmental Protection Authority, Māori are more likely to live in areas with poor environment quality, with 51 percent of Māori living in areas with high air pollution, compared with 36 percent of non-Māori. In a Ministry for the Environment study, Māori are more likely to be exposed to contaminated drinking water, with 24 percent of Māori drinking from sources that do not meet water standards, compared to 16 percent of non-Māori.

I want to specifically touch on the tikanga Māori concepts of connection between māuiui whenua, māuiui tangata. [sickly environment begets sickly people.] I consistently talk about our mātauranga Māori and connection to the rongoā of our taiao, and parties opposite like New Zealand First consistently, continuously mock me in the media and even in public for my understandings of mātauranga Māori, maramataka Māori, māra kai cultivation, Matariki practices, or even when I noted that our marama had a kurahaupō which would see extreme weather events, after which followed Cyclone Gabrielle. Now, I’m not surprised by that, because we are the living, breathing reverses of the Tohunga Suppression Act. So they just simply don’t understand. They just simply don’t understand our mātauranga Māori and its connection and its rongoā to our taiao. Mātauranga Māori, tikanga Māori, indigenous customs and practices are a rongoā for our taiao.

Otirā ngā mihi nui ki a koe James me tō tira e kōkiri nei i tō tātou nei taiao ki angitu, tēnā rā tātou katoa.

[And so, huge salutations to you James and your group leading this matter to ensure the best for our environment. Thank you, everyone.]

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Can I begin by thanking all parties of the House for cooperating at the Business Committee to allow this to have a first reading before James Shaw leaves. In this increasingly polarised, fractured world, it is fantastic to see our Parliament cooperating around a process step like this so that an important issue like this can be heard, even though the bill’s going to go down, it appears. So I just think that we can congratulate ourselves for maintaining some sort of civility in this place in order to govern our country. So can I thank the Government members for their support of that.

There is no doubt that the world has serious environmental problems. This graph comes from The Guardian today: it shows that for the last 10 months, consecutively, we have the highest temperatures ever recorded—ever—beyond the projections. Now, it may well come right because of the end of El Niño, and we might come back to some projections that aren’t quite so scary, but by the end of the year we will know whether we are off the chart for ever. So we have serious climate problems.

We know that in New Zealand we have declining water quality in our rivers and lakes. And we know that despite that, the current Government is going backwards on climate. You know, we need to decarbonise transport and industrial heat. In order to do that, we need to build a lot more electricity, renewable electricity. In order for that to be affordable, we need to be able to allow those investors to hedge against intermittency. And yet the Government cancelled even finishing the cost-benefit analysis on project Onslow that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment had already said stacked up as a good idea.

We already had fast track to address the issues that Simon Court addressed, to speed up the process, because it does take too long and cost too much, and we had fixed that. But the current Government allows them to override the protections in the Conservation Act and the Wildlife Act and in the Resource Management Act, and we already know that in respect of the water space. We heard today that the Government is not only delaying the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management to be required to be implemented; they’re actually talking about stopping regional councils implementing it even if they want to, which is a terrible thing. We also know that they’re going to downgrade farm plans, which are a replacement for regulation, but they’re going to be softer plans without certification and order. So we need stricter rules in New Zealand environmentally, to make it less easy to do that sort of thing.

That said, if this goes to select committee, we have to look at whether it should sit in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or not, because the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act really protects personal freedoms: the right not to be tortured—I’ll read out a list of them in Part 2 of the Act, where they’re listed—the right not to be deprived of life or subjected to torture or cruel treatment, to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation; the right to refuse medical treatment, electoral rights, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression, manifestation of religion and belief, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association and freedom of movement. Those are the core rights that are protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and they are individual freedoms and liberties that we are protecting. We have to be very careful to decide whether this sort of thing should sit in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—which I’m a bit doubtful about myself, even though we’re supporting it to select committee—or whether it should sit in separate legislation.

If we invite the courts into this space, we are at risk of undermining the clarity which should apply to the freedoms that are protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, by bringing in things that are more contentious as to resource allocation, as to what is the appropriate remedy within the purview of the senior courts to make declarations of inconsistency—which could bring the court system into conflict with this place, Parliament, and I’m not sure that’s the right way to go.

So the Labour Party will be supporting this to select committee, and we hope other parties will too. But the issue as to whether this sort of provision should sit in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or some higher environmental legislation is a very proper issue to discuss as a country. Because those rights that I referred to, those basic human rights, including the right to freedom from discrimination, they are of a different nature to some of the things that you need to do to protect the environment and I’m not personally convinced that either they or social rights should sit in this legislation, particularly given that we have created this obligation for the Parliament through the amendment that we made to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in the last Parliament, to respond to declarations of inconsistency. I congratulate the member for bringing this bill to the House.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou katoa. Ki a koe te rangatira, tēnā koe. What a complex world we live in. The way I look at this is that I empathise with the sentiment of what’s trying to be achieved here and I think that around the House with many of the debates that we have, we have common goals, but we have different roles and different paths of being able to get there. It’s the simplest way I can describe it, the difference between that side of the Hose and this side of the House, but I do empathise with having a world that has the best environment that we can get.

The other side of that conversation to me is endearing—to have a pragmatic outcome for our country, in New Zealand, but indeed the world. Because as we know, the environment has no boundaries in itself. We are a country that factually feeds more than 40 million people around the world, and we could say that we don’t want to do that anymore and we’re sacrificing our own environment here as a result of that. But this is the economy that provides us the lifestyles in the New Zealand that we enjoy today.

I wanted to acknowledge the former speaker, the Hon David Parker, with what he said about the fact that this diversity that we see across the House should be celebrated. That’s what MMP actually produces, diversity of ideas. I feel that this House is stronger because of it, because it’s the stretching of each other’s ideas and each other’s mindsets that actually provides the best possible decisions. I’ve seen that myself personally in governance roles with boards, and you don’t want a groupthink mentality around tables like that, you want diversity of views. So it’s great to see different views, even though it frustrates some views of many of us, but it’s something that we should actually celebrate indeed.

So, you know, as mentioned, you’re shepherding this bill through the House—sorry, not you Madam Speaker, but the Hon James Shaw, and I’m on this side of the House here and I’m not in a position to be able to support the bill. But I do want to talk about the environment, because a comment was made that I want to talk to you about. And the comment was that the environment today is worse than 10 years ago when you actually began in the House. My challenge to that is my experience of over 22 years in the Taranaki region as its chair of the regional council, which is I can point factually to some scientific evidence where we are making progress. It is a trend in the right direction, and we’ve got a long way to go, but we are getting better, and we should actually pat people on the back more than actually lambaste them, because I’m a believer in actually more of the carrot approach rather than the stick approach. And we do see a lot of lambasting of individuals rather than supporting success and growing that success in itself. I think there’s a great thing that comes out of that.

In Taranaki, for instance, and I know it’s only a small part of Aotearoa New Zealand itself, but Taranaki—you know, I was proud to have my Taranaki whānau here yesterday and you talked about the fact that Taranaki maunga is going to have the rights of an individual, of a person itself, and I support that. I think it’s a great outcome and it’s a long time coming. It’s been a long journey in itself, and I believe the environment is going to be better for it as well.

Taranaki maunga has had some great programmes on it recently, particularly the predator control programme that’s looking after our taonga species on that maunga. And we heard the member from the Māori Party speak to that yesterday, about the fact that it has been sacrificed by the fact that we had pests introduced to that environment and we’re in a recovery mode right now. But we’ve also done a great job around the ring plain of Taranaki; it just doesn’t stop on the National Park; it actually goes around the ring plain. And we’ve got farmers, we’ve got everybody that’s using the environment, the landscape, actually believing and making the environment better with regards to that.

I wanted to finish off—you know, I won’t get the opportunity, the Hon James Shaw, to thank you for your contribution to the country and to this House itself, and I want to acknowledge that. I’ve been looking from afar at politics for many, many years, and although I don’t know you particularly well, you do come across as a man who is very courteous, who has great honesty and high integrity. Those are values that everybody should actually strain for. So I appreciate that.

So, unfortunately, with my time running out, I’m not in the position to support this. It has complexity with legislation, but I wish you well in the future. Thank you, James.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this important bill. This is a bill that the National Party MPs have, in speech after speech, said that they generally agree with. They have spoken about how the member bringing this bill, the Hon James Shaw, has made an incredible contribution to not only this Parliament’s understanding of climate change but public life in New Zealand. The member who has brought this bill has advanced not only New Zealand’s public conversation about the environment and about our rights and interests in climate change and the things that we owe to Papatūānuku and our environmental commitments as people on this planet, but he has also moved the conversation along for the entire world.

It is a stain on the record of this Parliament that we are not sending it to select committee. All of the members of this House should be able to see that this is something worthy of debate, that this is something worthy of cross-partisan discussion, that this is something worthy of us coming together as a Parliament and putting aside our political interests for the rights and interests of generations to follow us. Whether or not you support a rights-based framework, whether or not you think the regulation is the way that we should deal with climate change issues and issues in the environmental regulatory space, whether you think that the free market will just sort it out and some dream of techno-futurism is going to fix it in a moon-shot kind of way, this is something that we should be having a discussion about. This is something the young people’s strike on Friday afternoon, School Strike 4 Climate, was about. This is something that teenagers, that young people at universities, that young people all over Aotearoa expect leadership from at a parliamentary level.

I’m proud to be able to speak in support of this bill, but I want to get into the detail of this at select committee. I wish the parliamentarians around the House were allowing that opportunity to occur. Yes, my colleague the Hon David Parker is right that it is good for this Parliament to be able to come together and to be able to debate this bill at this point. It is useful for us to be able to acknowledge that the kind of contribution that one member can make to advance this conversation is important—and that’s why we should have this debating time with him here in the Chamber.

But the kind of contribution that one member can make is vastly outstripped by a number of MPs getting their heads together in a select committee room and being able to have this conversation with not only the expert advice that is afforded to select committees but also available through the advice from the Ministry for the Environment and the useful work that has been done out there in the community on this issue. I wish we could have this conversation. I’m so disappointed in the parties that are not voting for it, and I urge them to change their minds.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an honour to speak on this bill, and I acknowledge James Shaw for bringing this to the House. It is one of those things where sometimes when you are new to things and you look at it, you don’t understand what it’s about when you first read the title. I first thought that it might be that you were bringing the rights of Papatūānuku to have the rights of personhood. That’s what I first thought it was, which would have been very ambitious.

Chlöe Swarbrick: That’s next.

: Is that the next one? OK, is that your one, ChlDr VANESSA WEENINKöe? Yeah, that’d be interesting.

Unfortunately, the National Party doesn’t support this bill, as you know, and it’s not because we don’t care about the environment. We absolutely are focused on having sustainable environmental objectives, as well as having economic development. We think that we can do both.

Now, Rachel Brooking spoke about the Resource Management Act (RMA) being unwieldy. In fact, there’s general agreement across the House about the problematic nature of the RMA. I think when it was first introduced, the RMA was fewer than about 400 pages, and now it is well over 800 pages, and all of those insertions of amendments and schedules and additional clarifications over time has led to this kind of legislative quagmire. So I think that we should keep it in mind when we’re considering this bill, because the National Party has assessed that this bill poses risks of increasing the potential for legal challenges and uncertainties surrounding the interpretation and the application of the bill. So the effect that that would have would be to hinder effective environmental management and decision-making. We think that we can actually have both a better environment and a stronger economy by cutting wasteful compliance, not by adding to it, and we believe that this bill would be adding to confusion and red tape.

My colleague David MacLeod mentioned that he’s seen environmental improvements over time without the need to add legislative requirements and to compel people, and I’ve also seen some examples of that in my own electorate. A great example of that is through the Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust and the work that they have done in covenanting areas of land to protect them in perpetuity. That is something that the landowners have done voluntarily. They formed this trust together and worked with the Hon Dr Nick Smith to have the right to grant covenants, and then, together, they have worked through that process and have been extremely successful, and over 16,000 hectares of land is now under covenant because of that process. So we can see very good examples of where environmental protections happen without the need to compel.

As other members have mentioned, there is a risk of bringing social rights into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and there are the implications that that might have. The idea of the right to housing or the right to healthcare are other things that have been previously postulated as things that might be human rights, and they’re very difficult to then manage and to have oversight of.

In summary, we think that although there are great intentions and ideas behind this bill that we agree with on some level, the problems that can come from good intentions that aren’t implemented well should be something that the House is cautious of and that we guard against. So it’s useful for us to have considered this and to discuss it, I think, and, like the Hon David Parker mentioned, it shows a level of civility in this House that we are able to do that for you in this time, Mr Shaw. So I’m glad to have been able to discuss this matter, and although I like some of the ideas, I do not commend this bill to the House.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Green): Yeah, thank you Madam Speaker. So I thank members around the House for their kind words, and I’ve been considering how to respond to some of the arguments made in that light. First of all, I would like to thank the Labour Party and Te Pāti Māori for their support for the bill. And I do want to recognise Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke for her speech, which I thought was probably, actually, the most evidence based, considered, and logical argument that I heard this afternoon, making those connections for exactly why the state of the environment does actually affect our human rights and therefore why it is important that we recognise that as such.

I just want to respond to a few of the other points before I move on—one of which is, you know, the argument that David Parker made around the, kind of, slippery slope argument: the idea that if you introduce this, you might have to introduce a number of other things—I think Rachel Brooking, actually, sorry, made this point—one of which is around property rights. I would just say, if you want to create a human right to property, you’d want to be very careful what you wish for, because you might have to hand back all the land that was stolen and swindled and confiscated. I want to say that this bill is a limited and a special gate—it will not open the flood gates to other rights being introduced into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

There was the fantastic speech by Simon Court. Of course, he said, “Here’s a reckon”—and it’s probably true, hence outlining how this Government makes its decisions: pub talk translated into Government policy! Despite the fact that they’ve got this steadfast commitment to actual evidence in their coalition agreements—this idea of just, like “Oh, wait, here’s some reckons. They’re probably true. Let’s govern the country on that basis.”

I’d like to thank Lawyers for Climate Action, particularly Jenny Cooper KC and Dr James Every-Palmer KC, for proposing any drafting and promoting this amendment, and, more recently, their executive director, Jessica Pelairet, for her support as the bill made it to first reading.

I also want to thank the 59 King’s Counsels who supported the amendment—and if David Parker wants a debate about what the appropriate place is, I can find him 59 King’s Counsels to have that argument with—as well as organisations like World Wide Fund for Nature, who are supporting it.

Now, I was first introduced to the concept of ecocide, wild law and nature’s rights law by a UK barrister Polly Higgins. Those conversations with Polly inspired me to make the rights of nature part of my work here in Parliament, which I laid out in my maiden speech. Now, sadly, Polly died of lung cancer in 2019, which is the same year that Lawyers for Climate Action first proposed the bill. But I do want to thank Polly for her leadership, and I dedicate this first reading to her and all of those who are working for Earthjustice.

I want to thank Ngāi Tūhoe, Whanganui, and Taranaki iwi for having introduced nature’s rights law into our legal framework here in Aotearoa. The country owes you all a huge debt of gratitude.

I also want to acknowledge the Hon Christopher Finlayson for his leadership on the Crown side of that story as well. And a brief story, which was, I think, during the 2011 election campaign—I was covering for Russel Norman in the seat of Rongotai. So I was in a debate that Christopher Finlayson was in. The Whanganui River settlement had just gone through. I said to him, “How did you get that past Cabinet? You’ve just introduced nature’s rights into the New Zealand statute. How did you get that past your colleagues in Cabinet?” And he looked at me and he said, “Well, it’s a very interesting area of law.”, and then walked off. In other words, I suspect they had no idea what was in it.

So, look, I want to conclude with another comment from my maiden speech, which is that my first female ancestor in New Zealand, Annie Mathilda Baggett, was the granddaughter of a Jamaican plantation slave during a time when slavery was seen as a vital component of the global economy and the abolition of slavery was opposed as a threat to financial stability and economic development. People pollute the atmosphere. They destroy rivers and species and ecosystems for the very same reasons that they used slave labour or seized land that once belonged to a people that they considered to be inferior. There is always debate and controversy about the expansion of rights. Whenever the status quo is threatened, there are always doomsayers saying that civilisation will collapse, or vested interests that are predicting that the economy will be destroyed—and we heard some of those arguments today. But the changes that seemed so threatening never are, in hindsight, and the warnings that seem so serious to so many people always sound so absurd to subsequent generations. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Right to Sustainable Environment) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill

First Reading

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): I move, That the Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

Fa‘afetai i lau afioga le Fono Fetalai mo lenei avanoa. E muamua ona ou faatulou atu i le paia o le atunuu i ona tulaga faalupe. Ou te faatulou atu foi i le paia o alii ma tamaitai faipule ua tatou faatasi i lenei aso. Malo le soifua manuia ma le lagi e mamā.

I want to acknowledge elders both past and present and those who are with us in the House. I want to acknowledge reverend ministers and their families, and community leaders, dignitaries from the Samoan High Commission, and I note that the Speaker of the Samoan Parliament is with us today in the public gallery with his delegation of Samoan MPs from both political parties. I want to acknowledge other former MPs who are here today. I note former National Party MP Anae Arthur Anae, who is in the public gallery. And it is always good to see the Hon Aupito Su’a William Sio back in this House. I want to acknowledge Faʻanānā Efeso Collins, who did his best to teach me a mihi in Samoan, and noting that I am probably the worst Samoan-language student he ever had.

Although I am not Samoan, can I say that I am Samoan-adjacent. All Pasifika peoples, all tangata moana are adjacent to each other. I mentioned Efeso, because, like others from our generation, as this House was moving through the Dawn Raids apology, he reached out to me, like many others, to tell me that there was more injustice to unravel, that there was further to go on this journey.

Another Samoan friend of mine Renee Dingwall’s dad, Su’a Hans Schwalger, who’s over in Samoa at this time, told her to tell her friend—me—to get rid of this Western Samoa citizenship Act. So, Efeso, Renee, and all the Samoans who I grew up with, this is for you.

Our parents’ stories are our stories. Our grandparents’ stories are our stories. Those narratives form our community’s narratives. These conversations can be tough conversations, but they are important if we are to grow as a family of Pacific nations. I want to acknowledge Aupito Su’a William Sio, who guided us through one of those tough conversations through the Dawn Raids apology. It is important work and we must continue to build on that work, and I see this as another step in that journey.

This is not the first time there has been an attempt to address this issue. I did note, before, the presence of former National MP Anae Arthur Anae in the public gallery and community members that brought a petition to this House in 2003. Over 9,000 people signed that petition. I also note, and I noticed in the gallery, that my Auckland University fellow alumni Dr Tofilau Nina Kirifi-Alai is here as well, along with Seiuli Savea Peseta, and there are many others listening from home.

I make this observation—and it is this: if you have Pacific Islanders from different political parties, who, in our own different ways, want what is best for our communities, then that is something that this House should take note of. That note should be that we need to have our communities heard at the select committee.

There is a bit of history here, and I want to traverse it a little bit; it’s in the context of the bill. It is Samoan history, but it is also New Zealand history, learning about the Mau movement and the independence movement in Samoa is such an important part of our history, which would give New Zealanders a deeper understanding of New Zealand’s imperial aspirations in the Pacific at the turn of the century, and the painful consequences of those aspirations. What a lot of New Zealanders don’t know is that New Zealand administered Samoa for 48 years as part of the World War I effort, on behalf of Britain from the then German colonial rule. New Zealand administered what we now know as Samoa, and the Americans administered what we now know as American Samoan. The New Zealand administration was so appalling and so bad that Prime Minister Helen Clark had to apologise in 2002.

In 1948, New Zealand citizenship was established. We went from being British subjects, to New Zealand citizens. It was in 1982 that the Privy Council ruled that all Samoans born between 1924 and 1948 were British subjects and, because of that, from 1949 onwards, they were New Zealand citizens. As the years go by, more of these elders will pass. It is estimated that there are less than 5,000 remaining. These are important stories that need to be heard and that is why this House needs to send this bill to the select committee.

In terms of the Privy Council, I want to acknowledge the pivotal role played by Falema’i Lesa and her family and the committee’s organisers who pushed that case. Falema’i’s contribution, we honour not only her personal and individual journey but the collective struggle of Pacific peoples for equality and for justice.

Fairness is at the heart of this bill. We had a group of New Zealand citizens who had their citizenship recognised and then had that citizenship removed by statute. That is unfair—plain and simple. States should not be able to remove citizenship wholesale like that. It is unjust. This bill will address this injustice in two ways. It will repeal the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act, remove it from the statute book; and the people who lost citizenship in 1982 will be entitled to apply for and receive citizenship by a grant under the Citizenship Act 1977. This is important. The bill does not confer citizenship directly, but it instead creates automatic eligibility to apply for and receive citizenship. It would not create new rights to citizenship for descendants of those whose citizenship was removed. As I said earlier, the youngest of these elders is now 75. That is why it is important that now is the time for us to address these issues while they are still here.

Our international standing derives from our ability to influence the Pacific. Relational diplomacy is so important, particularly in the Pacific where we have geopolitical tensions playing out between bigger nations. This is something that we can do and do well. The wellbeing of our people, economy, and environment are closely linked to that of our Pacific neighbours. It is our responsibility to continue striving to improve and maintain these relationships. That relationship is always worth strengthening. Supporting Samoan elders signals to the Pacific that we take those relationships seriously. That is why this House should send this bill to select committee.

There has been speculation in the media that this will cause mass migration. That is not my intention. Citizenship broadly happens in three ways: by birth, descent, or by grant. This is citizenship by grant. Can we have a discussion on what the grant could look like that is practical and workable? I think we can—solutions that could suit different perspectives of members across the House. We can, but only if we send this bill to select committee.

The Pacific is one ocean but it has many waves. Each island represents a distinct wave in the vast ocean. They are all part of the same body of water. It speaks to the shared heritage, struggles, and aspirations of Pacific peoples, emphasising the unity and the interconnectedness that transcends geographical boundaries. This highlights the significance of recognising and honouring the collective experiences and histories of Pacific communities, acknowledging the common challenges that we have faced and continue to face. Just as waves merge and flow together in the ocean, Pacific peoples come together united by our shared ancestry and cultural ties to navigate the currents of history and shape our collective identity.

I started with the words of Faʻanānā Efeso Collins, and I want to conclude with some of those words from his maiden speech. In his maiden speech, he talked about a saying in Samoan, and it goes: “E le tu fa’amauga se tagata—No one stands alone, no one succeeds alone—and, for [him], no one suffers alone.” I want to add a little bit to that: that we succeed best when we succeed together. So I ask for this House to send this bill to the select committee. Madam Speaker, fa‘afetai tele lava. Meitaki ranuinui. Thank you to the community for coming out today. Hopefully, your presence here in this House will inspire parties to vote for this bill in this first reading and to send it to the select committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Talofa lava. We in the National Party are opposing this Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill, and I just want to take you through some of our thinking.

I also want to acknowledge my long-time friend and former colleague and boss Arthur Anae in the Speaker’s gallery, and I reinforce what the previous speaker, Teanau Tuiono, was saying as far as the work and the advocacy that he has done—as have many, over many years—when he was a National MP from 1996 to 2002, and ongoingly. Only a couple of weeks ago, he was getting around the halls of Parliament, lobbying for progression on this issue. So I want to acknowledge Arthur for his long-time fight and, of course, the many other Pasifika MPs. We have the Pacific select committee room, and we know how well represented the wider community, Samoan New Zealanders, have been over many years now.

I also want to acknowledge and pick up from the sponsor our late friend and colleague Efeso Collins, and I think it’s somewhat fitting today that the Business Committee came out and announced that there will be a parliamentary acknowledgment of Efeso, after question time, at 3 o’clock on Tuesday, 30 April. I’m pleased his former leader James Shaw will be here, before his valedictory the next day or two after that, to pay tribute to Efeso. So, given the audience for this piece of legislation, I thought it was important to put out a public service announcement: 3 o’clock, Tuesday, 30 April for a tribute to Efeso.

Our main point on this piece of legislation is that it presents itself in a member’s bill situation, where we don’t think it’s the right format or forum. We believe that this has been well canvassed and well argued over many years—one could argue 42 years, since 1982. If we look back since 1982 and that Muldoon administration, that National Government, we’ve had three Labour Governments since—the fourth, the fifth, and the sixth—we’ve had 10 Prime Ministers, we’ve had an array of wonderful representation from our Pasifika community and from our Samoan community, and we’ve had an apology from a previous Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, on the Dawn Raids, in 2021. Again, that was an issue going back to the 1970s, and, of course, the National Party supported that apology.

So where there is a will to change things, from a Government perspective—and we’ve had 10 Prime Ministers, and two National Governments and three Labour Governments since then—there has been the ability to make a statement and to do things. As we saw with the apology for the Dawn Raids, the Labour Government stepped up there, and also the sponsoring member, Teanau Tuiono, talked about Helen Clark’s apology in 2002. So previous Governments have had the will and done the thing. But our point is that the Governments of the past, of many stripes, of many different colours—red, blue, green, Te Pāti Māori, others—have not taken this up, and we would argue it’s because legally the arguments have been exhausted over a 42-year period.

We are concerned that it creates a legal precedent. Legal experts will say to you that retroactively—retroactively—interesting word—

Hon Member: Retrospectively.

CAMERON BREWER: —no, “retroactively” is the legal terminology—reinstating the citizenship of citizens affected by this Act sets a problematic precedent, and we want to ensure, as have previous administrations, led by 10 previous Prime Ministers over four decades, that we have a legal framework in place that equates to fairness and equity.

So our concern is that it does create a number of unprecedented measures, and it also creates a situation where we have got a focus at the moment on managing the immigration settings and adopting them accordingly to fit today’s demands, and 173,000 non - New Zealand citizens migrated here in 2023. You would have seen our immigration Minister, Erica Stanford, unveil a range of changes to the likes of the Accredited Employer Work Visa scheme, and also, at the weekend, she put in a number of measures that will address migrant worker exploitation. So we have got huge challenges and huge workloads ahead of us and a number of legal precedents that we believe that previous administrations—three Labour Governments, two National Governments—have looked at it—

Chlöe Swarbrick: You’re in charge now.

CAMERON BREWER: —and have not proceeded on goodwill, and some of those people and some of those Governments have been led by constitutional experts like Sir Geoffrey Palmer. This is an exhaustive piece of work that’s looked at it, and successive Governments have—unfortunately for the other side of the House; unfortunately for their argument—not proceeded on a number of firm grounds.

We, as a Government, understand and continue to foster the strong relationships with Pasifika and Pacific nations. I want to acknowledge the great work that the very busy health Minister, Shane Reti, is doing as also Minister for Pacific Peoples, and if the bill progresses, it does and it will have implications on current citizenship settings. So we have given this—previous parliaments—considerable, considerable time, energy, and argument over four decades, and we believe, on balance, that for this to go to select committee at this stage, in a member’s bill format and forum, is not appropriate.

The members opposite say, “Oh well, you’re in charge now.” Well, can I just remind them that they were in charge, with the biggest majority in MMP history, six months ago. They were in charge, with a single-party majority, just six months ago.

Everyone has looked at this. Successive Prime Ministers have looked at this. Successive Governments have looked at this. We on this side of the House have also looked closely at it. We have also been talking to friends like our friend Arthur Anae. We have also been lobbied hard. We have also taken legal advice. But, on the balance of it, National will oppose this bill. Thank you.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Talofa lava, Madam Speaker, and talofa lava to the House. To all of our Samoan community who have come along today to support this bill, can I acknowledge you. Many of the people that are here today are not just here to support the kaupapa of today; they were here in 2003 outside Parliament. They were one or many of the 90,000 people that signed the petition at the time and have been fighting for this change for decades. Can I acknowledge the Green Party member Teanau Tuiono, one of only six Pacific members of Parliament at the moment. Can I just say on record that the other side who are in the Labour Party stand behind Teanau Tuiono with respect to this bill that he is attempting to pass.

I’m going to start with the Dawn Raids apology. The Dawn Raids apology was a formal acknowledgement of the discriminatory implementation of immigration laws that led to the Dawn Raids. However, beyond the Dawn Raids, the Muldoon-led National Government continued on their trajectory with the 1982 retrospective removal of the right to citizenship for those Samoans born between 1924 to 1948. So I do find it very interesting that the member Cameron Brewer says that he doesn’t want to retroactively reinstate citizenship for Samoans when it was retrospectively taken away from them. The removal of citizenship rights for any country is contentious. In fact, New Zealand has been at the forefront in some incidences of criticising other countries internationally for this. Sadly, the New Zealand Government did exactly this themselves in 1982, and this continues to be something that is deemed controversial—and rightly so.

The actions that followed the Dawn Raid apology were not exhaustive. As part of the apology, we provided educational scholarships, access to the Manaaki New Zealand Short Term Scholarship training courses, support for Pacific artists and historians to develop a comprehensive written and oral account of the Dawn Raids, but no one at that time implied that the work required by New Zealand Governments to demonstrate a genuine understanding of the discrimination and trauma the Pacific community had endured was complete.

The apology provided a platform for remorse, remembrance, and reflection of that dark time that should, and could, inform ongoing future policy decisions. What we have before us is another opportunity to honour the spirit of the Dawn Raids apology, and we truly hope that other political parties in this House will see this. I’m not going to pretend that this is where it ends. It would be remiss of me not to mention the policy Labour took into the last election where we would have provided the opportunity for some that were here illegally to regularise their immigration status. This work has not been forgotten by the Labour Party.

Turning my mind back to the bill in front of us, Teanau Tuiono has stated clearly we are talking about 3,000 to 5,000 people, not all of whom would want to take the opportunity up. It is the right thing to do, at least to allow the bill to go to select committee. Off the back of the significant contributions Samoans have made to Aotearoa, it is the right thing to do; on behalf of the nearly 200,000 Samoans who have made New Zealand their home, it is the right thing to do; in the spirit of the 1962 Treaty of Friendship between Samoa, where we pledged the two countries would be governed by a spirit of close friendship, it is the right thing to do; and with the acknowledgement of the discriminatory immigration policy our Samoan community endured before and during the period that this legislation was passed, it is the right thing to do.

I want to implore all political parties to at least support this to select committee. There is no precedent being set when it is only being considered at select committee. That is where we get to consider the advice, the submissions from the community, and to hear from the legal experts. We don’t need to hear from the people who think they are legal experts in the House today. [Applause]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! Order!

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Labour is represented by our Samoan community. Labour is here to support the Samoan community. We stand by our Green Party brother in supporting this bill today.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity. I would like to start by congratulating the member Teanau Tuiono for his member’s bill being drawn from the ballot. I know it’s quite exciting to have a member’s bill drawn but it also brings a bit of nervousness until you know which way different parties are going to vote.

So this bill is the Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill. So, basically, this bill is to repeal that 1982 Act, and I want to just ease that member’s nervousness by saying that the ACT Party has decided to support this bill to select committee. Yes, I know, some members are looking quite surprised, but this is what the ACT Party stands for: we believe in equality; we believe in fairness. So we want to really assess this bill on the basis of these two things, equality and fairness, and I think we will get this opportunity to do that in the select committee process because we would like to hear from submitters—what submitters have to say on this bill. We would also like to see what advisers have to say on this bill.

But I also want to point out this: while I acknowledge the community leaders from the Samoan community here in the gallery—thank you so much for taking the time out to be here today—in the select committee process, we expect that the Samoan community leaders and Samoan community members will support this bill. I’m assuming all of them will support this bill. But it will be important for us to hear from other people as well, overall, like from New Zealand, to see what they think about this bill. And our support is at this stage only for the first reading. So we will decide how we will vote on this bill after we get the opportunity to see what the select committee process looks like and what submitters have said and what advisers have said.

I also want to acknowledge the member for reaching out to me and some of my caucus colleagues as well, advocating for his bill. So thank you for that. Clearly this bill is—overall, when it’s looked at—something that is to look at a historic matter. And when we look at that historic matter—this is my view—which, obviously, we want to explore in the select committee process, at the time, the citizenship of those people was revoked because those people acquired Samoan citizenship. And they acquired Samoan citizenship because Samoa became—at that time, it was Western Samoa—independent in 1962. So it was considered that people—those who acquired Samoan citizenship—chose their allegiance to Samoa over New Zealand and that was the reason why their New Zealand citizenship was revoked in that 1982 Act.

So it’s very important for us to note this. I would also like to bring to everybody’s attention that our view is by passing that legislation, what New Zealand did was perfectly fine within the legal framework of that time. So New Zealand was within its rights to do what it did at that time. And referring to the member’s letter that was attached to the email that came from a member, the member has listed various reasons why this bill should be supported. One of the reasons that is listed in the letter, which I want to talk about, is the member says that this bill will address the racist origins of the Act. We want to say that we do not see that that 1982 Act was about being racist, because if it was about being racist then we know that even in 1982 there were people from so many different parts of the world; the citizenships of all those people would have been revoked if it was based on race. But the basis was because Samoa became independent and people decided to acquire Samoan citizenship, and because they had acquired Samoan citizenship their New Zealand citizenship was revoked.

So this is really important to note. But as we have said, we want to go with a very open mind to the select committee process and see what submitters have to say. And as I also said, it’s not just about one community, what they are saying, but we would like to hear from the wider community—the whole of New Zealand—and also advisers to see where this bill sits for going forward. And with that, Madam Speaker, I would say that we are supporting this bill in the first reading. Thank you.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (NZ First): I would first like to acknowledge Teanau Tuiono for bringing this bill to the House. I think it’s an important piece of work, the Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill. I would also acknowledge—and I think it must be with great sadness—that this bill is being brought to the House without Efeso Collins being here to share it with you.

New Zealand First is here to listen to the Pacific community, our leader—and excuse me for my pronunciation—Vaovasamanaia Winston Peters, has advocated through initiatives such as the Pacific Reset, and continues to advocate for our Pacific communities. We support our Pacific neighbours and the communities that make up our country. That is why New Zealand First will be supporting this bill to select committee. It is the select committee process that will give us an opportunity to consider and make amendments that are necessary.

The bill is attempting to restore citizenship to those in Western Samoa that lost it when the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 was passed. We acknowledge that, yes, for over 40 years, the effect of this bill has been reviewed and considered and reflected upon. It will mean that approximately 5,000 people who lost citizenship in 1982 will be able to apply for and receive citizenship by grant. We acknowledge this doesn’t confer citizenship directly but creates automatic eligibility to apply for and receive citizenship.

We know there’s been numerous attempts to repeal this Act, and I acknowledge the petition in 2003, and, again, the former MP Arthur Anae for his work.

Now this member’s bill is before the House, we think it is an important consideration. I myself enjoy wonderful whānau members, who are in New Zealand, from the Samoan community. I’ve lived and worked most of my life in South Auckland and we are enriched and blessed by the contribution the Samoan community makes to our schools, to our communities, to our collective organisations.

I would like to see robust conversations. There will, of course, be considerations we have to reflect on. We have to understand the impacts, and, of course, being a Government, we have to consider the financial implications. We know that will be a process, and that process should take place in select committee where we can hear fairly, calmly, and rationally from those who are affected. We will not lose; I think we will gain from the opportunity of this conversation.

I think it is really important to reflect that we have all been blessed. I have worked with wonderful men and women who have come from Samoa, some of whom have saved my life on a couple of occasions, so I acknowledge that completely.

When, I think, many of us gave our maiden speeches in this House, we talked about the opportunities to work in a bipartisan way, to work across the House to find our common ground, to talk about what brings us together rather than divides us. I think this is an opportunity to demonstrate how we can do that. I look forward to the opportunity, and New Zealand First look forward to the opportunity, of having these discussions and really analysing what we are going to achieve here.

The fact that this matter has been sitting around for 40 years should not be something that we’re afraid of. It should be the reason that we actually take the initiative to sit down. So, again, I commend the member for bringing this to the House. I acknowledge the sadness that must exist because Efeso’s not here to join in this, but I take pleasure in supporting this bill to the select committee.

Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai TokerauMARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (): Tēnā koe. Tēnā koe e te Pīka. I te tuatahi me mihi atu. Kua tae mai tō tātou rōpū tāngata mana. Tātau katoa nau mai ki tēnei Whare. Tēnā tātau. Me te mea anō hoki me mihi ki te Speaker mai i te Samoan Parliament. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe, e te pāpā Aupito William Sio. Tēnā rā hoki koe. Me te mihi ki a koe mai i te Kīngi. Ko koe tēnā ka noho tata ki waenganui i Te Tekau Mā Rua—ka nui te mihi ki a koe. Ko koe tērā te tangata ka pupuri i te ahi i Rangiriri. Ka nui te mihi, ka nui te mihi, ka nui te mihi.

[First, I must acknowledge the esteemed group who has come today and all of us who have come to this House. I acknowledge us all. I must also acknowledge the Speaker of the Samoan Parliament. My acknowledgments to you, sir. Thank you. And I acknowledge you, sir, Aupito William Sio and extend the King’s acknowledgments to you. You sit closely amongst the Tekau Mā Rua—I acknowledge you. You held the fire at Rangiriri. I acknowledge you greatly.]

I stand to acknowledge and be grateful and to fully support this idea and this discussion today, and without it I think we would not be doing our job as Te Pāti Māori.

The whakapapa of this bill takes us back in time to an era not so long ago, in the time of the Polynesian Panthers, of the Dawn Raids, and, you know, the picture that comes to mind right now is Hone Harawira, and many of those of our whānau nō Te Tai Tokerau, he Māori katoa ka tautoko i ēnei whānau [family from Northland, they are all Māori who support these families]; and the time where Māori and Pasifika joined together to fight back against the relentless infringement of our rights as Pasifika and Māori that a Muldoon or National Government—not too dissimilar to our current one—inflicted upon us.

This era saw the rise of Pacific activism, which responded to openly racist treatment. It was 1976 when Dawn Raids began targeting Pacific households accused of harbouring overstayers, despite it being those of European ethnicity who made up two-thirds of all overstayers in New Zealand at the time. Events such as this inspired activism from the Polynesian Panthers and it is important I recognise here not only their commitment to their people but also ours.

They fought alongside us during the 1975 land march, Bastion Point, and for the right to equality during the Springbok Tour. And while the communities most impacted by events of the Dawn Raids have finally received their apology from the Crown—and there’s been a few apologies in the last maybe 24 hours, but I suggest that the Government might have to be prepared for more apologies to come, from that side, I mean—there has been little action taken to prove the sincerity of this. The affected community have not yet truly received their fair compensation. The amendments to this bill are the start of that process.

The bill will restore the right of citizenship to our Samoan community born between 1924 and 1949 that was stripped away with the introduction of the Citizen (Western Samoa) Act of 1982. Amendments to this bill will remedy and illustrate restorative action to the racial discrimination that our Pacific community were most certainly subject to during this time period.

It is our responsibility to ensure that those unfairly treated by this very institution are both witness to, and recipients of, restorative action. And it is important that whatever this restorative action may be, it is those impacted communities—those impacted communities—who inform us what this action is and that it is not those of us in this House who have never walked a day in their lives that dictate what it is that they think they need.

So I can stand in support of this bill—and I’m thrilled to and our party are absolutely glad to, and so we should—as presented by our whanaunga Teanau. So ka mihi a Te Aupōuri ki a Te Aupōuri—tēnā koe. [Te Aupōuri acknowledges Te Aupōuri.] We Māori can both acknowledge and understand what it is to experience a historical and ongoing mistreatment from this institution.

I’m glad we—well, I want us to get to select committee. We should have a select committee on this—if we don’t, we are still saying we know what’s best for you. And that is simply not the truth. It is not that we should describe what it is for others that don’t look like us, sound like us, and feel like us. And I’m saying that as a Māori.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Ou te faatalofa atu ma le faaaloalo. Malo le soifua maua ma le lagi e mamā.

The 685s to the world! For those members of the House who do not know what 685 means, it is the calling code for Samoa, but it took the 682, the Cook Islands, to bring this bill to the House, I acknowledge. There’s only a couple of times we like losing to the Cook Islanders, but today we’ll give it to you, my brother.

Today is a historical day because we have seen the Labour Party support the Greens, we have seen Te Pāti Māori support the Greens, we have seen the ACT Party support the Greens—never thought I’d see this day—and I’ve seen New Zealand First support the Greens, support the bill. And that is a historical day because today rights the wrongs of what happened in the 1980s. Now, the unfortunate thing for me is I did not learn about our New Zealand history until I chose to learn it at university, and that is something wrong with our country, that something as remarkable as the stripping of citizenship rights for Samoan people who were born during a period where New Zealand administered them, was their Government, was removed through an Act of this House. There is no point paying homage to the wars that we fought in Samoa, and that plaque above the head of the Speaker, if we do not right the wrongs of the past.

And what we have seen is through community advocacy, through a simple and very humble woman, Falemaʻi Lesa, we have seen what is possible through the power of people. The Samoan people in this country are proud of our roots and of our homeland. We are proud that we are the third most spoken language in this country. We are proud that we are the fastest growing Pacific population in Aotearoa New Zealand. And yet, we have hidden a historical wrong which is finally brought to the House which this Labour Party wholeheartedly supports. And we want to thank those who have paved the path for this. We want to thank our elders, our mafukaga Ministers, Anae Arthur Anae, we want to thank auntie Paula, who keeps sending me emails to make sure that I support this bill, and all our aunties and uncles, when they tell you that you had better support this bill, we better support this bill because the punishment that happens in our community is harder than any punishment that we would ever experience in this House!

I also want to pay homage to the Wellington lawyer George Rosenberg who supported Falemaʻi Lesa during that court case. He understood the importance of why they had to test that. For me, my father would have fallen within the Samoan citizenship Act because he was born in Samoa in 1945, and there’s a lot of our generation—the generation just above mine—that would have fallen within these particular rules, had they been left in. But what has happened is that was removed and then, like my father and many other fathers and mothers who are here within the House today, they would have had to go through a process when, by right—by birthright—they were born in a time when New Zealand administered their country.

So I want to thank the people who have brought this here today. I want to thank the rest of the parties who are supporting this bill. I want to ensure that the generation that comes after me—the generation of our children who, again, are the fastest Pacific population in New Zealand—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Fastest growing, not fastest!

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Fastest growing—fastest growing. Well, actually, some of them are quite fast. The fastest-growing population—that they learn this history, not because we’ve had to bring it to the House but because New Zealand is going to teach its history in the schools. So that is the stage that we need to start pushing. But for tonight, we give our alofa and we celebrate what is a milestone of achievement. The 685s to the world, brought to you by the 682, but we take it. Fa‘afetai tele lava.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the contributions that have been given on this debate so far from across the House. The first contribution given—and congratulations to the member for having his bill drawn from the biscuit tin. It is a tough feat to get one drawn, so congratulations and well done.

Listening to the debate this evening from across the House has been engaging. It’s been challenging on a personal level. It’s been thought provoking. It’s created an environment where people have felt safe to make their contributions to why they believe they should support or oppose the bill that is in front of us.

So I want to acknowledge, firstly, the bill being drawn and having it here debated today. I also quickly want to acknowledge those in the community that have joined us this evening. For many, first time ever coming to Parliament and experiencing the halls of power in New Zealand, welcome, welcome. We stand here to represent and work on behalf of you. We may not always get things right, we may not always achieve what we want to deliver on, but I want to acknowledge you being here and your presence. Thank you for making that effort to be here.

My colleague, Cameron Brewer, really outlined our party’s position on this bill in his excellent 10-minute contribution. But I do want to acknowledge what is glaringly obvious, that the bill has the support of the wider House. And so if the bill comes to the Governance and Administration Committee—I’m not sure yet which select committee the member is intending to nominate. If it does come to that select committee though—he’s nodding, he’s telling me yes; good man—then I look forward to the further discussions we’re going to have on the bill.

I look forward to understanding the perspectives that we’re going to be hearing on that select committee and the real-world implications that this bill may be having for people. And I appreciate the opportunity that those people will have at the select committee with the wider support that has been given across this House. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere):

Aua le kovana e

Ua e fa’afiti

E te le iloaina

O se fanata’avili

A e molimau tamaiti

ma le afafine o Kilisi

O oe lava na e fa’apa e

le fanata’avili

“Oh Governor, you have lied. You say you don’t know whose machine gun it was, but the children and the daughter of Kilisi all bear witness that you alone pulled that trigger.”

I stand here today, I welcome our Samoan community, in particular our guest Fofoga Fetalai and delegation, those who are listening at home and offshore. I began my talanoa, my kōrero, with a song, a song that was written for the time, a historical account of Samoa’s Black Saturday, when Tupua Tamasese Lealofi III was martyred during a peaceful march against New Zealand’s and Great Britain’s rule of Samoa. That particular incident: there was a horrific shooting by New Zealand military police of the Mau independence demonstrators in Apia, Samoa. That particular day, 11 Samoans died, including the independent leader, Paramount Chief Tupua Tamasese Lealofi III, on Saturday, 28 December 1929. For the record, the Paramount Chief Tupua Tamasese Lealofi III was the great-grandfather of our former colleague Anae Neru Leavasa, former Labour MP for Takanini.

Madam Speaker, on the walls of this House are 12 carved, circular rimu memorial wreaths around the balcony, and just above your head bears the name of significant engagement involving New Zealand troops in World War I. It’s the memorial wreath and ribbon of Samoa’s name engraved in there. Many New Zealanders do not know or do not understand that New Zealand administered Samoa for 48 years, from 1914 to 1962. The New Zealand administration was worse than the German administration of Samoa, 1900 to 1914, and in 2002, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, former Prime Minister of New Zealand, gave a formal apology.

Madam Speaker, you have heard my colleagues traverse today’s bill, and I want to in particular thank Teanau Tuiono, and we remember our brother Fa’anānā Efeso Collins because we miss him. Madam Speaker, you’ve heard Carmel Sepuloni, deputy leader for the Labour Party. You’ve heard Barbara Edmonds, finance spokesperson for the Labour Party. We are the daughters of the descendants of Samoa. We support this bill, the Labour Party supports this bill, and I want to thank the other parties for their support, that they support this bill to the select committee process.

I want to call and challenge the National Government. I want to call on you because you need to reconsider your position for this bill. Our Samoans have been in this country for decades. We are asking for your support that you would hear, through the select committee—Samoans need to have their say. Many Samoans have served this country for many, many decades, and what legacy do we want to leave for our young people, the future of tomorrow?

So those are the points that I wanted to raise. As you’ve heard, as you can see, the Samoan community is here in force. You’ve heard Barbara talk about “685 to the world”, because it’s not just them up there; there’s a whole global audience listening to us. Madam Speaker, I really do thank you for the opportunity. I want to acknowledge all of our colleagues that are here from the Labour Party to support this bill through to the next stage. So, Madam Speaker, I finish off those words, and I thank you. Fa‘afetai tele mo le avanoa manuia.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A really special moment to speak this evening on this bill, and I will just try and keep my time a little shorter so that we can get the final speech in before dinner because I think it’s important that we honour and acknowledge the guests and not have them have to come back. So I’m just going to try and condense this, if that’s OK with the House, in respect of our guests here, and, look, I love Samoa. They gave us Tana Umaga and Jerry Collins; how could we not love this country? I had the pleasure of flying Jerry Collins in the back of my helicopter once and I can tell you he had the loudest and highest pitched scream I’ve heard in my life. But it was a real honour because they were two guys that I really looked up to in their heyday.

And I do want to acknowledge, you know, that it can be at times difficult to engage in a debate without getting too emotive and losing focus. You know, we talk about—and the member opposite mentioned—the wreath acknowledging Samoa. And on the one hand, I acknowledge that this was about opposing colonial rule and not wanting to put one country and their occupation and their rights of citizenship—but also the responsibilities that came with it—above another country. And yet, it was also done when New Zealand went in, in 1914, as was just mentioned—it was done without firing a shot; it was completely peaceful. And isn’t it appropriate that we can have this discussion and, as it no doubt moves through to select committee and wherever it may go from there, that we can bring different perspectives, that we can have these conversations, but we don’t have to be firing shots at each other. It’s actually OK to tease out some of these ideas and to use the parliamentary processes we have to work through this and to talk about these things.

I note that what this bill does is restore citizenship not to those in more recent times from Samoa, not to those who were living in New Zealand—because they always had it, and even in 1982 their citizenship was, of course, protected if they were living in New Zealand. But the specific date period is nothing actually to do with New Zealand’s colonial trusteeship, as it was known at the time of Samoa, but it’s actually around being a British subject; it’s not about New Zealand. And so I think we do need to think through this thing. We’re giving New Zealand citizenship in response to British citizenship. So it’s actually not quite as simple as maybe some of the emotive arguments bring out.

I do think it’s important that we consider exactly why it is, without just getting into the kind of Russian doll of “the Privy Council said this, but then that Government said this and now we’re going back to the other one.” So I think there are some complex issues to go through if we want to genuinely look at these issues. Are we looking at the colonial rules, are we looking at the old citizenship, or are we looking at what is best for New Zealand, which is ultimately what this House has the responsibility for doing?

So, with that, and in view of the time, I’ll end my contribution here. I do again just want to acknowledge all those that have spoken before and those that have come to tautoko—support—this bill tonight.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Fa‘afetai tele lava to all the members of the House who have engaged with the debate today. Also, I want to once again say thank you to all the community members for coming to Parliament, and to emphasise that this Parliament is your Parliament—this is your place, this is the people’s place, as well. And, once again, to recognise, acknowledge the Speaker of the House of the Samoan Parliament and the Samoan members of Parliament that are here with us today, and people from the High Commission.

Thank you to those members that understood the intent of the bill. Fairness is at the heart of the bill. It’s very simple: we had a group of New Zealand citizens who had their citizenship recognised, and then they had their citizenship removed by statute. It’s just unfair, plain and simple. States should not be able to remove citizenship wholesale like this. It is just not the right thing to do.

I just wanted to address some of the comments from the National Party. I hope that when this comes to the select committee, they will engage with it in an open mind—that they will engage with this topic in a way that the community needs those stories to be heard. As they were speaking, I was actually reflecting on the powerful debate that we had when the Dawn Raids apology was moving through this House. I reflect on the words of the then National Party leader Judith Collins, where she actually talked about this bill. One of the points that she said, and that I agreed with, is perhaps it would have been better if the National Party and the Labour Party both did the ifoga, because during that time period the Dawn Raids happened through both Governments as well. So it is in that spirit I invite the National Party to engage in this.

I do also want to emphasise that this is automatic eligibility for a citizenship by grant, which we could and we should talk about. What are the parameters of what that grant could look like? Because I do take that point and acknowledge that point that has been shared by members and also within the media as well: we don’t want to be enabling mass migration. This is a call for the Samoan Government. It is something that should be done bilaterally, between Governments. But what we can do is provide a pathway for citizenship for those elders who had their citizenship taken away from them unjustly and acknowledge that some of them are here tonight.

I want to acknowledge the comments from my relatives in the Labour Party—I was going to say “Samoan party”; maybe I can tonight, right?—and thank them for their comments. I was reflecting on the history that Lemauga shared, about history that New Zealand should know about—because it is not just Samoan history; it is our history. If we really learn about that history, we can get this relationship right, we can get this relationship well, because that is what we need as a region. We need to understand the history. It is a painful history, but it is something that we must unravel. It is something that we must deal with.

There are things that we do well and I think we should continue to do well, and that is that relationship diplomacy. There are tensions here, political tensions in the Pacific, and we can navigate that well when we do relationship diplomacy. This bill is relationship diplomacy. If we treat the elders of Samoa with respect and dignity, and offer a pathway of citizenship back here to Aotearoa New Zealand, that is good for Aotearoa and good for Samoa and, ultimately, good for our region. Fa‘afetai tele lava. Meitaki ranuinui—682 to 685. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 74

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 49

New Zealand National 49.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the Restoring Citizenship Removed by Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is suspended until 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I move, That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I’d like to address this in three parts. Firstly, I’d just like to talk about sex offending and child sex offending, and my experience and what led me to bring this bill to the House. Secondly, I’d just like to talk about the bill itself, what the bill does, and the good work done by the Justice Committee to get it to this stage. And, thirdly, I’d just like to explain how I believe the bill can work to ensure that it does what it’s meant to do and make our victims much safer.

When we think of child sex offenders, often thoughts go to the stranger in the park or the chap in the blue campervan trying to pick up children near schools, but they are a relatively rare type of sex offender, particularly these days. The real sex offenders, the real danger, lies much closer to home. The vast majority of sex offenders know their victim, the victim knows them, and certainly, more ominously, the offender often knows the family and the caregivers of the family. That’s where we need to direct our protection, direct our laws, to prevent further offending.

In my years as a detective, I interviewed many of these people, and I found them not to be the well-organised criminals that they often are painted to be. They’re often quite pathetic individuals. Often they’ve been abused themselves. Often they’re quite inadequate and struggle to exist within mainstream society. And, for various reasons, they predate and victimise those most vulnerable in our society: our children, the very people we really need to protect from them.

Now, the law is pretty well established in this area. There are plenty of offences on the statute book to deal with them, and when they are located, they will go to prison, often for a very long time. Sadly, the way these things come to light, often because of the trust situation involved, it can be some time between the offending and the disclosure. My own experience was often, when an offender was located, they had been suspected before and may have been moved to another family, moved to another situation, and often the disclosure would come. It was often through the schools, often to a school friend, and the schools would bring the information to the authorities, either then social welfare or one of the agencies or police.

Sadly, in my early days, if it came to police, police would deal with it as a criminal justice issue. Often the other agencies would deal with it as a protection issue. And I have to say that it’s only in recent years that the way of dealing with victims and offenders has improved considerably, and I think people generally are much safer—our way of ascertaining, of identifying these individuals, the warning signs going off. I think we’re much more professional and better at that. However, we still need to ensure that we have the means and the protection to deal with it, and that’s where this legislation comes in.

In 2016, the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act was passed. There’s been a couple of amendments since, but, essentially, the purpose of the Act was to establish a child sex offender register to reduce sexual reoffending against children and provide the Government agencies the information they need to protect our most vulnerable. A registrable offender is a person who has been convicted of a qualifying offence and has been sentenced to imprisonment or has been sentenced to a non-custodial sentence and has been made subject to a registration order. A person is not a registrable offender if, at the time they committed the offence, they were under 18. The qualifying offences are class 1, class 2, and class 3 offences as defined in the Crimes Act and cover a full range of offending where the victim is under 16.

Of note and pertinent to this bill, a corresponding registrable offender is a person who, as a consequence of a conviction in a foreign jurisdiction for a corresponding offence, has been sentenced to imprisonment or, essentially, would be still eligible for an equivalent child sex offender register in that jurisdiction. It’s important in relation to this bill, as it acknowledges the need for protections to exist beyond countries’ borders. The register imposes on offenders reporting obligations on a number of pieces of information, particularly around their addresses—importantly, the name, sex, and date of birth of each child who generally resides in the same household as that in which the offender resides, laid out in the Act.

An important part of the Act—and, again, touching on my amendment—is that the registered offender, if intending to be away from their registered residential address within New Zealand, and 48 hours before they travel, must provide to police the details of each address at which that offender intends to stay, the dates the offender intends to stay at those addresses, whether any child will be or is likely to reside together with the offender at any of those addresses, and the date the offender intends to return to their registered address. They can leave New Zealand, under the existing Act, provided they provide their dates of travel and the date they intend to return.

However, unlike such travel within New Zealand, the registered offender is currently not obliged to supply police with their intended addresses in the country they will visit or whether there will be children at the address. My bill as it’s reported back requires offenders to advise the police of the names of the countries they will stay in for more than 48 hours, the addresses they intend to stay in in that country, the date they intend to travel to and leave that country, and, if they do not intend to return to New Zealand, provide the details of the country they intend to reside in.

I want to thank the very hard-working Justice Committee of both this and the last Parliament, led by James Meager and Vanushi Walters respectively. While it was a relatively small bill, it wasn’t an easy one. The Attorney-General was concerned about section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Those same concerns existed when the original bill and the subsequent amendments went through, and they were considered by the committee. I’m sure there’ll be committee members later on who will talk about that. To their credit, they have decided that the same reasons that were used in the main legislation and subsequent amendments still exist today. And, while there were concerns in that area, the risk to the potential victims outweighs the rights of the offender or the freedoms of the offender.

A second part of the concerns dealt with by the committee were police concerns about the ability to actually monitor the bill when these offenders are overseas without any reciprocal amendments or legislation. I can say that most of the Australian states have similar legislation. The Canadians have just passed some very similar legislation, and they too, without reciprocal arrangements, rely on, as the New Zealand Police can, Interpol. They can rely on the fact that most police forces have a good network of liaison officers working out of embassies in most countries and develop the sorts of relationships necessary to have the offenders checked.

But an important part also is that this actually, while giving protection to potential victims and victims, gives protection to offenders. Offenders don’t do good jail time, and most don’t want to go back. They’ve got a very low recidivism rate—again, as I talked about before—because they do the programmes and also they don’t want to go back. Often, by the time they’re found, also they are older in life and the risks of offending have reduced. So the offenders, by knowing the authorities know where they’re going to be, have been known to talk about how that was a protection that they themselves enjoyed having.

I could speak for much longer, and I’m sure others will, but this bill and my amendment is about ensuring that for those victims, potential victims—say, in New Zealand, in places like Napier or Oamaru—we’re offering them, often family members, those known to the offender, the same protection in places like Mooloolaba, in places like Perth, because that’s where the real risk lies. And so I commend this bill to the House, and I look forward to it going through to the committee of the whole House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Can I begin my contribution tonight just by acknowledging the member responsible for the bill, Greg O’Connor. We had quite a bit to do with Greg throughout the passage of the bill in the last four to five months, and it was a pleasure having him join us at the Justice Committee—the very busy and hard-working Justice Committee, I might say. It’s a real pleasure to see one of our many, many bills that we’re considering at the moment pass through the select committee stage and be presented here to the House to finally debate it—one off our list, and there are about 12 or 13 more to go. So we’ll be working our way through those over the next week while, but it was a real pleasure to have Mr O’Connor with us, not just for his latent cricketing ability but also for the fact that he comes to this bill with many, many years of what you might now call lived experience in this area.

The fact is that the member for Ōhāriu has been operating in this area in the past previously and knows what it’s like to deal with the individuals subjected to this legislation. He knows that the purpose of this bill ultimately is one thing, and the member discussed it very well. The purpose of it is that it’s all about protecting children. That is the single purpose of this bill and it was outlined relatively well by the member that while it is a small bill, it does make some significant changes, and there are some section 7 New Zealand Bill of Rights implications that the committee grappled with, which I’ll touch on in my contribution. But I just wanted to acknowledge the way that Mr O’Connor engaged with the committee, provided his input into the bill, and provided his actual experience and recommendations as to why some of the concerns about officials may not be justified.

One of those that, I think, was raised well during the committee process was this question of enforceability, and this idea that we could pass these laws and we could require registered sex offenders to provide this information, but there was no way of enforcing it once they were offshore and we would have to have international enforcement agreements. If I recall correctly, it turned out during the committee process that the same issue of enforceability may well exist on our own shores in that registered sex offenders onshore in New Zealand are also required to provide similar information, but the ability of law enforcement here to follow that up and to check on that may well in itself be enforced. So we felt, as a committee, that any issues around enforceability could be addressed and could be solved through operational processes and that that should not get in the way of supporting a bill like that through the committee and into the House today.

Can I acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee and—with your indulgence, Mr Chair—try and take our processes through as to how we came to the conclusion of supporting the bill unanimously through to the House today. As this is one of our first contributions on the second reading, my understanding is that we are to discuss what happened in the committee: the bill as presented, the changes—significant changes—we made, the submissions we received, and anything that we wanted to bring to the attention of the House. So can I acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee members—Labour, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori, National, ACT, and New Zealand First colleagues—for their contributions and for raising very serious and real issues and trying to work through them in a detailed and methodical way.

Can I also acknowledge Minister Erica Stanford, whose Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—well, it was a Supplementary Order Paper at the time; I believe that now we have amended them to be called Amendment Papers themselves—was put forward to the committee and was actually adopted without any real contest. That SOP, or Amendment Paper, aimed to ensure that individuals listed on the register were subject to Customs Service border alerts, which was a small hole that the previous member but now Minister identified and put forward to the committee, and we were very glad to be able to work that into the process too. Can I just also acknowledge the work of the officials and our clerk, Liam, who, essentially, held our hands as new committee members through this process over the first wee while.

So, as I said, this bill is about protecting children. It is a very simple, straightforward bill. It requires registered child sex offenders to provide additional information when they are travelling overseas for more than 48 hours, and it actually struck me as quite interesting that we didn’t require this already. I would have assumed that we would have had some sort of system where those individuals that we see as posing a significant risk to the community post-incarceration would be subject to these kinds of restrictions and requirements to report their whereabouts, their intentions for travel, and where they were going to go. I think it surprised many on the committee to realise that this wasn’t in place already, and the member has done a very good job in identifying that hole in the law and seeking to remedy it.

As I mentioned before, there were some concerns raised by the Attorney-General at the time, the Hon David Parker—who I acknowledge has been in the Chamber today—and I will go through the issues because I think they are important to raise. I think it’s also important for me to try and explain why I think we get through this issue of—and it may be just that we disagree on whether or not the restrictions are an unjustified limitation on those individuals’ rights. But I have a view on this, which is that this legislation has been before the House in 2015, again in 2017, in 2021 with amendments, and now, in 2024, it is, hopefully, passing through the House with support, and at some point we must recognise that what does qualify—putting the Hansen test aside—as being demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society should at some point be able to be endorsed by the Parliament itself. It should not be up to a technical test on a breakdown of Oakes and Hansen on the minimal impairment and proportionality and rational connection, but at some point, Parliament should be able to decide for itself, over multiple iterations of the same types of limitations in legislation, that it, as the holder of parliamentary sovereignty, has deemed it to be worthy of a democratically justified limit.

Those limits that were raised by the former Attorney-General and officials were around the right for offenders to benefit from the ability of a lesser penalty where two penalties were available. The second infringement raised was the issue around double jeopardy, in that once you have been convicted and sentenced for a crime and you have served your time and are released into the public, and then Parliament comes along and applies another law which is further seen as a penalty, it could be seen as double jeopardy, and I think the courts have made that case out relatively well. The third one was this issue of retrospectivity and the uncertainty when the bill first came through as to whether or not it would apply to just those offenders being released from the date or who go on to the register from when the bill commenced, or if it was every offender on the child sex offender registry. I think the bill was a little unclear at the start about that, and officials made the very good point that when you are legislating and you are going to imply that it has retrospective effect, that retrospective effect should be made explicit in order to reduce the damage or the infringement on those rights.

So the select committee report outlines the committee’s views on those three issues fairly clearly. They were ones that we grappled with throughout our committee, and I’m sure, knowing what is ahead of us on our legislative timetable, that it may well be that we return to the well of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analyses quite a few times in the next years, but that’s the nature of the Justice Committee, I think. When Parliament decides or the House decides to put forward proposals in the justice sector, they are inevitably going to infringe somewhat on people’s liberties and freedoms, and we are going to have to have that balancing test around there.

I just want to conclude my initial contribution while in this reading to just very, very quickly go over some of the statistics around our submitters. So, from memory, I don’t think we had any oral submitters. It may have been in the interregnum between the two terms of Parliament, because this bill came before us in the previous Parliament and is continuing on now. I understand from the report—I believe that Mr O’Connor made an oral submission in the Ministry of Justice’s submission’s support of the Attorney-General’s report, but otherwise there were not that many submitters who expressed a view on the bill. I think there were about 10 written submissions, eight of which were in favour, one, I think, was neutral, and maybe one or two more were opposed. So the bill appears to have at least support from those members of the public institutions that did raise concerns.

I’d like to acknowledge the submission from, I believe, the Law Society, who raised a number of very important points—that was Caroline Silk. This was around the infringement on freedoms, retrospectivity, and consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and, hopefully, we’ve done enough to address some of those concerns.

Finally, in the last few seconds of my contribution, just to summarise the main changes that were made around the bill, in clause 2, we did extend the commencement date to allow the New Zealand Police time to manage their operational requirements to implement the bill, and we did strengthen some of the information-sharing requirements, or clarified what it was that departments could do—what information Police and the Customs Service could share about child sex offenders when they are leaving the country.

So I commend the member for bringing the bill to the House. I apologise that he couldn’t quite get his last one across the line. I think he haunts me in the hallways with cries of “Jock McKenzie saved the land throughout the country!”, but I’m happy to support this bill today, and I think one from two is not a bad hit rate. So I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s a pleasure to rise and speak in support of Greg O’Connor’s bill. It is a relatively small adjustment to the existing register and requirement of sex offenders to notify the Police, in some cases, of their movements.

I would say, I’ve just been reading—and my friend’s got it there—Amendment Paper 175, which I see the Minister of Immigration has tabled. I note that it looked to allow, essentially, information matching between Police and Customs. I must say, I’d be interested to hear members from the other side speak to this, because we had plenty of opportunity, as the chair has noted, to discuss this at the Justice Committee, including an opportunity for the Minister—it’s in the name of Erica Stanford, the Minister of Immigration—to come to the committee and talk to it. So I’m surprised that it’s popped up at this late notice. After discussions with the member in charge of the bill, I understand that it wasn’t signalled to the member, which is a breach of courtesy, if nothing else.

Now, it may be that this Amendment Paper will not raise any concerns when we get to committee stage, but it would have been good to see this kind of step go through a full and robust process. In particular, information matching does raise privacy concerns, and I’m sure the Privacy Commissioner would have liked to have had some discussions around this Amendment Paper, had in fact it been drawn to the commissioner’s attention, as, of course, would the member in charge. So I do hope that the Minister will actually come down and speak to this Amendment Paper and exactly why it is needed.

The chair of the Justice Committee was perhaps a little dismissive of the Attorney-General’s report, and I can see why, but I do think we need to take statements from the Attorney-General—after all, she is, she is a King’s Counsel, if you hadn’t been told already. But the fact of the matter is that the Attorney-General points out a couple of things of concern. I guess the one that I think is most concerning, and the thing that in criminal law we need to be most aware of, is retrospectivity—that people have had a punishment meted out in the courts, which was the appropriate punishment under the law at the time, and we then go back and make it even more stringent. So there are people who are currently subject to the restrictions that being a sex offender places on them. Those restrictions are now going to be increased by this notification provision, and that’s going to be done retrospectively.

In some ways, I guess, one of the things is whether you see this notification regime as an element of punishment or whether you see it simply as a community safety measure, but certainly it is a constraint on the liberty of the offenders that’s being placed retrospectively. The way I get around that, I guess, is to say, well, it may have that effect, but, certainly, its dominant purpose is to protect potential victims, if you like, and that, in terms of proportionality, the burden on the offender is quite low. Because we’re not refusing the ability to travel, we’re just requiring certain notification provisions.

So with that, really, I wanted to say that I think this is a good bill. It went through the select committee and actually did have a fair bit of working over. And anyone who reads the select committee report will see that there are some substantial changes, including the removal of some clauses, such as clause 4, where an amendment to section 21 was removed, where the kind of detail that perhaps was needed was actually watered down a bit so that you didn’t need to know every element of the person’s travel. Rather, it was simply the date they were to travel in and out of New Zealand and where they’re going to predominantly be residing and when they’re intending to return to New Zealand, and a few other bits and pieces in there.

But, look, again, I congratulate the member on a useful addition, because we absolutely endorse the need to reduce the number of victims that are out there. But, as the member in charge of the bill, Greg O’Connor, said, it’s also about assisting offenders to not put themselves in situations where risk is created, so it’s actually good for the offender as well. So, once again, congratulations; I commended it to the House.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Greens want a world where all children, here and across the world, live safe lives, free from sexual violence and abuse. We know we must strengthen and work to prevent sexual violence from ever happening in the first place. We want to see justice for all survivors of sexual violence and abuse, especially children. People who have sexually violated children must be held accountable for the heartbreaking and enduring harm that they have inflicted. Offenders must be accountable and supported to stop their violent behaviour, and there must be restoration and reparation directly to the survivors and their needs.

We wish to state our position unequivocally, because the research and evidence spells out very clearly where the real levers for protecting our children are. The issue of ending violence against children has been a longstanding priority for the Green Party and will continue to be. Under the country’s first ever Minister for the prevention of violence, Marama Davidson, Marama Davidson was able to pull together the country’s first ever 25-year nationwide strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence—eliminate.

Unfortunately, and with respect to the member, this bill is not the most effective way forward to protect children from sexual violence and abuse, so the Greens will not be supporting this legislation. At best, this bill will do nothing to improve the safety and lives for children. At worst, the bill will disrupt genuine rehabilitation approaches for offenders to change their harmful behaviour. The Greens cannot in good conscience support any legislation that risks prevention of violence work and does not improve the prospects of survivors.

The bill amends the Child Protection (Child Sexual Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016 to “require registered child sex offenders to provide additional information to … Police before travelling overseas”. This information includes addresses of all the places they will stay for more than 48 hours, the number identifying the country of issue of all passports they hold, timely and reasonable explanation of any changes to this information. Currently, child sex offenders are already required to provide this type of information for some travel or changes of location within New Zealand. This bill will remove disparities in reporting requirements between domestic and international travel. The penalties for failure to report will also be comparable: failing to comply with reporting obligations, a fine of up to $2,000 or imprisonment for one year; and providing false or misleading information, a fine of up to $4,000.

This bill only applies to known convicted offenders. The aim of the Child Sex Offender Register is to improve child safety by having up-to-date information available on known child sex offenders living in the community that can be used to monitor risk of reoffending. Who’s registered? People who have been convicted of sexual offending against children—specifically, those offenders who have been convicted of a qualifying offence and were aged 18 years or over, and the victim was under 16 years when the offence was committed, and were sentenced to imprisonment or sentenced to a non-custodial sentence and directed to be registered at the discretion of the sentencing judge. So this bill only captures convicted known offenders, which, while important as a capture as it is—we have to be explicit about the confines of this bill and who it relates to.

At best, registers like this do nothing in and of themselves to reduce offending and, at worst, undermine rehabilitation efforts and safe integration into community. We have that evidence very clearly. This is an example of flawed legislation that will make politicians feel better about themselves and look tough on crime while there is no substance behind this action. This bill is only aimed at revictimisation, and there are far more effective and proven ways to address revictimisation, and some of those are addressed in Te Aorerekura. Te Aorerekura is the all-of-Government, prevention-focused, Tiriti-centred, strength-based, community-led, and whole-of-whānau embraced and embedded strategy to eliminate violence over the next couple of generations.

The Green Party remains strongly invested in enduring work to ensure children are safe, not just make politicians feel like they’re doing something. This bill will not resolve the significant harm of children being violated by sexual violence. While this bill offers no substance to safe responses to violence or prevention of violence, it is also regrettable and substandard lawmaking. As legislators, we must uphold a high standard of lawmaking as the cornerstone of a modern and functional democracy.

In a second reading, it is appropriate to refer to the select committee report. After the first reading, submissions are heard from the public and interested agencies. It is really important to put on record here that both the Attorney-General and the Ministry of Justice were at pains to highlight that this legislation is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) and therefore risks a dangerous precedent if we want to be serious lawmakers. The Justice Committee’s own report noted the statement of the Attorney-General that “the evidence is limited as to the effectiveness of [sexual] offender registers in improving public safety.” The report quotes that “he”—the Attorney-General—“considered that the intrusion on that right”—to benefit from lesser penalty where penalties charged—“was not in due proportion to the importance of the objective of the bill and could not be demonstrably justified.” This is from the Attorney-General.

Now, we do in this House weigh up public interest and public benefits whenever we have to consider breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but the Greens have already been clear that this bill does not offer effective solutions to keeping children safe and, even worse, risks disrupting the meaningful work of offenders to stop using harm. Any inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act would have to be conditional on a proven, effective reason for public good. There is no such reason in this case, because, as stated, there is not enough evidence that this bill will be effective in keeping children safe from sexual violence offenders, and we all in this House are unified in agreeing that we want to keep children safe from sexual violence and offenders.

I want to highlight that the select committee in its report did note the inconsistencies with BORA, but the report chooses to take the inconsistencies into consideration but not make any changes to achieve consistency. That is why the Greens must put on record, on the Hansard and in this House, that we do not support ignoring inconsistencies.

So, in closing, I repeat the Greens’ value: the Greens want a world where all children here and across the world live lives free from sexual violence and abuse. We know we must strengthen the work to prevent sexual violence from ever happening in the first place. We want to see justice for all survivors of sexual violence and abuse, especially children. People who have sexually violated children must be held accountable for the heartbreaking and enduring harm that they have inflicted. Offenders must be accountable and supported to stop their violent behaviour, and there must be restoration and reparation directly to the survivors and their needs. Unfortunately, this bill, at best, will not make life safer for children. At worst, it will disrupt genuine rehabilitation for offenders to stop using violence. The Greens instead will keep advocating—[Time expired]

LAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you. I rise today in support of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill on its second reading, presented by Mr Greg O’Connor.

This bill helps to address a critical issue that has been plaguing our society—child sex tourism and the exploitation and abuse of children is a huge issue. I agree with the member who has just resumed her seat, Kahurangi Carter, that this is not going to solve the bigger issues. However, this is one of the critical steps and I was actually really surprised that this isn’t already happening. It will provide Police, Customs, and specified agencies the ability to share details of a convicted child sex offender when travelling to other jurisdictions, and this is really important.

I also extend my appreciation to the past and present members of the Justice Committee for their work on this bill. I know that I’m not part of that committee and my fellow colleague Todd Stephenson was, and I’m just stepping in tonight because we thought he wouldn’t be in the House. But I want to acknowledge you guys and acknowledge the issues that were raised within the committee: the issues around the bill of human rights and the retrospectivity, and also what info was shared about offenders.

The impact of child abuse, particularly in the form of sexual exploitation on young lives, cannot be overstated. Children who are victims of such crimes often suffer long-lasting physical, mental, and sexual health repercussions. The trauma inflicted on these innocent souls can be so severe that it amounts to torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. It is alarming to note that child sex tourism is actually a significant component of the sex tourism industry in certain regions such as Thailand, where hundreds of thousands of children are estimated to be working in the sex trade. This is a heinous crime that preys on the most vulnerable members of society, and I cannot allow previous sex offenders in this country to travel to countries like this, unknown, to be doing harm to other children overseas. I think that is absolutely critical.

Social attitudes that tolerate or ignore such crimes provide offenders, especially travelling sex offenders, with a sense of anonymity and impunity. It is heartening to see that efforts are being made in the private sector on global and regional and national levels to help address these challenges. We’re seeing hotel chains coming up with management around identifying potential issues when it comes to this industry.

This bill seeks to amend the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016 to require registered child sex offenders to provide additional information to the police before travelling overseas. This is a step in the right direction as it will enable law enforcement agencies to better protect children in countries the offenders travel to, and help identify cases of sex tourism.

As a party that stands firm against crime, especially crimes against the most vulnerable, we must support measures that restrict the freedom of those who seek to harm our children. However, we must also acknowledge that this bill may not be a panacea. Some offenders may still choose to travel overseas for shorter periods to avoid detection. Therefore, I urge the Government to consider extending these requirements to all registered sex offenders travelling overseas, regardless of the duration of their visit. We must remain vigilant and proactive in our efforts to protect our children and ensure that perpetrators of such heinous crimes are brought to justice.

I just want to highlight that the registered sex offenders are the ones that have been caught—the ones that we know to be perpetrators. It is the ones that walk around amongst us that we don’t know about that must be our biggest focus. The World Health Organization reports that one in 13 men and one in five women are sexually abused globally. In New Zealand, one in seven children are estimated to experience sexual abuse—one in seven children in New Zealand. That is alarming.

So, in conclusion, I support this bill and I urge my colleagues across the House to do the same. I hope that—I mean, the Greens are still here: I hope you guys reconsider because there are bigger issues. Don’t get me wrong, this is not a one-stop shop and it doesn’t go far enough, but there are other things that we can do and this is just a very small step and I think it’s one of the levers we should use. Thank you.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): I rise today to take this call on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill, on behalf of New Zealand First. Now, this bill seeks to address an area which is very important for New Zealand First, and that is of public safety, particularly that of our most vulnerable in our society: our children. As already mentioned, there is a register that already exists, which holds a record of a range of up-to-date personal information about registered child sex offenders living within the community. It is a tool to help police and corrections staff with the monitoring of people who have offended in the past, with the aim of preventing reoffending.

This bill, the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill, aims to enhance measures for monitoring and regulating the overseas travel of these registered child sex offenders. It proposes amendments to the existing legislation to require registrable offenders to provide additional information to the authorities before they travel overseas for more than 48 hours. This bill seeks to align reporting requirements for domestic and overseas travel, and it enhances the collaboration between the New Zealand Police and our Customs Service to protect our children from potential risks posed by overseas travellers.

New Zealand First’s position is that we will support this bill. New Zealand First upholds the principles of protecting vulnerable individuals, safeguarding public safety, and ensuring the effective enforcement of laws. We prioritise the wellbeing of our children in the communities and we will always advocate for policies that promote their safety and their security.

Now, whilst a significant proportion of convicted child sex offenders do not reoffend once they are released from prison and back in society again, it is important to note that some do. Due to the nature of the type of offence, if, by chance, during a temporary lapse of reason, the offender commits yet another sexual offence, the consequences for the victims are by no means temporary. From the traumatic emotional harm and the possible physical harm caused as a result of this attack, the suffering for the victim and their family will continue. It could be that this one event is the beginning of another systemic family pattern of abuse. The introduction of this bill would be another measure to protect the most vulnerable in our society.

So what are some of the reasons that New Zealand First are supporting this bill? Well, as already mentioned, it will enhance the monitoring and the regulation, with additional information required when the offender is overseas, and for every country that they go to. Also, if an offender does not want to return to New Zealand, they have to also make that known and where they will be.

Now, another reason that we’re supporting this bill is because of the alignment with domestic reporting requirements. It will align the requirements for domestic and overseas travel, which will ensure consistency and coherency in monitoring the movements of these registrable offenders. This alignment streamlines enforcement efforts and facilitates cooperation between the agencies domestically and internationally. Also, it’s a collaborative approach to protecting our children, the most vulnerable. The bill will promote a collaboration between New Zealand Police and Customs, leveraging their networks and resources to better protect the children in the countries where the offenders will travel to. By enabling this information sharing and coordination between the relevant agencies, this will strengthen the bill and these international efforts that are being taken around the world to combat child sex tourism, which, sadly, is a very real thing.

As I’ve already mentioned, New Zealand First is all about protecting our vulnerable, and it’s a big reason why we will be supporting this bill. Now, some may say, “Well, what about the rights of the offender?” That is a valid question. They do also deserve a chance to rehabilitate and to not live under this cloud of shame and judgment for the remainder of their lives. What if, however, these additional requirements were, in fact, a deterrent for the sex offender? As mentioned, due to the nature of this offence, it can be a decision made in a split second that could lead to irreversible consequences for the victim. What if by having these extra measures, it would be a deterrent that they need to take responsibility for their actions, and ownership for their second chance at life, themselves?

So, in summary, New Zealand First believes that public safety concerns and the safety of children, who are our most vulnerable and defenceless, far outweighs the privacy or equal protection claims of the sex offender, and it is why we believe that this bill will be well received. I’m very happy to commend it to the House. Thank you.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Just a little bit of backdrop from me in terms of why I’m standing here and why I’m going to speak to this particular take [subject]. So coming from Puao-te-Ata-tu 1989 through to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, having set up one of the first sexual assault counselling services in Taupō in the 1990s, a care and protection social worker in Department of Social Welfare. Most of you won’t remember that; it was a bit old. More recently in the fusion suicide prevention space and family harm and children’s team. So that’s a number of places and people and experiences and integrity, I guess, that I have to utilise in this discussion.

Te Pāti Māori have previously voted against bills that further entrench punitive approaches to crime, punishment, and rehabilitation. This was the driver behind our initial opposition to the amendments of this bill during the first reading. While we Te Pāti Māori maintain that there is an absolute need for the complete overhaul of the criminal justice system, replaced by a Māori Justice Authority, which would oversee a justice system based on tikanga Māori, we know that protecting tamariki, mokopuna is critical, no matter where they are in the world.

The amendments to this bill will not change circumstances for victims and their whānau, but it will aid—so you can just hold this in; just take a breath—in the prevention of further potential harm to others through increased monitoring of registered child sex offenders. Because I get it. I worked in this space. There’s probably very few in this House that could debate this with me and win. Prevention—this is a word I will sit on for a while here as it is something that most Governments have failed to achieve in areas not exclusive to justice. So it feels almost unnatural to use this term prevention when discussing amendments to this bill. I’ll be careful to use the term lightly in this context, as when we shine a light on to our young people here: 18 percent have already experienced sexual abuse by the time they reach the ages between 15 and 18. And it is a higher proportion of Māori who are victim to crime.

These experiences are historically repetitive. I only need to choose any year at random to discover truly frightening statistics that expose the experiences of our tamariki. For example, take 2017 and our Māori children who are already overrepresented in Child, Youth and Family care services were also overrepresented as victims to sexual abuse, making up 37 percent of total harmed.

While the amendments to this bill will potentially prevent further harm internationally, they will not prevent what happens here to our tamariki. This bill should guide us to consider prevention beyond what we discuss today. That is the way we might realistically be able to protect our tamariki and prevent their future suffering as experienced by victims of child sexual abuse who are up to two times more likely to have adverse problems later in life.

It is important for us to be reminded of the reality of tamariki during discussions which will directly impact them, and so, regarding the term prevention, I will both recommend further preventative action and that will protect our tamariki while also commending this bill to the House. Tēnā tātou.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I rise in support of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill. We’ll just call it the bill, I think, after this. Look, as part of the Justice Committee, ably chaired by my colleague here James Meager, we worked through this judiciously. It was presented, of course, in the amendment bill form to the 53rd Parliament on 3 August 2022—and others have spoken about how its architecture goes back much further than that as well—with submissions closing on 14 September 2022.

I was interested to learn that the Green Party—there’s a surprise every day in Parliament, and for us, today, it was that the Green Party won’t be supporting this, particularly—as my colleague Dan Bidois has spelt out because I wanted the full title of it—as their co-leader the Hon Marama Davidson was, of course, the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence.

Now, as other speakers have said, this will not solve everything; this will not stop everybody. But man, it’s an improvement. And as others have also said, they’re surprised that these policies and procedures and requirements are not in place.

We’ve heard the words “sex tourism” and “exploitation” kind of thrown around tonight, but the reality is—as the sponsor, Greg O’Connor, has told us repeatedly in select committee, and reminded us—that the perpetrators are normally known to the victims: friends and family. It’s not some overly sophisticated sex tourism thing, it’s—to use Mr Greg O’Connor’s language—normally those that might be going to Perth or Mooloolaba, and so visiting friends and family in the likes of Australia. And so it offers up greater protections for those children in those jurisdictions that we are supporting tonight.

At its core, the bill seeks to address significant gaps identified in the existing legal framework by imposing stricter reporting obligations on registered child sex offenders before they travel abroad by mandating—and again, amazing that this hasn’t happened in this form before—comprehensive reporting of travel plans including destination details, duration of stay, and passport information. The main provisions include this: offenders intending to return to New Zealand must report each overseas address where they will stay and the dates of travel to and from each country; offenders not intending to return must report the country where they intend to reside; all offenders must report the passport number, place of issue, and expiry date of every valid passport they hold.

So, tonight, what this does is it enhances New Zealand’s capacity to protect children globally by ensuring that the likes of New Zealand Police and our Customs Service have detailed information on the movements of these registered child sex offenders. And as others have canvassed, it brings in line overseas travel reporting requirements with those already in place for domestic travel. So I would argue it’s long overdue.

Again, I wanted to pay tribute to the bill’s sponsor, Greg O’Connor. He sat very patiently in the Justice Committee, waiting for his item to come up, and he spoke very passionately for it. He’s also spoken earlier tonight about his work as a detective many, many, many years ago and the fact that he saw this in many confronting guises, and saw firsthand the impacts. He used the word—in most cases these people, the offenders, were, sadly, just pathetic—just pathetic.

So the National Party stands with Mr O’Connor, stands with other parties—minus the Green Party—who look set to support this. Again, disappointing that the previous Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence isn’t in support of this, but we believe this is a critical step in enhancing international cooperation, strengthening monitoring capabilities, and safeguarding vulnerable children. And so why wouldn’t we go there? And the chair—

Dan Bidois: They voted for it.

CAMERON BREWER: They voted for it in select committee, the Green Party, but they’ve since changed their mind. The select committee—as I’ve said, ably chaired by Otago alumni James Meager, our in-house solicitor—made a number of recommendations, all of them for proposed amendments, all of them unanimous. He’s already taken us through, clause 2—we postponed the bill’s commencement to allow police time to prepare and inform offenders about the new requirements. We eliminated redundant passport information reporting provisions giving existing obligations. As he’s also said, our proposed amendments from select committee proposed the Act clarify and enhance information sharing between specified agencies for public safety and risk management; and explicitly applying the bill retrospectively, as well, was a proposal from this select committee to ensure comprehensive coverage of all registered offenders.

So this is something that now comes to its second reading and, hopefully, on to its third reading, and it’s something that should have, arguably, been in place and something that, even if it saves—“even if it saves”, as we often say in this House—one child, would be well worth our time. We know it’s going to do better than that, and with the increased technological improvements and now with the increased reporting capability and requirements, this is going to mean that we know where our registered sex offenders are overseas, and our police and our Customs do too. Why wouldn’t we want to know that information? Why wouldn’t the Green Party want to know that information? That is the staggering—that is the biggest surprise for us in the National Party here tonight. Why wouldn’t the previous Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence say to her party and caucus, “We have got to support this. Yes, we’ve got concerns. Members, please table them, in the Green Party. But, overall, we have got to support this.”

But, sadly, the Green Party aren’t and so it’s left to the other parties: as we know, the National Party, unanimous in their support of 49 votes; the Labour Party have been strong in their support for Greg O’Connor’s intentions; Todd Stephenson, on the Justice Committee, represented by Laura Trask, they’ve been strongly supportive, as have New Zealand First. And so we come together as kind of like the super coalition, really—

Laura Trask: And the Māori Party.

CAMERON BREWER: And Te Pāti Māori—and Te Pāti Māori. Oh look, jeez, thank you for pointing that out, this is a mega-super coalition of support—“Kumbaya” has broken out. But I would argue that it’s broken out for the very, very reasons that most of us are here, whether we’re aunts or uncles, neighbours, grandparents, parents, parents-to-be, nephews, nieces, we’ve all got connections, we’ve all got such precious people in our lives that we want to protect. There is no more vulnerable people in this society, I would argue, no more vulnerable people in this society than our young, young children. And protecting them from registered sex offenders is core business to this Parliament, and so I commend this bill.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to stand and speak in support of my colleague and friend Greg O’Connor’s member’s bill, the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill. Two sets of brackets Greg, that’s impressive.

This is a good bill because it extends upon what has already been working well in New Zealand. Established back in around 2016 was New Zealand’s first ever sex offender register, which required those sex offenders, when travelling within New Zealand, if travelling away from their primary residence, to make sure it was recorded where they were staying and for the length of time they’re staying, within New Zealand. The specific reason behind this is to identify if there would be children residing in the house.

So what this bill really does is bring the overseas requirements for child sex offenders in line with the requirement which already exists when offenders travel domestically. So they will need to provide addresses of travel, particularly when there will be children present. This bill amends the primary legislation in a simple form to make these requirements incumbent upon those registered sex offenders who are travelling internationally. This works to grow the community of countries who are all looking out for the best interests of New Zealand, of children, and particularly New Zealand children.

It’s important to note that there has been quite a body of work being done to identify potential gaps in borders, to identify existing opportunities that sex offenders can utilise in order to reach areas where children are unprotected. Typically, I’m not a big fan of policies that are based on the idea of deterring someone from committing a crime because most of the research demonstrates that deterrence in itself doesn’t really work in terms of preventing crime from happening. But this is one area where the high level of premeditation involved is one where evidence demonstrates that deterrence does have a valuable factor involved.

I looked into this particularly when I had my own member’s bill in the same space, looking at online grooming. All the evidence I could see was that there is a high level of premeditation, planning, and essentially building a web—is the way it’s described by those experts—where it facilitates and enables a sex offender to commit crimes. And there can be years and years of planning going into establishing an environment that enables the offender to access young, vulnerable people. So whatever we can do to join up with the international community to prevent that from happening is a good thing.

It’s important to note that we’ve already done some work internationally, so there’s already a United Nations convention that New Zealand has signed up to, along with a number of other countries. And what that convention has done will work alongside Greg’s bill. So that means that if a New Zealand citizen goes to another country and commits a sex offence against a child, then that offender can also be charged and convicted back in New Zealand. And that’s one of the very rare instances where committing a crime in another country is actually able to be prosecuted here in New Zealand, and we do have examples of where that’s worked already. We know that there’s been instances in the past where someone travelled to Moscow in 2007 where he photographed and exploited young children. That person was then sentenced at the High Court in 2008 and received a seven-year imprisonment on four charges of sexual violation. So that is an example of countries working across borders in order to make it as difficult as possible for child sex offenders who look to prey upon the most vulnerable.

In particular, I think it’s important to note that there are particular countries that have got known sex tourism, that have a market for children and young people. And we know that sex offenders do travel to areas such as Thailand, also Cambodia—and Phnom Penh has a particular street where that is known to occur. And when you have people from, typically, Western countries travelling to those countries, which have significantly reduced incomes and extreme poverty in some areas, it is directly exploiting families who are in need of money for access to their children. There is no other word for it but despicable.

If we can work alongside other countries in respect of those sex offenders, if they are known to the State, we have a moral responsibility to work alongside other countries to make sure that we monitor their movement and make sure that they are not accessing vulnerable young people not only in New Zealand but also in other countries.

Greg’s done a great job at shepherding this bill through. It has taken a while at the Justice Committee, but we have all worked quite hard over a period of time to enable it to reach this point. It’s important to note that as much as this is to protect children and potential victims, it’s also an opportunity to note that many of these offenders are known to their victims. I just want to make that point. I tend to make that point every time that we have a stereotype in our mind that a sex offender is a stranger in a park with a coat on, in horn-rimmed glasses. But that is, in fact, not always the case at all. It is people within our own families, within our own social circles who know children well and create a relationship based on trust before any offending ever begins.

And the more that we can convey that message to our communities, that it is not strangers only that we should fear, but sometimes we need to be cautious as parents and guardians of those people within our own social circles who seek access to young people and prey upon their vulnerabilities.

Offenders, we know, protect themselves by knowing that the authorities know where they will be. And so overseas family members and potential victims will receive the same protection as those same families in New Zealand by the offender knowing that their travel and places of the address are being monitored. So that is people in New Zealand travelling to be with families in other countries, and those families who reside in other countries deserve to be having the same protections as families here in New Zealand.

I just would like to note that as part of the bill there’s been a section 7 report on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and a part of that is the retrospectivity—as previously noted, double jeopardy and retrospectivity that this bill needs to be retrospective in order for it to operate, and that has been a factor in picking that up. The additional reporting requirements will apply to people who have already been registered offenders on the register. So it’s for that reason that the double jeopardy rule had been triggered.

However, it’s also important to note that in the Solicitor-General’s section 7 report, they note that it’s an important balance of rights to make sure that there is a balance of rights of those having the safety and protection, and that needs to be weighed up in this instance as well.

I’d like to conclude by congratulating Greg O’Connor. He’s continued to shepherd this bill through a long process, and it is another step to make sure that we join hands with the international community and provide as much protection as possible in an area where there are known predators who will continue to look for opportunities. And the more that we can close those gaps and shut down those opportunities, then the safer and more protected the next generation of young people will be.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Every time I stand to contribute to a piece of legislation that has to do with focusing on behaviour that harms or behaviour that disrespects or disregards the rights of others, I always think that it’s a sad time. Here we are, having to legislate to stop people from causing harm to other people.

The child sex offender situation is on a constant escalation path. It is prevalent in many countries. It goes in many different forms. I echo the member Greg O’Connor’s view that, for the most part, the scary part is that offenders are often known to their victims. They are known, they exercise some authority or control or nearness—they are able to perpetuate their behaviour with people, sometimes their own family members, sometimes people that have been entrusted to their care. But that range of offending goes all the way across into a more, you know, syndicated, planned, organised manner where people travel to many countries for the purpose of child sexual abuse.

The worst of it is that this kind of heinous activity and crime is targeted at children who have no opportunity to defend themselves and who are absolutely vulnerable to the advances of people who either have authority over them or gain authority over them in terms of, you know, financial reward—sometimes not even to the little children but to the families that they come from—because of poverty. So, here, we are trying to make a dent in that space.

The Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill seeks to amend section 21 of the principal Act, which is the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act of 2016. It has to do with requiring registered or registrable child sex offenders—people who have already been convicted of the offence—to provide additional information should they wish to travel. It is of note that the bill also specifies that if travel from, say, their registered address in New Zealand, then they are asked to inform where they’re going, when they’re going, when they’re leaving, where they will be going.

So the added information, including information about their details, allows New Zealand to track where they are and enables overseas authorities to also do the same. Because of this, we can accomplish the objective of somehow making a dent on this world of hideous filth. I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I believe it’s my call, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill. This was a bill that came to the Justice Committee in the previous Parliament—

Dana Kirkpatrick: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that Labour took their call early in the piece.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is part of the split call. There is still—

Dana Kirkpatrick: Which split call?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Garcia had half the split call, and Arena Williams—so there was a change in order earlier in the evening when someone didn’t stand up. So Labour has taken one of their calls out of this. But this is the other half of the split call.

Dana Kirkpatrick: So Paulo Garcia’s call was 10 minutes, and he only did five?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: He had a five-minute call.

Dana Kirkpatrick: There seems to be some confusion, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. I’ll let Arena Williams carry on with her speech. If you’d like to just come up and talk while she’s doing that, we’ll sort it through.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This was a bill that originally came to the Justice Committee in 2022 when it was ably chaired by the Hon Ginny Andersen. That committee did a huge amount of work on seeking the New Zealand Police’s advice, and I thank the advisers from New Zealand Police for their extensive advice about a few issues that the committee was particularly concerned about. Those were the enforcement issues around this bill, the proportionality issues that have arisen in the Attorney-General’s report, and the practical steps for change. So I am going to speak to all three of those issues. But also I want to thank the current Justice Committee for working through some of those and other issues, with the Amendment Paper from the Hon Erica Stanford, which deals with those Customs issues, and the previous chair of the Justice Committee, Vanushi Walters, who was really helpful in guiding the committee’s thinking around those issues of proportionality and how as parliamentarians we might engage with them.

These crimes that this bill deals with are some of the most heinous. Not only are they against the most vulnerable people in our society, who deserve our utmost protection, who are vulnerable children, often in impoverished countries, in the most dire of circumstances, but this is also about the most privileged offenders, in Western countries, using not only their power to travel but their financial wealth to exploit people in other countries and go home and wash their hands of their offending. It is the most heinous kind of crime, and none of us should turn our eyes away from it. And so we worked through, firstly, these enforcement issues, which arise at several points, in different ways, in the Attorney-General’s reporting on this. There’s a comment from the initial Attorney-General report about how, when considering the way that the penalties would change because of this and how offenders would have a right to the lesser penalty when this applied, there was an issue the Attorney-General identified that the stated evidence is limited as to the effectiveness of sex offender registers in improving public safety. And so this change would still engage that kind of test of proportionality which applied to the original sex offender legislation.

The Justice Committee chaired by Vanushi Walters and chaired by Ginny Andersen considered those issues—when you look at whether child sex offender registers are effective at a population level, as different to whether they’re effective at an individual level. At a population level, it is very hard to track whether there is an effect of child sex offender registers, because they don’t stop anything. You can’t tell when someone is breaching them. You also can’t tell what effect they’re having on people. You might say, “Well, if they were keeping people from offending, they were never going to offend anyway.”—and if people were offending and they were still registered on the register, then that shows that they were going to offend no matter what kind of registration there was against their name. So, at a population level, it is very hard to track, but I agree with colleagues around the House who have made the point that, at an individual level, there is a deterrence effect here.

The points raised by the Hon Ginny Andersen were correct in that, when you think about deterrence for crimes like these, deterrence by itself is usually very ineffective, and it needs to go alongside all of the other reasons why we would criminalise something and how we would apply that to people’s individual experience. But in a crime like this, where someone has planned to travel overseas, where someone has contacts in another jurisdiction to make their offending possible, and where there is a closing web around their victims that they personally have created, this factors into their decision-making about how they will continue to offend. And so it is useful for us to consider that, within the proportionality of this punishment, the Supreme Court did consider these kinds of punishments to be actual punishments that weighed on people’s abilities to enjoy their rights, as being proportionate.

Madam Speaker, it’s only a five-minute call, so there are issues around the enforcement of proportionality, but the practical steps for change do continue here, and we need to constantly be meeting our obligations under the UN convention that New Zealand has signed up to, and look to our neighbours in Australia about the kinds of advancements that they have made, which are in line with the legislative change we are making tonight. So I want to congratulate my colleague Greg O’Connor on the excellent policy work that he has done here. I also want to congratulate him on his cross-partisan work with the Hon Erica Stanford to bring in those changes which affect Customs. I commend this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Now, we’re just doing a cross check. We believe things went out of order but are in order. We’ve just been notified that the National Party wishes to make this last call a split call, so I call Rima Nakhle for a five-minute call.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker; I’m sure the Speaker can bring everything into order. I rise to speak in support of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill. In essence, this bill seeks to amend the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act from 2016—that’s when it was made into legislation. So that’s our principal Act for the purposes of today.

Essentially, what this amendment bill seeks to do is make it a requirement that registered child sex offenders provide additional information to police before travelling overseas for more than 48 hours. Now, currently, there is section 21 of the principal Act which requires sex offenders to advise the registrar of their travel plans—but this is seeking to make it mandatory for them to provide a lot more detail to the authorities.

So what the amendment bill will mandate is the following: that each address at which the offender intends to stay while overseas must be noted, must be given; the date on which the offender intends to travel to that country; the date on which the offender intends to travel out of the country; and where the offender doesn’t intend to come back to New Zealand, that country must also be given to the police. The passport number, the place of issue, date of expiry of each valid passport held by the offender must also be given to the police.

“What’s the purpose of these amendments?”, we can ask the House. The purpose is to allow police and customs networks to better protect children in the countries that offenders travel to and support identification of cases of sex tourism. These amendments are specific and they’re deliberate, and they aim to fill some of the concerning and alarming gaps present in the principal Act in its current form.

Registered child sex offender—what a horrible, repugnant set of words. I’m saddened—I’m saddened—to hear that the Green Party is not supporting this bill, because children are children no matter where they are around the world. The former speaker from the Green Party Kahurangi Carter said that it only captures convicted, known offenders. That breaks my heart because, as one of my colleagues said, if these changes save one child from the sexual violations of sex predators—because that’s what they are—

Hon Karen Chhour: Worth it.

Hon Members: Worth it.

RIMA NAKHLE: —then we’ve done our job. Then it’s worth it. Sexual abuse against children is a different level of abhorrent. The child sex abuser is not, in my opinion, merely an offender. He or she is a life-wrecker, a youth destroyer, and a thief of innocence. So it’s our obligation as legislators—and, more importantly, as New Zealanders—to protect children from the desecration of sexual violence against them. Because that is what child sex abuse is: a violation of the worst kind—against an innocent, pure child. This amendment bill, if and, hopefully, when translated to law, will communicate to the world that New Zealand sees it as our duty to protect children from sexual exploitation in whichever way we can.

I acknowledge the Attorney-General’s report on the consistency, or lack thereof, of this amendment bill with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. There’s issues like the right of a person—in this case, a registered child sex offender—to benefit from the lesser penalty, and the issue of freedom from double jeopardy and retrospectivity. But these issues have been discussed in the past and were discussed recently by the current Justice Committee, and, indeed, we need to carefully balance these. I, and we, commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr O’Connor.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I take great pride in rising as the final speaker, in support of Greg O’Connor’s bill this evening, in its second reading, the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill—or, as my colleague Cameron Brewer so aptly called it earlier on, the bill.

The bill is a member’s bill by the MP for Ōhāriu, and it amends the principal Act to require registered child sex offenders to provide additional information to the police before travelling overseas for more than 48 hours. Now, when I read this for the first time, I thought, “Goodness me. How does this not happen already? How is this actually not the country we live in, in 2024, where this is already taking place?” It really disappoints me where I’ve listened across the speeches given this evening, and to think there’s a political party here who doesn’t want to support this legislation. I think, actually, I’m proud to be a part of the party that’s supporting the Opposition party by bringing this bill to the House, and we’re supporting it through the second reading.

Now, having not been a contributor on the first reading or through the select committee stage, I did my homework before getting up to speak. Particularly, I looked through a couple of documents that I thought would really be beneficial to contribute to this debate. Firstly, the departmental report. Currently, section 21 of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016 only requires registered persons to advise the register of their travel plans if they’re travelling overseas for more than 48 hours; they are only required to advise the register of the dates they are leaving and returning to New Zealand, not the country of destination. Section 22 requires the registered offender to advise the register if the date of their return to New Zealand changes while they are overseas.

Then I dived a little bit deeper. I looked at the submissions that were received by the Justice Committee. Of the 10 submissions received, six were in favour, two were opposed, one didn’t specifically state whether or not they supported the bill, and one was considered out of scope. Overall, submissions expressed support for increasing the protection provided to children and vulnerable people, including those overseas. Although only six of the 10 submitters explicitly supported the bill, only two submitters opposed the bill. One opposed the bill on the basis of human rights considerations for the registered offender, and one opposed the bill based on the view that sex offenders should not be permitted to travel at all.

I then dived a little bit deeper because I saw that the Justice Committee had recommended that the bill be passed with unanimous support, and the Green Party actually sits on that select committee and gave it support at select committee, yet coming back to the second reading they’ve changed their mind, which is disappointing. But there were four proposed amendments. The first: postponing the bill’s commencement to allow police time to prepare and inform offenders about the new requirements, a pragmatic change that ensures amending the commencement date to three months after Royal assent. The second proposed amendment to the bill was eliminating redundant passport information reporting provisions, given existing obligations. That just seems sort of a business-as-usual tweak to make sure the bill operates as best as it possibly can. The third amendment: amending the Act to clarify and enhance information sharing between specified agencies for public safety and risk management—the information sharing between Government agencies, which is so vital to the protection of our children and our communities. Finally, explicitly applying the bill retrospectively to ensure comprehensive coverage of all registrable offenders.

Improved international cooperation and protection—this bill will demonstrate New Zealand’s global leadership in protecting children from sexual exploitation by highlighting our protective reach beyond our borders. It establishes international cooperation, preventing offenders from using travel to avoid detection. I support this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

It’s a great pleasure to stand in front of the House and speak to the second reading. It’s a quite sobering exercise—

Hon Members: Aw, come on!

STUART SMITH: —and I don’t mean any pun intended! But following on from the very serious subject that we were debating just before, it quite makes me take a second thought before I speak on this bill.

But it is a great thrill to have your own member’s bill, particularly, get through to the second reading, going through select committee—particularly so when we’ve crossed into another Parliament. The first reading was in front of the previous Parliament, but it went through the Justice Committee under this current Parliament. So it is one of those different scenarios.

This bill will allow wineries to charge for tastings at their cellar doors for the wine that they have made. The wine industry has, actually, the sixth largest goods export by value, and the important thing about that is, actually, the main markets that wine is exported to are OECD countries. These are discerning customers who, with the wine experience that they have, actually add to the value of New Zealand’s other products, because people say if we can make serious wine in the world, then we can also make other products that are very serious. That’s how it’s treated. And some people, of course, travel to New Zealand to actually experience wine, or they experience wine here, for the first time, at a cellar door. That’s why this bill has a far greater effect on businesses than just on those small businesses that have cellar doors—because tourism, after all, is our second largest business and our second largest export earner, actually, in New Zealand. Cellar-door wine experiences are a very important part of that. A lot of the tourists that do visit wineries tend to stay for a longer period of time, and they spend more money while they’re here.

However, for cellar doors, it can be quite an awkward situation, because it is very difficult for them to charge for tastings. There is an anomaly in the law which makes it quite difficult for them to have a licence to be able to charge for those tastings, and this bill addresses those shortcomings.

I’d like to thank the submitters that came and gave evidence to the select committee. We had small wineries that came and gave evidence about how they are actually giving their wine away for tastings, at some cost to themselves. They do it because it’s part of their business, but it would make it much more economic for them if they were able to charge for it. Other wineries would actually open a cellar door, if they were able to recover those costs.

We also heard from Pernod Ricard, which is one of the biggest wineries. It’s a French-owned company, listed on the CAC 40. They gave evidence that their Church Road winery—while they have a licence and they are able to sell food and, therefore, provide food in their restaurant and, therefore, charge for tastings—is so desperate to get staff some days that it means they can’t serve food. Therefore, they can’t charge for tastings, so they don’t open their cellar door. Having this law in place would make it much easier for them to charge for tastings.

We also had a small winery in Marlborough, Tupari Wines, which is in the Awatere Valley, quite some distance from the main road, which is State Highway 1. They have a cellar door in the old railway station, not on their property, but it’s sort of a remote winery that belongs to that winery. They gave evidence that we had a definition in the bill which would enable those wineries to actually have a cellar-door licence and charge for tastings. So it was great to get that broad range of submitters who came and gave their experience and brought that to the Justice Committee.

I’d also like to thank the members of the Justice Committee, ably led by James Meager and co. It’s quite difficult—for those that are not involved in Parliament, with all the best will in the world, you can write a bill the best way you think you can, you put it before a select committee, and actually you find things that need to be adjusted. The only way you can do that is by having the public take part in the political process by giving evidence—in this case, cellar-door operators and other people. We even had distillers and brewers who wanted to be a part of this bill, but, unfortunately, that’s not what this bill’s about, and it was outside the scope. But they all had their opportunity to have their say. I know, as the select committee members would agree, that having those people in front of the select committee really added so much to the process, and so I would like to thank the select committee members for the way they approached that.

So there were some amendments that were made to the bill. Originally, as drafted, it had “allow a sample size to be 40 millilitres”. We found, from evidence, that 30 millilitres is the average pour size, but we thought we’d leave enough room for human error. It’s not something that’s bottled; it’s poured by hand and often in larger glasses, so it’s not simple to measure. But, in the end, we thought, well, that was too much tolerance, and, therefore, we went back to 35 millilitres. So that was one of the changes.

As I mentioned before, the remote winery—well, we did bring in a specific definition for what would be a “winery”, which is producing and selling grape wine products, or selling grape wine or grape wine products that have been produced on that person’s behalf. But that does not open it up for retailers to be able to get involved in that; you have to be a winery or a grape grower to actually qualify as a cellar door.

So I think the other issues that were changed was to have snack foods available. So that’s actually defined in the Act already. That could be a cheeseboard, for example—those sorts of things. It’s not too onerous, as it would be otherwise. Bearing in mind, a lot of these cellar doors are quite small.

I’ve actually visited wineries from Northland all the way to South Otago. They are all over the country and even in your own electorate, Madam Speaker, in Taranaki. So we do have wineries in quite out-of-the-way places. I did ask the library, as I mentioned in my first reading speech, to search the number of electorates that had wineries in them. It was quite surprising: they’re all over the country, quite frankly. They are small businesses, mostly.

The provision of water is usually provided and is actually required under the law when you’re giving samples away, but we had to add a provision in the bill to capture that for this specific type of liquor outlet, if you like—that being a cellar door.

Those were the main amendments I wanted to touch on. This would make a huge difference for small business in New Zealand as well as large business. It would make a huge difference and enhance our tourism offering for New Zealand. And I think that it’s just a sensible piece of legislation. The existing law was just an anomaly, in the way it was written—that cellar doors weren’t able to charge for tastings unless they were selling food. That, by the nature of the size of a lot of these cellar doors, would never ever be an economic proposition. So I thank all the members who have supported the bill so far. I hope they continue to do so. With that, I commend it to the House.

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

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The member in charge of this bill, Stuart Smith, is certainly an advocate for the wine industry and a bit of a fan, and good on him for that. Over on this side of the House, we will be treating this bill as a conscience vote, so our votes—we’re not at one. As is the case with most alcohol bills, they’re dealt with in this manner, at least in the Labour Party.

I’m one of the members of the Labour Party who doesn’t support this bill. I worked constructively on the Justice Committee to get it into the shape that it is, but certainly we have some concerns around it. I guess there’s a global concern about liberalisation of the availability of alcohol generally. Having said that, I don’t think that would quite be enough for me to oppose this bill if it was done right. The member in charge stood up, and one of his first lines was “This will enable wine tasting at the cellar door.” That’s just not what this bill does. This bill allows wine tasting anywhere, providing it’s provided by the winegrower or winemaker. So one of my real concerns about this bill is that someone could become a winemaker by contract, contract to have some wine made, and set up a bar anywhere and without all of the usual controls around the provision of alcohol. The only constraint would be the size of the serving. The provision of proper food wouldn’t be needed, host responsibility programmes wouldn’t be needed, the whole alcohol-control regime—the bar would be lowered.

Now, the member in charge, I know, thinks that that’s fanciful and kind of pooh-poohed the idea, but we know that whilst most people who grow wine and so on love their work, love their product, and are great advocates of it, there are nefarious actors out there who will take advantage of what is a legal loophole, and this is a massive legal loophole. That’s one of the concerns that I have, probably the most significant concern.

And the second-order concern is that simply by limiting the size of a serve to 35 millilitres—about a fifth of a usual glass—the controls around alcohol provision generally are significantly lowered. Whilst it might be a little onerous to top up your glass frequently or to pour them five at a time, it’s certainly not out of the question. So my main concerns are around alcohol harm, but even that by itself—I don’t know; I’m probably on the fence.

The other kind of problem I have with this bill is that it actually skews the market. In select committee, I was very clear—and other members were also deeply concerned; and it’s recorded in the select committee report—that if we’re going to go down this road and if we’re going to get the rules right, then, surely, our artisan brewers should be able to have brewery-door tastings as well. Our artisan cideries should be able to have—and I do like a good cider—cidery-door tastings as well. Even our fruit wines, our Barker’s elderberry wine, should be able to have their tastings as well. But the member in charge was adamant that, no, this wasn’t a change he would support, because it was just about grape wine. Apart from the snobbishness of that, it’s actually—

Hon Member: Come on!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Come on, put away your pinot noir. Apart from that, it actually skews the market. It gives quite an unfair advantage to wineries and grape growers who can have this particular sales technique—this particular tasting arrangement—which other people who brew alcoholic beverages cannot have. And that’s just not right. It’s just not fair. I would have hoped that in the National Party, they wouldn’t just be interested in helping along the wine industry, but they’d be wanting to help along all businesses: small breweries, small cideries, small fruit wineries. So why is it that we’ve got this very targeted reform?

Now, it’ll probably get over the hurdle. It’ll probably get through tonight, and onward we’ll go. Certainly, when we get to the committee stage, I’ll be putting in some Amendment Papers. I’m very happy to talk to the member about those in advance because I’m here for the debate; I’m not here to ambush anyone. I certainly don’t think it should be called the “cellar door tasting bill”. It should simply be called the “tasting bill” because you can taste it anywhere. You know as well as I do, Stuart Smith, that under the rules as drafted, Montana can have a tasting bar in the middle of Christchurch Central, 30 kilometres from the nearest winery. So it just doesn’t work.

Let’s have a constructive discussion at committee stage, assuming—and I’m pretty certain it will—that it does get through this reading. But let’s also have a careful think about what a “cellar door” really means, because I think, perhaps, a better rule for “cellar door” would be something like “within 10 kilometres of where the grapes are produced”, because that would make some sense. There’s a fancy French phrase which I can’t recall but I’m sure the member would remind me about the connection of the wine to the local land.

Helen White: Appellation. The appellation.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No, no, it’s not “appellation”, Helen White. You’ve got to be—everyone knows that one. So let’s have a think about that, because that would make a bit more sense. But that’s for another time. At this stage, I know there are some members who are not in support of this bill and others on this side of the House who are. Let’s have a decent debate, and I hope you’ll have the same approach in the National Party with differing views across the members.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I just wanted to acknowledge the member the honourable Stuart Smith and put him out of his misery by stating, up front, that all 15 Green MPs in our caucus have had a discussion about the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill, and all 15 of our MPs—unless anything crazy happens tonight—will be supporting this bill.

The reason for that is that despite some of the longbow arguments that I have heard from the member in charge of this legislation, perhaps this could be a form of alcohol harm minimisation. And, sure, that could potentially apply at the margins with regard to charging for those tasting samples. We have a situation where—actually, as the former speaker from the Labour Party, the Hon Duncan Webb, was just outlining—there is actually a far broader point to be made. And while I wouldn’t use some of the language that he did to characterise this legislation—that being, in his own words, “snobbish”—it is the case that this House does tend to treat certain substances in far more highbrow ways than we do other substances. So I would appeal to members of the Government, in particular, as well as members of the Opposition, and members of this House as a whole, to apply the logic that they apply to this to all substances—in fact, to open the lid on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, as a whole, and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to take the approach that all substances can cause harm, and therefore the approach that we should take is: how do we put in place legislation and regulation to reduce that harm?

So, as I was just outlining at the start, it is a bit of a longbow to try and argue that what we have here is a piece of alcohol-harm minimisation, but none the less it could potentially make some difference at the margins by allowing for the charging for those samples. However, I think that the far more compelling argument, as the member in charge has very ably made, particularly as it affects my electorate in Auckland Central and the wineries of Waiheke, is that there is an opportunity here for, again, albeit at the margins, a little bit of that economic development. Again, wouldn’t it be amazing if we saw these kinds of things applied to, I don’t know, the medicinal cannabis industry in this country?

So that’s it, really. The Greens support this legislation. It’s a pretty simple piece of legislation. It does what it says on the tin. I’m looking forward to actually seeing some of those Amendment Papers from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I’d invite him and members of the Labour Party who have seemingly discussed this at great length to come and speak to us about some of those Amendment Papers, because we may be interested in supporting them. But I also would say to the member in charge that they can look forward to some robust questioning at the committee of the whole House.

Just in summarising that, we’d like to thank the 72-odd submitters, both individuals and organisations, who put their two cents in at the select committee stage. That is, of course, something which we would invite all New Zealanders to do, to engage in the democratic process, to inform, and to upgrade our legislation, and something that I would encourage members of the Government to indulge in all the more often, given the processes that they have currently taken to ram through pieces of legislation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): It’s a real pleasure to rise tonight. It’s getting late in the hour. It probably would be great if we had a cellar door somewhere on the premises, but we don’t. But I do want to rise and speak on this bill and congratulate Stuart Smith, the member in charge, on his advocacy for this. He’s obviously a very strong advocate for his local region of Kaikōura and the wine industry.

Just before I talk about the bill, I also am a great advocate of the wine industry. I come from down south. I live in Queenstown. We obviously have a wonderful wine industry in Central Otago—some might say the best in New Zealand, but I wouldn’t want to prejudice that. And, of course, we have a very long history in Central Otago of wine. Actually, the first recorded win for a gold medal wine in Central Otago was in 1881, which is quite something. But it was actually more recently in the 1970s that the Central Otago wine industry took off.

As the member in charge spoke about, the wine industry is actually very, very important to regions like Central Otago in New Zealand, where we have some 130 or more wineries down there where this legislation that we’re debating tonight actually might be able to be used, which is great. Obviously, we have lots of wonderful varieties, but we are known for our pinot noir. We’re certainly not chardonnay socialists in ACT, but we do like the wide variety of wines which Central Otago delivers.

Also, Mr Smith talked about the types of submitters we heard from. Again, I was lucky enough to be on the Justice Committee where we actually had a very good, I think, discussion around the issues, and I’ll talk about some of those in a minute. But we did actually hear from a wide variety of different types of wineries. In fact, in Central Otago, a lot of the landscape, the unique geography—the winery or the vineyards, I should say—are actually sometimes quite a long way away from the actual premises where they might be able to do a cellar door. So while it’s interesting to hear about some of Dr Duncan Webb’s possible amendments he’s going to propose later on if this bill continues, we did have a very long debate about trying to get the balance between actually ensuring that this would be used by unique wine growers who might want to have a cellar door and where their actual cellar door, their locality, could actually not be at the vineyard for physical reasons.

Wine tourism is very, very important. Currently, as we discussed in the select committee, if you want to have an on-licence or an off-licence under the current regime, that is actually very complicated. What the member’s done with his very nice bill, quite simply, is actually, I think, address an anomaly in the law where wineries could actually give away the wine—as much as they wanted, in fact—with no controls, but obviously there’s some economic downsides to doing that. So what we’ve tried to do in the select committee was balance some of the concerns with some other practical amendments, which I will talk about in a minute, but actually make this workable for our wine industry who would want to offer tastings.

Interestingly, the 30 millilitres, which is the novel thought—we’ve got a maximum of 35 millilitres proposed in this bill. Thirty millilitres is only six teaspoons, so we’re not actually talking about a lot of wine. And even if you went to the maximum of 35 millilitres which is allowed, you’re only talking seven teaspoons of wine in these tasting samples. I know Dr Webb raised some concerns about this. He described it as a loophole; I don’t. But the idea that people who could set up, I suppose, tasting venues—I really don’t think that’s going to be economically viable when your pour size is only 30 millilitres. So, again, I think if people who have got a background in business actually went and did the numbers, the actual cost of opening a special venue to take advantage of this I just don’t think is a concern we need to worry about.

I do, again, want to say that I thought we actually had quite a constructive discussion in the select committee. I want to also thank the officials that came and gave us some advice. As we work through some of the changes that we made to the original bill, and I think Mr Smith has already acknowledged that—I think he’s acknowledging that we made some improvements or some changes that were sensible. I was worried. Mr Smith was away when we had our last discussion on this bill, and I was hoping we weren’t going to ruin it for him, but he was very pleased with the result that we’re now discussing tonight in the House.

One of the more subtle changes is that we changed the title slightly to add “(Cellar Door Tasting)”, just to make it very explicit that it was actually related to wineries and cellar doors.

One of the other things was that, obviously, we had this long discussion about what a winery is. So we tightened up the definition of “winery” and “cellar door” and did, really, try to relate that to the businesses that are, obviously, growing these grapes and then actually making the grapes into wine and a product that people will come to taste. As we know, New Zealand wines are world renowned. They’re some of the best in the world and, for some varieties, we’re obviously always at the top of the category in the worldwide wine industry.

I’ve discussed the sample sizes. Again, obviously, originally it had a 40ml maximum pour. We had some back and forth and some debate and arrived at 35ml, which, again, allows for 30ml being the normal pour at a wine tasting at a cellar door, but 35ml allowing for some margin of error. As I say, a teaspoon is the margin of error.

I think, actually, the discussion around snack food was quite interesting, and again, as we dived into that, we thought that was actually a reasonable provision, to require that snack foods be available at these premises. Again, as the member in charge, Stuart Smith, said, this could be a cheese board, but it could also just be a packet of chips or some other food. Again, that’s outlined—what that would look like. Obviously, there are some requirements from local authorities about the kind of licensing you might need for the provision of snack foods, but again, that’s not astronomical. And we thought that that was a good compromise, where for between $300 and $600 every few years, they could be signed off to be serving these snack foods.

The provision of water: again, I think that was touched on by one of our earlier speakers. Again, that was just a tidy-up. If we had gone ahead as the bill was presented, when you were actually giving away wine samples, you’d have had to provide water, but if you were charging for these samples, you wouldn’t have had to provide water. So that was one we picked up and quickly noted to justice officials, and they added that in. I think, again, that’s a very sensible change.

We did, again, have some submitters from other industries, like the brewers and distillers, but I’ve got to say that would actually require a different bill and a different debate. Even artisan brewers couldn’t give us a definition of what an artisan beer is. That’s not something that has got a recognised definition yet or some alignment throughout the industry. I’m hoping that maybe Dr Duncan Webb will be advocating for those artisan brewers and maybe for some of the other distillers and other types of alcohol that were mentioned.

Finally, probably as no surprise, ACT supported this bill in its first reading and sending it to the select committee, where, as I said, I think we’ve done some good work, amongst all the parties on that select committee actually, understanding the issues and working with the member in charge and officials to make some improvements. This is obviously going to be, at the appropriate time, a conscience vote. I think it’s now called a personal vote in the Standing Orders, and I’m delighted to say I actually hold proxies for all of the ACT MPs to vote in favour of this bill.

I do, again, want to commend the member for his advocacy for this very important industry, for actually taking a really great pro-business stance and allowing them to actually highlight to tourists and New Zealanders the wonderful wine products we have and actually, I think, make things a little bit easier. Again, ACT is all about making things a little bit easier for business and removing regulation or having appropriate regulation, and I think the sensible changes we are proposing here and what we’re putting in place does that. So thank you, and I commend this bill to the House.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. This bill is, I must say, common sense, and that’s something New Zealand First supports. Firstly, I’d like to say New Zealand First supports this bill, eight members have given me the proxy vote to be able to vote in favour. So we will be voting eight votes for you to support this bill to go to the next reading.

The wine industry in New Zealand is a growing industry, and where I’m from in Marlborough, it’s an industry that keeps on growing. We talk now of a $3 billion industry—this is an industry that has put New Zealand and places like Marlborough on the map—a $3 billion industry that is growing, and out of a $3 billion industry, that’s created a massive amount of tourism. Where I’m from, in Marlborough, tourism and wine tourism is a massive thing. People specifically come to visit Marlborough to see the vineyards, to visit the cellar doors. Where I am also, in the heart of Renwick, which is the heart of the wine industry, people come and they go from cellar door to cellar door. It is a thing. On the weekends, my wife and I do it. We go around, and we visit the cellar doors. Generally, we don’t walk; generally, we start on the bike, and we get off to the first cellar door, and we go along and we visit. By about the third cellar door, the bike’s probably put away, and we’re walking along.

But the cellar-door concept is such a great thing for tourism, and it’s a great thing for linking up businesses. So, as you go along and you visit different offerings—and those different offerings are growing in the offerings that are put out there; it is a reason to come visit. And it’s not just about international tourism; it’s about local tourism. So everyone comes to visit and has a look around. In Marlborough, for instance, we’ve got over 80 percent of the wine industry, and that’s something we are really, really proud of and something we want to promote. Tourism, as I say, is one of my favourite things; it’s one of my portfolios. And, when you think of it, people come into the Marlborough Sounds, the beautiful Marlborough Sounds—we all know where that is. People come in, they come in on the cruise boats, and they get off in Picton, and sometimes they get on the bus, or they get on to the flyer or on to the train, and away they go, and they go off to the cellar doors.

So, once they get to those cellar doors, the offering’s there, but the person, the winery, cannot charge. In most cases, they cannot charge. It’s not common sense. So, all of a sudden, the businesses are giving away their product. And the most ironic thing was that—and we heard this through the submissions—businesses—and for one particular submission, they said their bottles of wine were worth between $70 to $90 and they were giving away eight of them a day. You do the maths on that. Seven, eight, $900—and they’re not getting nothing in return.

And here’s the rub. The rub about it—[Interruption]. No, no, listen. No, this is the rub about it. Those same people that get off the cruise ship boat—they can’t actually sell a bottle of wine to them, because they can’t take the bottle of wine back on to the cruise boat. So the only thing about that is the person gets the offering, the person gets to go on the trip, but the actual business doesn’t get to make any money out of it. So this bill allows a small charge to cover the cost of that tasting. That, to me, is common sense.

The Justice Committee was chaired by our leader—by our chairman—James Meager. Over 72 submissions came in, but we heard a number of submissions—

Hon Willie Jackson: Never heard of him.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE: And we’ll be hearing a lot more—hearing a lot more. Those submissions, they were an eye-opener. We heard submissions from large producers; we heard from those little boutique wineries as well. And the majority of those submissions were in support of being able to charge to cover their costs. Red tape—and we’ve heard a lot about red tape on this side of the House. This is getting rid of a silly piece of legislation, something we can change quickly to make businesses—the wineries—more profitable.

It was really through the election campaign in Kaikōura that I first heard about this bill, and I heard what Stuart Smith had done. He’d put this in as a member’s bill, and it had been pulled out, and I must say that even while I was campaigning at that stage against Mr Smith, this was well-received. Everywhere we went, he could get up and say, “This is something that I can achieve—something that will do real good for the industry.”, and I must say that I couldn’t say anything bad about it. It was actually a really good idea.

Then hearing the submissions through the Justice Committee and hearing the arguments for and possibly against, it was by far favoured, and we heard in the first reading that, I think, it was one of the bills that was the most supported of any bills going through a first reading. It was also well supported through those submissions that we heard.

What we are trying to stop, here, is a free-for-all, so to anybody who would want to vote against this, I would say to you: why would you want to vote for a free-for-all, because that’s actually what you’ve got at the moment. You can turn up—my wife and I on that bike—to the first winery, have one, have two, and there’s no limit. Maybe we’ll get back on that bike and we’ll go to the second winery, the second offering, and you just keep on going and keep on going. There’s no offering of food, no offering of water, but a lot of offering of wine—I’ve already forgotten the bike; I don’t know where the bike is any more—so it makes a lot of sense to stop that.

It’s common-sense, responsible consumption, so we can get responsible consumption, and we can actually charge. It’s actually going to make a situation where when you turn up, you’re actually going to think a lot more about what you are purchasing and what you are tasting, because you are going to be charged for it. Also, there are going to be the offerings of food and the offerings of water.

Also, another thing we heard through the submissions was the size of the samples, and it was quite surprising to hear that the size of the samples ended up being quite contentious. I think, originally in the bill, it was a 40-millilitre pour, and through hearing about that and through maybe the views of some members on the other side of the House, it has been reduced to 35 millilitres. A standard pour of wine is 30 millilitres, and we heard from the sponsor of the bill, Mr Smith, that the people have wine glasses especially for the wine as it’s poured, so that that’s done in a controlled way. So 35 millilitres, 40 millilitres—to me, that doesn’t make a lot of difference there.

The provision of having the snack food there is something, again, that is common sense. Having provisions of water, and giving people water and provisions of food, just makes sense.

I think also that some of the definitions—through the Justice Committee, we heard about the definition, and another member of the House said that he is worried about the definition. But I think that the definition gives enough ability to control who can sell and who can’t, and so that has also been well thought through, I believe, by the Justice Committee.

There were some differing views, and I think we’re going to hear this as this proceeds through the House. We did hear from the brewers around craft beers, and that is something that has to be dealt with in a different bill. It can’t be dealt with here. We’ve had a bill with this scope, and we’ve heard about the scope through the Justice Committee. The scope here is not about bringing in other providers—not about bringing in craft beers.

So I think what we have in front of us and the changes that we’ve made through the Justice Committee are common sense. New Zealand First will support this, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

: The next call is a split call. I call Ricardo MenDEPUTY SPEAKERéndez March. Te Pāti Māori have indicated to me that they won’t be taking their call.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Fair enough. Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. So we are supporting the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. I think there are members’ bills that are discrete and ambitious—they can be both—and this is this at least meets one of those criteria; it’s a discrete bill. As a former duty manager on an on-licensed premises, I think it’s worth acknowledging the role that people at the front line, who actually work at premises where alcohol is sold, play to minimise the harm that alcohol causes. And I think this bill is actually a good example of acknowledging that a drug can cause harm but that prohibition isn’t the answer. Rather, sensible regulation is the way forward. In some ways, I wish the arguments that have been used to describe how we regulate alcohol applied to other drugs as well.

But, in relation to this bill, I think we do want to acknowledge the sensible changes that have been brought forward to make sure that this is a workable bill and that, actually, the health of our communities is taken into account. I think, particularly, the way to work around having the provision of snacks and water goes a long way towards that, because it’s not just about how this bill can benefit businesses but how we can protect staff against intoxicated members of the public who, ultimately, would be engaging at wineries. The provision of snacks and water actually create a protective factor as well for the front-line staff who will be working at these wineries. So these are sensible additions to the bill that we do support.

I think there are some worthwhile concerns that were raised around who could be caught up in this bill. I acknowledge that the Justice Committee, obviously, has made it really clear that some of the retailers that could be captured are not intended to be captured. I think this is one of those things that we’ll just have to keep an eye on and see how it works. If we need to continue doing regulation, then we may just have to do that.

At the end of the day, I think it’s important to acknowledge, yes, wineries play a big role in our economy. It’s been a growing sector for a while, and we do have a huge number of staff who, I think, deserve to be protected. So I just want to commend the work of the select committee to find ways to create amendments to protect those staff members. So we commend this bill to the House.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I’d like to begin my contribution tonight as we enter what was just described as the graveyard shift—or the circus shift—with the acknowledgement of Stuart Smith for his bill. We had the new co-leader of the Green Party give him a promotion to “the honourable Stuart Smith”, and I think that’s the closest we’re going to come to a blue-green coalition for a couple of years. So I’ll take that, as we can, as a start there, Stuart. No, congratulations. Like the member Greg O’Connor, this is your second member’s bill that you’ve brought forward to the House, so I’d just like to say congratulations, but, please, give someone else a chance next time as well.

Actually, like Mr O’Connor, I’d like to acknowledge your contribution to the committee throughout the consideration of this bill. You yourself brought a range of lived experience not only as a consumer but also as a producer from one of the best wine regions around the country. Actually, we had Jamie Arbuckle on the committee as well from that region—from Marlborough—and Todd Stephenson with us too. We had many, many submitters appear before us from Marlborough and from Central Otago. It was a little bit of a love-in at one point. Then, of course, I would like to acknowledge Celia Wade-Brown, who joined us for a portion of the consideration as well and who was, of course, from the Wairarapa, which is another well-known wine-growing region—home of the mighty Mike Butterick.

Can I acknowledge, also, what has now become known as the “busy and effective” Justice Committee, and I thank the committee for their hard work in taking two bills off our workflow. But we still have 10 on the go, and I’m looking forward to looking to Tracey McLellan’s bill in a couple of weeks and seeing if we can add another one to our workflow as well. It’s interesting because I sat on the Education and Workforce Committee this morning, subbing in, and they had their very first departmental report to consider for the session. So it was a bit like a proud dad seeing his kids take the training wheels off their bike as we plough through item number 10 on our legislative agenda.

So I’d just like to acknowledge the Justice Committee. It is a busy committee. We enjoy the work. I think we do work very, very well together as a committee—representatives from all parties—and I think you can see in this bill that we’ve done a decent amount of work to get it to this stage. The member himself acknowledged that members’ bills will often come to select committees with limited resources behind them in how they’re produced, and it’s our job as a committee to work together to try and find the ways that we can to improve them. That’s the important scrutiny function that select committees perform, so I just wanted to acknowledge that.

Finally, can I acknowledge the contribution before from the Greens co-leader, Chlöe Swarbrick, who indicated that the Greens would be supporting the bill. I thank her for that. I was curious as to why she was supporting this, because there’s been some, I think, quite reasonable apprehension from the Greens in the past around alcohol legislation, and the harm minimisation requirements need to be in that. Then I looked at the back page of the departmental report and saw that the Waiheke Wine Growers Association had made a very powerful submission. So it goes to show that submitters, big and small, from all over the country, can make an influence on how we consider pieces of legislation like this.

Finally, can I just acknowledge the officials from the Ministry of Justice. It is important to acknowledge them, especially when we have members’ bills. They are giving up their time, off the Government’s legislative agenda, to support us and be our advisers through that process. They provided us with very clear advice on some relatively tricky issues—in fact, some which we, as Dr Webb alluded to earlier on, haven’t quite come to a conclusion on about whether or not we’ve reached the right drafting around some of those potential loopholes. But I do acknowledge the clear and consistent work that they gave to us.

Now, I’d like to talk briefly about the purpose of the bill. Like most members’ bills, the purpose is very simple: it is to make it easier for winery cellar doors to charge for samples—and that’s simply it. Actually, I wanted to talk about the scoping issue that has come up in the select committee report, because—and we had a bit of back and forth at length about this with the member in charge. But what was the purpose of the bill? The member was very clear: the purpose of him bringing this bill forward was to address an issue faced by winery cellar-door operators and the issues that they face with the complicated licensing regime under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.

There were submissions from other players in the alcohol industry—I think the Brewers Association made some very, very good points about whether the bill could be expanded to include the likes of your craft beer brewers or your gin distilleries, which could also possibly open up their own version of a cellar door. But, for us, in the majority, on the Justice Committee, our view was very clearly that the member brought forward this bill with the intention of supporting wine-cellar door operators. We sought some advice from the Clerk’s team, who indicated that amendments like that would be out of scope, so we came to a conclusion that while perhaps it was worthy of consideration of expansion—and members are entitled to put Amendment Papers up as well in the committee stage—it possibly may be a better option for another member’s bill. Maybe it’s third time lucky for Stuart Smith or Greg O’Connor. I’m sure a bill like that would be well and truly graciously received by committees such as the Governance and Administration Committee.

Can I move on to just some of our submitters. As mentioned before, we had 72 submissions; 12 of them appeared in person. Quite, I think, uniquely for a bill, the vast majority of submissions were for, or were by, or on behalf of, organisations. Quite often with the submission process, you’ll get a good fifty-fifty mix of organisations or individuals, or if it’s a particular issue, you might get mostly individuals. But this showed that this was an issue that was important to many operators across the country, large and small. And that was from across the board: wineries, hospitality, alcohol harm reduction advocates, and also a couple of district councils, the Waitaki District Council and the Rangitīkei District Council. Read into that what you will about members Miles Anderson and Suze Redmayne and what they get up to in their spare time, and the councils there.

So, finally, in the brief amount of time that I have left before we might rise to go off and do something else, I want to talk about the substantial changes that have been offered by the select committee. The first one goes to that scoping issue and actually is a change to the title of the bill. There was a recommendation to change it from “Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting)” to “Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting)” to reflect the intention of the member in that bill. And I think that’s a pretty sensible change to make. Just for a notice, I got relatively confused because, when I picked up the bill, it had the old title on the front of the bill. So I now have learnt that that won’t change until it passes its second reading. So, all going well, later on, in a couple of weeks, perhaps, when we come back, we’ll be able to get that change through.

We’ve heard about some of the definitions around “winery” and about defining a winery as a person whose business includes producing and selling grape wine products or having had them produced on their behalf. There were some concerns that that definition would be overly inclusive and could incorporate or unintentionally capture bottle store operators and supermarkets. So the committee had resolved to change the definition of a “winery” and, in fact, provide for a specific definition of “winery cellar door”, so to limit the ability for bottle stores and supermarkets to try and take advantage of this law change. But, as mentioned previously, I suspect it’s very unlikely to happen.

Some of those changes being proposed about kilometre radius restrictions just get us into a situation where we become overly prescriptive as legislators. I think that’s a good change because it solves some of those problems that some of the small operators brought to us, which was that they don’t necessarily have their wine cellar door on the same property where they produce their wine—it may be in a different vineyard, or it may be 3 kilometres or 4 kilometres down the road. So this helps put them on a level playing field, the same as everyone else.

I wanted to talk about the sample-size issue, and Jamie Arbuckle covered it pretty well. There was an original recommendation from officials to reduce the sample size down to about 30 millilitres, but we as a committee took that to, basically, incorporate no margin of error, really. If you have a strict 30 millilitre pour, once you’re a millilitre over, you’re strictly in breach of the Act. We don’t want to be trapping people or getting them in unintended trouble. So we thought 35 millilitres was a pretty good compromise. It gives you that teaspoon of margin of error, as Todd Stephenson helpfully referred to.

In the last few amendments around the provision of snack food, there was a question, there, where we asked the officials to go back for some advice. While we were happy to consider and accept that provision as being part of minimising the harm from alcohol and improving host responsibility obligations, there were some concerns that this might put an imposition of cost on the operators who don’t already provide food. So officials went away and did some good looking around for us and came back and informed us that that, in their view, would be a cost of about $300 to $600 every two to three years. We thought that was a pretty reasonable cost for the benefit that this might open up for these operators, so we were happy to accept that recommendation too.

Look, I think that’s bordering on enough from us for tonight. I look forward to the remaining contributions in this debate. It may well be the first time that the class of 2023 needs to see a personal vote in a couple of weeks, so I’m very much looking forward to that. But I congratulate the member Stuart Smith, and I look forward to its passage through to the committee stage, third reading, and into law forthwith. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.