Wednesday, 8 May 2024

WEDNESDAY, 8 MAY 2024

WEDNESDAY, 8 MAY 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

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

SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Joseph Cohan Griffen requesting that the House urge the Government to halt planned construction of Kāinga Ora homes in Port Street East, Feilding until public consultation is undertaken; and note that 260 people have signed a similar petition.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered. No select committee reports have been delivered. No bills are introduced.

Introduction of Bill by Leave Declined

Ombudsman (Removal of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Ombudsman (Removal of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill, for the bill to be set down for first reading as members’ order of the day No. 1 today, for the bill to proceed through its remaining stages immediately following the first reading, for there to be no select committee or committee of the whole House, and for there to be no debate on the second or third readings.

I wrote to all parties in Parliament on Monday advising them that I intended to take this course of action. The bill is very simple—it does two things: it removes the age discrimination; and allows the incumbent, who all parties in Parliament seem to indicate has done an excellent job as the Ombudsman, to remain in office for the remainder of his term rather than vacate the office based on unjustified age discrimination.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Ministerial Statements

Gas Production—Low Supply Projections

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): I wish to make a ministerial statement relating to low gas production. This morning, the Minister for Resources, the Hon Shane Jones, released a public statement following the release of updated projections from industry coregulator the Gas Industry Company. The assessment from the Gas Industry Company is dire. Insufficient gas is available to meet all contracted demand. As a result, industrial gas use has reduced.

It is important for the House to understand the magnitude of these updated projections. Natural gas production has decreased following the previous Government’s decision in 2018 to ban gas exploration beyond Taranaki. Since 2018, New Zealand has imported record levels of coal from Indonesia. Gas production has fallen by 51 petajoules between the years 2018 and 2023; investment in gas exploration, including to maintain production from existing wells, has collapsed; and existing fields are now in decline. The speed of reductions in production has also exceeded expectations.

Last year, production was expected to be 147.46 petajoules; however, only 146.56 petajoules were produced. That is a shortfall on projections of 12.5 percent. In the first three months of this year, natural gas producers were expecting to deliver 42.6 petajoules but only 30.73 were produced. The difference in production is almost a 28 percent decline. The shortfall in production in the first three months of 2024 alone is almost twice the annual amount of gas used by residential consumers each year. This highlights the importance of New Zealand’s natural gas supplies not only as a firming fuel for our largely renewable electricity sector but as a vital energy source for our manufacturers and exporters.

Natural gas is a key input into the manufacturing of household chemicals, low-emissions shipping fuels, and fertiliser that improves the yields and productivity of our agriculture sector. It is also used extensively in food processing, particularly in the dairy sector, which is New Zealand’s leading export earner. Unlike other countries, natural gas in New Zealand is not exported or imported. All of the natural gas that is produced in New Zealand is used in New Zealand. Without the policy settings that enable more production, New Zealand’s manufacturing base and provincial economies will suffer and our country’s competitiveness will decline.

The coalition Government is committed to returning investment confidence in the natural gas sector so we can continue to produce the energy that powers our industries and keeps the lights on when renewables cannot do it alone. The Minister for Resources, the Hon Shane Jones, and I are working on a set of legislative reforms that we look forward to introducing to the House to support the gas sector. This includes taking decisions on the removal of the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration.

In the interim, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has established a gas security response group to coordinate gas producers, major gas users, and Government agencies while supply is tight. This group will be tasked with verifying the immediate supply and demand information to make sure we have a true picture of the problem; undertaking measures to make sure any impact of tight supply is managed by the large users who are best able to absorb the reduced supply; coordinating across Government, the gas sector, and electricity users to help identify and resolve any problems; and providing advice to Government on appropriate actions to ensure security of gas supply. This will help to also ensure that gas continues to be supplied to its most critical users, such as schools and hospitals.

The lights must stay on. Less natural gas will mean more coal being used to firm our electricity grid, as Genesis confirmed this morning. If it is not gas that keeps the lights on, then it must be coal. That is the reality of this situation the country finds itself in, and it is why this coalition Government has made urgent decisions on coordinating gas supplies and will lift the 2018 ban.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The quarterly update from the gas industry company is in line with advice and information that has both been widely known and discussed for some time now, and, in fact, was the body of knowledge and information that informed the previous Government’s work programme. New Zealand has a finite supply of fossil gas. In fact, the Gas Transition Plan—a plan released under our Government to address the challenges in front of us—noted that, even with ongoing investment, supply could decrease over time because our major gas producing fields are in a natural production decline phase in their operational lives. The reality is that according to official data—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt the member. This is a ministerial statement. It’s clearly a very serious matter, and the House should treat it as such.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The reality is that according to official data, since 2012-13, New Zealand’s gas production has been falling. This was even before our Government made the necessary and the correct decision to end new offshore oil and gas permitting. New Zealand must plan a transition away from gas. It is the Government’s duty to ensure that this is an orderly and a planned transition. In order to do this, and what our Government’s plan was, we must address how we store energy for generating electricity. At the moment, New Zealand stores energy for when the hydro lakes are low in the form of fossil fuels, in the form of coal and gas. This is not a viable option for the future, and nothing exemplifies the backwards looking of this Government than the sentence in this press release that says less gas will mean more coal. On this side of the House, less gas means more renewable energy and renewable storage.

We also need to be accelerating our work on zero-carbon gases. It is why our Government put an emphasis on biomethane. It is why our Government put an emphasis on hydrogen. We also need to work to reduce the demand for gas. The Minister, in his statement, says we must keep the lights on in our schools and hospitals. He is right, and that is why our Government had a State sector decarbonisation programme to move our schools and hospitals away from expensive gas, and why we moved them to the much more affordable renewable energy. We also had a programme to move our industries and our businesses to either reduce or absolutely remove gas from their industrial projects.

Under the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry scheme, which this Government has scrapped, 20 of our major industrial users moved away from using gas. This is how we will address it, and the Government must also have a policy programme to bring together the electricity and the gas markets. This is absolutely critical for going forward. My intention now is to ask the Minister some questions.

The first question for the Minister: what is the latest data by petajoule that he has on New Zealand’s gas use?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. The answers I gave in terms of our gas production and the supply—as the gas industry made it very clear, there is not enough gas being produced to meet existing demand. And the reality is that, in the last few days, I have had major gas users contact my office saying they’re finding it harder to get the contracts they need. We have the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment all-of-Government contract out this year for schools, for hospitals, and for other Government entities, and they will either have to pay a lot more or get much shorter contracts in order to get the gas that they need for the critical services. So the reality is that, with less production, we have to have less being produced in this country and higher prices, and that is bad for New Zealanders.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Given the Minister didn’t seem to have the information with him, the latest data that I’ve been able to find publicly is that, by petajoule, New Zealand’s gas use, not production, was 145 petajoules in 2022, which pretty much matches what is being produced, but—

Hon Judith Collins: Then why ask the question?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Because I thought there might be updated data, but clearly the Minister doesn’t have it. One of the things I’d like to know is: how many petajoules are currently in storage, and how does this compare with the situation in 2021 when we had the last tightness in the gas supply situation?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Well, I make the point because I made the comment in my statement that New Zealand does not import or export gas, and so how much is produced is going to be very close to how much is used—and the reality, in terms of storage, is that we don’t have significant storage in New Zealand. So the answer to your question is quite simply: as a closed market, ultimately New Zealand needs to have the production in order to meet the demand that we have as a country.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Just to help the Minister, maybe he could come back with some of these answers in written form if he doesn’t have the information with him.

My next question is, to the Minister: is he aware that, according to Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment data, New Zealand’s total coal consumption in 2022 decreased by 4 percent compared to 2021? This was the fourth year in a row that demand reduced, resulting in the lowest level of consumption in 22 years. This decrease in consumption was led by the industrial sector, the dominant user of coal in New Zealand. How does that square with what he said in his ministerial statement?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Well, the reality is, if you just look at the statement which was put out by Genesis this morning, they cannot get access to the gas that they need, which means they will be burning coal. And coal has twice the emissions of natural gas. So that member and that past Government have left New Zealand in a situation where, in order to keep the lights on in our country, the only answer is to burn coal with twice the carbon emissions of natural gas. That is a direct outcome of the last Government’s policy decisions in 2018, and they should be standing up in this House today and saying they will back this Government’s decision to overturn that ban on natural gas so we can get the production that we need, so we can make sure we can incentivise that investment. That is what the other party should be doing. Instead, they’re still in denial.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Is the Minister pursuing a work programme looking at renewable storage options, such as the portfolio approach that was put up or other pumped hydro options, and does the Minister have any policies other than bringing back oil and gas exploration to address the crisis?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Well, we have an entire suite of policies around electrifying New Zealand, but when she asks about storing energy and Lake Onslow, well—I tell you what—Lake Onslow isn’t going to help us this year. It wasn’t going to even be constructed till the end of next decade at all. So they had no plan on how the transition would go; just a pipe dream costing billions and billions of dollars, which, by the way, the energy sector said was having a chilling impact on the investment we need in renewables. So not only were they pro-coal; they were also anti-renewables. And so glad we got rid of that past Government last year. But they should be standing up in this House today and saying, “We are going to back this Government to repeal the ban on oil and gas so we can restore confidence and have the energy security our country needs.”

Scott Willis: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: OK, my mind has slipped again.

Scott Willis: Scott Willis, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know, Scott. We just spent a week away, and I can’t believe that after a week away overseas with you, I forgot your name.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): I don’t want to suggest what that might’ve been, Mr Speaker! But I would like to say that the Minister, the Hon Simeon Brown, certainly loves gas and gaslighting, because he’s pouring more fuel on the climate crisis. I am more interested in the actual practical steps that this Government is willing to do to decarbonise our energy system. There is an abundance of renewable energy potential in Aotearoa, and the Minister is wrong—he’s wrong—when he says we have to choose between coal and gas. I’m really tired of this prosperity gospel gibberish on gas. Why won’t this Minister deliver what’s needed? We already have 1,551 megawatts of consented wind. We have hundreds of megawatts of consented solar. They can be built tomorrow.

I’ve got some questions for the Minister. When is the Minister going to look at the broken electricity market and fix it, to make it attractive to build consented renewables? Wind and solar farms can be built tomorrow if needed. Our electricity market is dominated by four gentailers who control generation capacity, and they are receiving high profits from the fossil fuel component. That doesn’t benefit households. That doesn’t help us get off gas. When will the Government acknowledge that a modern, flexible, distributed renewable electricity system is feasible, is simple, and can be delivered now?

When will this Government allow a transparent electricity market to allow new electricity generation, allow innovation, like incorporating electric vehicles, hot water cylinders, solar, plus batteries, cold store in a flexible, distributed energy system? That can be done now. So what advice has the Minister received on whether shutting down the Climate Emergency Response Fund and the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry initiative has exacerbated gas shortages by enabling a key way of getting gas-polluting companies off gas? Will the Minister embrace the Greens’ clean power plan to provide grants to households to help transition away from gas and reduce demand?

Really, looking around the House, some politicians need to get their heads above the inversion layer and see what some clean air looks like. It looks like renewables, it looks exactly like what every major investment bank and business consultant group is advising, it looks like the basic stuff that so many of our peers around the world are already doing, and it looks like the call from 350 Aotearoa, who want homegrown energy. It looks like the call from FlexForum to unlock the value of distributed energy resources and flexibility. It looks like the call from the Community Energy Network for democratising our energy system, for resilience for our climate response, to keep the energy dollar local. So we can have cheaper, cleaner, smarter power, but this Government simply seems bereft of ideas.

There is no doubt that we have a capacity issue right now during the colder months, but it’s simply a result of Government inaction. Firstly, the cheapest power is that which we don’t use. So where is the investment in the expansion of the Warmer Kiwi Homes scheme? The success that we’ve seen with innovators like Aukaha and the deeper upgrades through the Otago Home Upgrade Programme, through all of those innovators in the Community Energy Network—where is the strengthening of resource standards’ healthy home requirements to reduce household demand, to get gas out of households. The Minister and his colleagues say they want to overcome green unicorn thinking. I  suggest it would be far better to embrace science-based thinking in transition engineering to build a sustainable future, rather than die as a dinosaur in a climate hell.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party campaigned to repeal the ban on oil and gas—a terrible policy delivered without any consultation by the previous Government, no cost-benefit analysis, and no idea what the impacts would be or how Kiwis would actually cope. Gas shortages have been forecast for years, as the former energy Minister Megan Woods rightly pointed out, but her Government—the previous Government—did nothing about it. It did nothing about it. Their gas transition plan was a no-gas transition plan, and that’s why we’re experiencing shortages and why the spot price for electricity today has hit a serious peak. It’s going to cost households and businesses more than they could possibly imagine.

New Zealand is dependent on natural gas, not necessarily for energy use but also for industrial manufacturing. There are plants like Methanex in Taranaki, which produces all of the plastic products that go into everything we use and consume. Your kid’s backpack, your special raincoat that not just Green Party but also maybe even ACT politicians like to go tramping in, the plastics in your mobile phone—they’re all made from methanol coming from Methanex in Taranaki. Two-thirds of their plant is shut down right now because of gas shortages and the extraordinary price of gas.

It is correct that gas is a transition fuel. Gas is going to help us transition from a period of using high - greenhouse gas fuels to lower, but only because natural gas provides for the peaking. In other words, when there is too much demand in the morning or evening peaks, the gas peakers can come on. They can be turned on with a text message; 20 minutes later, they’re delivering 50 or 100 megawatts to the grid; and what that means is we can continue to invest in renewables in New Zealand, knowing that the lights will always be on and the heating will always be on. That’s quite a different approach to the approach taken by the previous Government.

Now, when we hear from the Opposition that we should be—oh this, what do we call him? The “Switched-on Gardener” over here, in the Green Party, is suggesting we should move to 100 percent renewables and nothing but solar panels. I don’t think that member knows that the Huntly power station typically runs on about 85 percent coal, but it can run on 100 percent natural gas—

Scott Willis: And it can run on biomass.

SIMON COURT: —at half the emissions. The member points out that it can run on biomass. Well, fortunately, because we have natural gas, we can afford to invest in biomass, and that is a good thing. But it’s not the answer to everything. Households, businesses, rest homes, school boards, as well as major energy users—they want to know that they have access to affordable and reliable energy, and that is natural gas.

Minister, I’ve got a couple of questions for you. How does having fast-start gas generators help achieve New Zealand’s progress towards a greater percentage of renewable energy?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Well, the reality is that having fast-start gas peakers means that we can firm the renewable energy that is intermittent, and that is why we on this side of the House are committed to repealing the ban on oil and gas exploration and encouraging the investment into that gas production. It is so that we can firm the renewable wind and renewable solar, which means that when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing, we can still have that security of supply on our electricity grid, which is so critically important to households and businesses across New Zealand.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Minister. How does repealing the ban on oil and gas exploration help support businesses in regions like Taranaki, and does this provide confidence to those businesses and all of those engineers and support sectors that work in the natural gas and energy sector to actually invest and stay in New Zealand?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Well, repealing the ban on oil and gas exploration is part of the plan to ensure that we can encourage investment back into oil and gas in New Zealand, because it is a critical part of firming renewable energy, and it will play a huge role in terms of providing confidence back to that sector. My colleague the Hon Shane Jones is leading that piece of work and will be making decisions on that in coming weeks.

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister for Energy): This short contribution is to support my ministerial colleague. Today, industry sees the long-term consequences of the shallow, emerald manikin - thinking that’s driven energy policy for the last five or six years. Today, industry throughout New Zealand is confronted by the facts as a consequence of that juvenile, woke-riddled, foolish belief that we don’t need our natural resources, that we don’t need our natural gas, that we don’t need coal has been laid bare. Hopefully, these emerald manikins will retire and let the serious politicians address the unresolved issues in our economy.

Of course, any threat to energy security is not only a matter for households, hospitals, schools; it lies at the heart of our industry. When industry is contacting the Minister for Energy and saying they have doubts as to whether or not they can secure, with security, industry resources such as fuel, look no further than that side of the House. That side of the House, with their indiscriminate, destructive, refinery-destroying actions. That side of the House, with chilling, chilling effect, stopping investment, scaring overseas existing investors away, and destroying industry in New Zealand. For what—for what? This faint green vision that somehow we can keep the lights on with unicorn kisses. Impossible. We need hard driven, trade-off decisions, which is what the Minister and my good self—with appropriate modesty—will be delivering.

First, there will be further exploration, delivery, and investment in oil and gas. It lies at the heart of the nation’s fiscal solvency and the nation’s productivity. And, yes, if they meet the criteria, they will get a permit in a rapid period of time, just as sun will, just as wind will. Tell me this—those who are opposed to resilience and energy security, name me one bill that has been passed by the other side of the House to deliver rapid, clean, green energy investments. No, you can’t—no, you can’t. Oh, we are going to hear about a pipeline—a pipeline—of BlackRock investment, but no consents. We’re going to hear about a pipeline of climate change dreams, but absolutely no content. That’s why the actual body of officials and stakeholders that are being stood up this Friday are going to go to the heart of the issue. They’re not going to write any more policy, say, on scripts. They’re not going to tolerate any more long, protracted working groups. “We’re going to have a working party about gas transition. By 2030, we’re going to get rid of all fossil fuels.”—pipedreams that deserve the outcome that was visited on the other side of the House: permanent Opposition.

We, however, are going to ensure that this group creates concrete steps that will deliver not only certainty to industry but they will be able to rely upon a fast-track regime that will be accompanied by new legislation reopening oil and gas, not juvenile, foolish tiddlywink games on the other side of the House. They will also see that there will no longer be this cumbersome, throttling, burdensome obligation upon the industry; there will be balance. When that happens, not only will there be gas to ensure we avoid energy blackouts but there will be confidence back in investors in New Zealand, industry in New Zealand, and hospitals and schools, because they realise that all the green manikin - thinking has gone by the way, the grown-ups are in charge—energy’s on the way.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. At the appropriate time, I wonder if you might be able to have a look at that contribution and perhaps the one from the ACT Party as well and see if it was in line with Speakers’ Rulings 150/2 and 150/3.

SPEAKER: OK.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank members from across the House for their—

SPEAKER: Do they want to speak? Sorry, do Te Pāti Māori want to make a contribution?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yes.

SPEAKER: You need to call.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe, e te Pīka. I did but—kei te pai.

First of all—I don’t actually know where to start after hearing that. You sort of want to grab the unicorn by the horn and carry on! I think what’s really important, first and foremost, is that Te Pāti Māori will always talk on the side that we believe in, in rights and interests. Actually, I found myself uniquely agreeing at times with Minister Jones, which is an unholy feeling—an unholy feeling because Te Pāti Māori also found itself at odds with certain parties on this side of the House, and that was because they did not support our seabed mining bill.

So I want to make it really clear that no Māori iwi affected in Taranaki support the opening and the continuing of that sector. But they do want to hear solutions and what a transition would look like. There were no solutions or transitions that came through. We do have a concern about energy equity. We do have an appetite towards community solutions, and community solutions that can be about renewable energies.

I do want to sort of put ourselves in a unique position here, to the Minister, to ask: what are the time lines? Gosh, sometimes I think the Minister on this side wants to join this party because he sometimes talks more for me than I get to talk for myself. But one of the things I do want to gauge from the Minister is how is the Government engaging—and I mean truly engaging, not the type of Zooms that we see Minister Jones having with iwi leaders where he’s the only one who gets to speak. How are you engaging with Māori on the issue—on the issue of gas, on the issue of coal in Aotearoa? And what are some of the economic considerations that can make, I guess, the transition for us, particularly in Taranaki—I mean, we do have some infrastructure. We do have desires to continue on.

So, despite what many over here think, there are some great aspirations, there are some kōrero coming through, and I do think that they had started with the Minister on my right, but things didn’t progress. And they are some of the largest investors—they are some of the largest investors and they are also part and parcel of some of the largest ongoing “stakeholders”, for want of the right word, not only because we have rights as Tiriti but also they will continuously invest in Taranaki. So I would like to gauge from the Minister where and how you see those transitions looking and, more importantly, the time line.

Rawiri Waititi: A very mature speech.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Because while we sit here and watch the—thank you; I felt mature—padder tennis going on, people really want to know: what are you going to do that’s any better than the last? When are you going to do anything better than the last? And I guess, too—part of our policy was to address the fact that we established funds to be able to counteract what it is that was being withdrawn. When decisions were made in the last Government, no one gave that sector or our community a transitional fund. So I do want to be really open about it. We want to see the end of the sector. It is a finite source. It is a finite source, but we are the energy Mecca of Aotearoa and we intend to keep that role in a way that we can be sustainable, economically proud, and environmentally assertive. So I would like to gauge that from the Minister.

The other thing that I would like to also get from you is: how are you going to address the community energy inequities and how do we assure that, as in Taranaki, we support some of the wind activity being proposed—how do we ensure that we get the benefits? And I don’t just mean in a social licence sense. You know, iwi were leading and they were extremely progressive, and you’ll know between the last couple of Governments, in best-practice engagement with some of these sectors—how do they then leverage off that? Because they’re better at this business than the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and actually politicians?

Rawiri Waititi: Absolutely.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Absolutely—absolutely! They have been involved in the energy sector much longer than anyone else in this House, including our esteemed members over on the left. So I would like to gauge from you: what is the engagement and the level of commitment that you’re going to do and those aspirations in addressing again community and their energy inequities and how we can grow in a partnering way, not in a co-governance way—in a partnering co-investing way into what your vision is for those communities. Kia ora rā.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): I thank the member for her engagement and the questions. The reality is that iwi have an important role to play when it comes to investing in our energy sector—whether that’s in the oil and gas sector, whether that’s in offshore renewables, whether that’s in renewable energy, there is a critically important role. But this Government wants to open up those pathways for investment in New Zealand, so that is why we are going to repeal the ban on oil and gas exploration. That is why we’re progressing the fast-track legislation so that we can actually make it quicker and easier to build the infrastructure that New Zealand needs. Whether it’s offshore renewable energy in Taranaki—we need to have the legislation in place to be able to allow that and make those decisions a lot faster, so I ask the member and her party to back the Government so we can create these opportunities so that iwi across New Zealand can invest and can be part of that success.

The other element I would make in terms of the equity issues is that all New Zealanders need access to affordable energy. When we have a tight energy market like we have now—when we have low gas production and we have those challenges which mean the price of gas goes up—it means the costs go through to consumers, and, ultimately, all New Zealanders, including Māori, pay more, and that is bad for New Zealanders.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Thank you. What are the Minister’s views, therefore, on unregulated energy, the rights and interests of Māori and ownership, and certainly where that sits within the Crown Minerals Act? I know they are different portfolios.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Well, I’m not responsible for the Crown Minerals Act, but what I would say is that, ultimately, the Crown does have an important role to make sure it upholds Treaty settlements.

Scott Willis: Mr Speaker, just two additional questions that I’d like addressed, please.

SPEAKER: The time has passed. I call on, for a reply in this particular ministerial statement, the Hon Simeon Brown.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank members from across the House for their engagement in this important topic. The reality is that we have been faced with the latest projections and information from the Gas Industry Company, which have outlined there has been a significant downgrade in production from our gasfields in New Zealand—a 28 percent decline in just the past three months on what was projected to be produced. This shortfall has a significant impact on our country’s industries and on our energy security as a nation. It highlights the critical importance of the work this Government is doing to repeal the ban on oil and gas exploration, and to ensure that we are achieving the investment we need to reduce the gas that is required for industrial purposes, for our schools and our hospitals, and, importantly, for our electricity sector so that we can have that firming for our wind, solar, and to keep the lights on.

The news today that Genesis Energy is going to have to import more coal is a direct result of the fact that we are not producing enough gas as a country. So this is a really critically important report. The Government has a plan on how we’re going to address these challenging issues, and my message to all parties across the House: New Zealanders wish—want—to have energy security. New Zealanders need energy security. I ask them to back the Government’s reforms, provide bipartisan support to those reforms so we can keep the lights on, encourage that investment, and ensure we have the energy that New Zealanders need for our security as a country.

SPEAKER: I just wanted to respond the point of order raised by the Hon Kieran McAnulty. He asked me to consider the speech by the Hon Shane Jones in light of Speaker’s ruling 150/2. I think this has been a spirited debate—would be a fair thing to say—and I think if the member reflects on the speeches, perhaps even the Hansard, from the Hon Megan Woods and from Scott Willis, perhaps the response from Mr Jones would be more understandable.

Urgent Debates Declined

Escalation of Conflict in Gaza—Government Response

SPEAKER: Can I also say that I’ve received a letter from Marama Davidson and Teanau Tuiono seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Government’s response to escalations in Gaza. The application does not provide any information about a Government response. The application is therefore declined.

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 of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s action to set students up for greater success by mandating all schools to use the tried and tested structured literacy approach. It’s going to be a big job for this Government to tidy up the mess that we inherited in educational achievement, but we’re up for it. We’re ambitious for our kids. We’re going to make sure they get the education they need so we can get the country back on track.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What’s the current national gender pay gap?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What is the current national gender pay gap?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, just under 9 percent.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: That’s very good—[Interruption] Does he think it’s acceptable—[Interruption] Does he think it’s acceptable that women—

SPEAKER: Just hang on.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he think it’s acceptable that women working in New Zealand earn just under 9 percent less than men for the same work; if not, what’s his Government going to do about it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, we actually want to see pay parity in this country. We’re going to work very hard to make sure that happens.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does he think we have a gender pay gap in New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, there’s a longstanding number of reasons that, you know, has caused that pay gap. That’s not acceptable. We’re going to keep working hard on it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What are some of those reasons?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there’s a number of reasons for it, but I’m just telling you it’s an unacceptable gap. We’re going to work hard on it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seeing as this matter is related to gender and it’s very important for the Government, has he received information as to what a woman is?

SPEAKER: Look, these questions may be enjoyable for the Minister, but they’re not particularly useful for the House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why is this Government abolishing the pay equity task force?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because it’s the responsibility of Government agencies.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he disagree with the Public Service Commission when it identifies that pay equity settlements have been powerful vehicles for closing gender, Māori, Pacific, and ethnic pay gaps that still exist?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So if he doesn’t disagree with that, why is he abolishing the task force that does that work?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Agencies can do it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he commit his Government to reducing the gender pay gap at least as fast as it has over the last six years, when it’s reduced from 12.2 percent to 7.1 percent just before the last election?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said earlier, I will be committing to lowering the pay gap.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, in the context they were given.

SPEAKER: Very hard to take another supplementary on that. When you think about the nature of that question—I’ve raised this with the House before—look at Standing Order 397. You can continue, but when these questions are asked, a “yes” kind of ends it. Well, think about it: where can you go after that? How do you elucidate on “yes”?

Chlöe Swarbrick: You point out contradictions.

SPEAKER: There is none. No, no, that’s not the point of a question time, with all due respect, Chlöe—it’s not. So I’m just saying: carry on now, but watch out for that in the future.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by his statement, “I seriously hope that I get the support of the Greens for this legislation, because if you want serious delivery on our climate change goals, we need to build renewable energy projects much faster.”, and, if so, will he rule out fast-tracking, coal mining, oil drilling, and all other fossil fuel projects that increase emissions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say to that member: we’ve had a very interesting ministerial statement and debate in this House. What was very obvious to me is that if you actually want us to deliver on our climate change goals and commitments—which we all want to do in this House—I’d just encourage the Green Party to support the fast-track legislation, and also the ban.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he aware that existing processes already enable wind farms to be consented, with over 1,904 megawatts’ worth of capacity currently consented and unbuilt?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I am very well aware of is it took eight years to consent a simple wind farm not very far from this place here in Wellington. It took two years to build it—it therefore took 10 years to actually get the benefit of clean, renewable electricity. What we’re doing under fast track is making sure that we can double the amount of renewable electricity. We support renewable energy projects; we fast-track consent them within one year; we get them built in two; we get the benefit in three, not 10, years. I would think that that member in the Green Party would want to support that legislation.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement, “It’s through a select committee process, open for any sensible ideas to improve the legislation”, and, if so, will he set down the list of projects to be inserted in Schedule 2 at the select committee stage in order to improve transparency and public scrutiny of the legislation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg: yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Te Atiawa, Taranaki Whānui, Ngāti Raukawa, and other iwi that, “We too are frustrated that things take so long and cost so much. We, too, want more affordable homes and infrastructure, but we also want clean, healthy taiao, waterways, beaches, and kaimoana.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That’s what we’re saying, but what we’re saying is we want to see fast-track legislation passed, we want to get things built in this country, and we want renewable energy and electricity to be doubled. The way we do that is we get things moving much quicker than what we’ve been doing.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with Ngāti Toa Rangatira and other iwi who just stood out on the Parliament forecourt today: “So we say to you, Minister, by all means streamline, reduce time and cost, but do not repeat the mistakes of the past; do not give affected laymen hired and fired every three years the power to make decisions that will last 100.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said to the member today and also yesterday, there is a select committee process going on. The Minister for Infrastructure has already intimated that we are open for any reasonable contributions through that process. We’ll take that into consideration after the select committee process finishes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with Ngāti Toa Rangatira and other iwi who said today, “Development brought homes and infrastructure, but also polluted waterways, poisoned kaimoana, sedimented harbours, diminished health, ghettoised communities, and breaches of Treaty rights—all from unwise, unchecked development.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I’d just say to that member: either you’re serious about solving climate change or you’re not. You keep talking about it, but you don’t put the plans in place to do anything about it, right? It’s a lot of bumper stickers, it’s a lot of Post-it notes; that’s what you’re doing. You’re not actually putting the plan in place. We’ve seen it under the previous administration. We’re in the situation we are today with an energy security challenge because it was all “Kumbaya”, a lot of bumper stickers and headlines, but no plan. So what I’d say to everybody in this House: come on board in a bipartisan way, support our reversal of the oil and gas ban, support our fast-track legislation, and let’s go get renewable energy built in this country.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister, having regard to the sincerity and integrity of that last question, was he or Minister Brown or Minister Jones asked to the meeting outside the Parliament at lunchtime so that we would know for ourselves what they are saying, and not the Green Party’s and Māori Party’s pretence at what they’re saying?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I was unaware of that meeting, but we welcome the contributions, as I said, through the select committee process.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. How can a question that begins by inviting the respondent to provide a commentary on the quality of the last question possibly be within order?

SPEAKER: Well, the problem is that the primary question is about as open as you could possibly get. I said that it creates its own problems. I made it clear that the member could continue, but when Marama Davidson mentioned and was quoting, apparently, from protestors who are at the front of Parliament today, it’s not unreasonable to ask a question if the Prime Minister or any of his representatives were invited to speak there.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you therefore indicating that Government members can use their questions to attack the Opposition, which previous Speakers have repeatedly ruled is out of order?

SPEAKER: Well, I would think it would be a very odd thing for me to rule that someone asking a question about whether they were invited to speak to a protest group was somehow attacking the Opposition. I don’t think that’s the case.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I think you should look at the question again.

SPEAKER: Well, the member’s asking me often to look at questions, and I do. I will do that again.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. The Māori Party was brought into the question of the member, and we didn’t ask the question. So I’d like that reviewed, and to ensure that the Māori Party isn’t brought into any of a debate that we weren’t part of.

SPEAKER: Say that last part again.

Rawiri Waititi: I would hope that Te Pāti Māori was not brought into the debate where we didn’t ask the question. When that member asked the Prime Minister a question, he used Te Pāti Māori after the Greens had asked that question. We weren’t part of that question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order. I can help out here.

SPEAKER: Just a minute. Perhaps later when you and I meet over some conditions that were not met around that protest, then we can discuss this matter.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The real point is if Te Pāti Māori are so concerned at being mentioned, why were they there and the rest of us not invited?

SPEAKER: That’s not a point of order—it’s not a point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Previous Speakers have ruled very clearly that matters outside the House are not matters of order in the House. The point of order by Winston Peters breached that, but, actually, so did the ruling that you have just delivered.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s an interesting—if you are unhappy with that, you’ve got a course of action you should take.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. I feel exactly the same. Te Pāti Māori wants to express our extreme concern at the fact that the Speaker’s raised something that had nothing to do within the House and has made assumptions before he’s actually met with the member and the co-leader of Te Pāti Māori.

SPEAKER: I’ve made no such assumptions.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement, “We have gone line by line through our savings program to ensure that we have cut the chaff but not wheat”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. Ministers have gone line by line through savings proposals with a focus on reprioritising funds currently tied to lower-value programmes, programmes that don’t align with the coalition Government’s priorities, and non-essential back-office functions, including contractor and consultant spend. We will keep our commitment to New Zealanders to stop wasteful spending, improve value for money, and drive resources to front-line services. I would remind the member opposite that every dollar we spend has an opportunity cost, and for so long as people are waiting for surgery, for specialist appointments, and are struggling to pay the bills, we owe it to New Zealanders to get maximum value from every dollar.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are 111 operators the wheat or the chaff?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I find it distasteful for any member of this House to refer to people in those terms. My statement referred to programmes, and I don’t think anyone in this House should ever refer to a person as “chaff”.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are the roles at Callaghan Innovation, which she is proposing to cut, the wheat or the chaff, when, last year, R & D spending increased by the largest amount since records began?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said, every dollar that the Government spends has an opportunity cost. Ministers in this Government are doing the right thing by looking through all spending, not just to see whether it is well intended or sounded nice in a press release but whether it is driving the outcomes and results that were promised. It shouldn’t be a surprise to that member to learn that there’s a lot of dollars that have been wasted.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister please explain what she means by “opportunity cost”, in case it is helpful to the Opposition?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I think the Minister asks a good question—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How is this in order?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —because this is a concept that I think some may struggle with—

SPEAKER: Just a minute, sorry—just a minute. Look, if someone raises a matter in a question, surely it can be followed up in a question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The last part of his question was totally out of order.

SPEAKER: Well, the last part of the question—I agree. OK. You’re quite right. So we’ll get that struck from the Hansard. Please don’t do that again, Mr Seymour.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Mr Speaker, I realise there is sensitivity about the term—

SPEAKER: No, that doesn’t help either.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —“Opportunity cost”: what that explains is that for every dollar that the Government is using, the alternative is that, actually, it stayed in the bank account of a New Zealander who is struggling with the groceries. It’s a dollar that could have gone to progress surgery faster for someone waiting on a waiting list. It is a dollar that could have been used by someone who is waiting to pay the bills. So we owe it to New Zealanders to ensure that every dollar is going to its maximum value.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What advice, if any, has she received about the risks that cuts to the Department of Internal Affairs’ anti - money-laundering team could put New Zealand on the international grey list, which would significantly reduce foreign direct investment inflows?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, if the member wants to ask a specific question about a specific programme, she should either put it to the Minister or put it to me on notice. I can’t recall having received any advice about that, but I am very proud that this is a Government that’s going to be hiring 500 police, and they’re going to be cracking down on crime.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she say, “We have gone line by line”, but whenever this side of the House asks about the specifics of the cuts, the answer is “It is an operational matter”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, because there’s 21 days to wait until Budget day, and if the best that the member has is that she’s a bit upset that I’m not giving her all the details of the Budget yet, then I suggest she get someone better to write the questions.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: What are the Government’s fiscal intentions and objectives?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well, the member asks a very good question, and I do actually have an answer prepared. The answer is that the Government’s key short-term fiscal intentions for the next four financial years are set out in the Budget Policy Statement. They are to put net debt as a percentage of GDP on a downward trajectory towards 40 percent, to work towards a surplus via a steadily improving trajectory for the operating balance, and to reduce core Crown expenses as a percentage of GDP. The Government’s key long-term objectives, looking ahead over the next 15 years, are to maintain net debt within a range of 20 percent to 40 percent of GDP, subject to economic shocks, and to control growth in Government spending so that, over time, core Crown spending reduces towards 30 percent of GDP.

Nancy Lu: In what direction have these key variables been travelling over the last few years?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The operating balance excluding gains and losses has been in deficit for the past five years. Net debt has increased as a percentage of GDP for the past five years and is now more than double what it was in 2018-19. And core Crown spending has been well above 30 percent of GDP for the past five years. The Government will turn this situation around and restore the books to order. However, members, this will not be an instant fix. It will take time to turn around, and there may well be some bumps in the road. It will involve difficult choices and trade-offs, and the important thing is to make steady progress over the medium term.

Nancy Lu: Will the Budget provide any more information on fiscal policy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. The Fiscal Strategy Report will be released alongside the Budget and will lay out a plan to achieve the objectives I have mentioned. This will include setting out the operating allowances for future Budgets that the member opposite is so excited by. The Fiscal Strategy Report will also include fiscal forecasts and projections so people can see how net debt, the operating balance, and core Crown spending are expected to track in the near term and over the next 15 years.

Nancy Lu: Does the Government’s fiscal policy accord with recent advice from the OECD and the IMF?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. The OECD’s advice is for the Government to steadily reduce the fiscal deficit. It also said that the Government should limit the rise in public debt and thereby increase the fiscal buffer available for the next negative shock. The IMF also has a medium-term view. It says that the Government should signal a strong commitment to fiscal consolidation, and it recommends—

Chlöe Swarbrick: And fixing the tax system!

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —and this is an important point that the member should listen to—that consolidation be gradual, credible, and durable. The legacy we have inherited of elevated and lazy spending will take several Budgets to fix, but the first steps will be taken in Budget 2024.

Hon Chris Bishop: Do the Government’s fiscal intentions and objectives include funding Treasure Island?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Mr Speaker, life’s a question of priorities and that’s not one for us.

SPEAKER: No. Let it go. Sit down. Sit down!

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. So that’s—

SPEAKER: Just a minute. We’re having a point of order, so we’ll have a bit of quiet.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s three question times in a row now we’ve seen the Government Ministers abuse questions or points of order that are clearly not in order and are intended to make a political point. And so I’m interested, Mr Speaker, what moves you intend to make to act as a disincentive to continue doing it.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. That question was completely within order. In fact, most of the question contained words from the primary.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s an interesting sort of suggestion. I’ll have to look at both of those things at a later point. So we’ll move now to question No. 5.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, point of order. I seek leave to correct my answer.

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

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m just conscious that there are a number of funds for which programmes apply for funding. And I’m not sure how Treasure Island gets its funding and whether or not it is eligible for NZ On Air funding. What I know is that it’s a programme—

SPEAKER: Sit down. That’s enough. Look, I’ll be blunt with the Government side: I’m not going to tolerate a lot more of this, OK? Attacks on the Opposition—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s all humour.

SPEAKER: It’s not. Well, if you think it’s humour, that’s great. I’ll tell you what, Mr Peters, you seem to know more about my job, and I certainly know a lot more about you; do you want a swap?

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker, point of order.

SPEAKER: No, I’m still ruling. What I have ruled is we’re moving now to question No. 5.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the funding of arts and media is actually a topic of intense public interest at the moment. And I think that, on the one hand, I understand your rulings about attacking the Opposition, but at what point should members be constrained from asking questions about a highly topical issue because of the sensitivity and the humourlessness of the Opposition?

SPEAKER: Yeah, it’s another point for me to consider.

Question No. 5—Tertiary Education and Skills

5. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills: Does she stand by all her answers to oral question No. 8 on Thursday, 2 May 2024?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills): Yes. I especially stand by my answer that Te Pūkenga has left a legacy in the vocational education sector that is a disaster, with student numbers falling, financials getting worse, staff leaving, and generally industry feeling they are not being supported. I also stand by my statement that they did not have a credible pathway back to being financially viable. This Government is committed to take decisions to disestablish Te Pūkenga and consult on a proposed replacement model this quarter as outlined in the Prime Minister’s action plan for New Zealand.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: At her meeting with the chair and the chief executive of Te Pūkenga on 30 November 2023, did she instruct the chair and the chief executive to cease recruitment for new management positions and extend the employment contracts of existing managers who were due to cease employment in April 2024?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I stand by all my actions in meetings with Te Pūkenga. I cannot direct Te Pūkenga but I have a right to make my views known and to inform them about the Government’s policies and the intended direction for the vocational education and training sector.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Did the Minister suggest to the chair and the chief executive of Te Pūkenga at her meeting with them on 30 November 2023 that they should cease recruitment for new management positions and extend the employment contracts of existing managers who were due to cease employment in April 2024?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: As I said, I cannot direct Te Pūkenga to do the things that the member has suggested but I do have a right to make my views known and to inform them of decisions by the Government regarding policies on the vocational education sector.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: At that meeting, did she make her expectations clear that she expected them to cease recruitment for new management positions and extend the employment contracts of existing managers who were due to cease employment in April 2024?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I made my expectations clear that I expected Te Pūkenga to ensure they did nothing that would thwart the direction of the policy that this Government was taking, with the disestablishment of Te Pūkenga.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is the Minister aware that expressing expectations in such a way may amount to a direct operational instruction to the chair and chief executive of the Crown entity, which would be a breach of the Crown Entities Act and the Cabinet Manual?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I did not direct Te Pūkenga to take actions. I cannot direct Te Pūkenga to take actions. I can express to them my views and the policy of this Government, and I was able to follow up a letter of expectations to Te Pūkenga on 5 December, confirming what my expectations were.

Question No. 6—Education

6. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Education: What recent reports by the OECD and the Education Review Office has she seen on the New Zealand education sector?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I recently received the OECD Economic Survey of New Zealand 2024, which confirmed student achievement is declining, equity is not improving, and outcomes are too variable. The need for change to education in New Zealand is clear. Many of the support elements that should strengthen the delivery of this essential public service are lacking. For example, the OECD notes that New Zealand must focus on introducing a sufficiently detailed curriculum, efficient assessment tools, specialist subject teaching practice and curriculum implementation advice, and initial teacher education tailored to the unique demands the system imposes. I am pleased to report that, last week, I announced six priorities that directly address these challenges, on top of implementing our two policies in our first 100 days that the Education Review Office (ERO) have recently reported on.

Sam Uffindell: What recent reports has she seen on the implementation of the one hour a day of reading, writing, and maths policy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The latest update I have received from the Education Review Office states that before the Government introduced this policy, one in five schools were not teaching an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths. By April this year, nearly 99 percent of schools that are required to teach an hour a day have now introduced a policy to do so. Additionally, ERO found that 92 percent of schools meet the requirement of the away all day cellphone policy. The recent OECD report also found that the quality of the hour a day policy will be improved with the ban on cellphone usage in class time. The support for these two policies has been overwhelming.

Sam Uffindell: What findings did the OECD report on the Government’s plans for education?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m proud to say the report found—and I quote—“A welcome step in improving the curriculum is the Minister of Education’s appointment of a ministerial advisory group to provide advice to the Minister on the English, maths, and statistics learning areas for year 0 to 10”. I further quote: “Under the Government’s Teaching the Basics Brilliantly policy, the Government is further reinforcing curriculum reforms to improve outcomes in literacy and mathematics by introducing the requirement for schools to teach year 0 to 8 children an average of an hour a day each of reading, writing, and maths.” I couldn’t have written it better myself, and what more could I want to confirm that this Government is on the right track?

Sam Uffindell: What did the OECD report state on curriculum?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The OECD report stated that improving the curriculum and its implementation are crucial to lifting achievement. The report highlighted the need for a clear specification of knowledge, skills, and values in our curriculum. I have been clear that a shift to a knowledge-rich, year-by-year curriculum that clearly states what our kids need to know in order to build mastery of the core skills of reading, writing, and maths is a foundational piece of work being delivered by this Government. I demonstrated our commitment to supporting quality implementation with a commitment of $67 million from Budget 2024 for professional development and resources for teachers to ensure that every child learns to read using structured literacy approaches.

Question No. 7—Mental Health

7. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister for Mental Health: Does he stand by his statement that the full-time equivalent roles of the Suicide Prevention Office will increase by one full-time equivalent role to 6.5 roles; if not, why not?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Yes, and also including my other statements that the Public Service Association (PSA) union should apologise for politicising suicide and misleading New Zealanders by putting a press release out that was misleading—where they were told by the Ministry of Health that, and they continued to mislead New Zealanders.

Ingrid Leary: How many of the 6.5 roles he has referred to are focused entirely on preventing suicide?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Clearly, we’re under a change process at the moment, but what I can tell the House is that the Suicide Prevention Office currently has 5.5 fulltime-equivalents. The structure within the Ministry of Health will take it up to 6.5, and I’ve recently been informed—because under the last Government, the Suicide Prevention Office was shifted first to the Māori Health Authority—now it’s put back into the Ministry of Health. The funding and contracting functions within Health New Zealand will even increase the fulltime-equivalent above 6.5.

Ingrid Leary: How can it be true that a role about drug checking or another about addiction strategy and two general adviser roles are focused entirely on preventing suicide, and, if not, does he now revise downwards his figures of how many roles at the Ministry of Health will be specifically focused on suicide prevention?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, the problem the member has is she’s basing her questions off another misleading PR that the PSA union put out on Friday that was factually incorrect, and she should go back to her union mates and ask them to apologise.

Ingrid Leary: Is he aware that 565 people in New Zealand died of suspected suicide to the year end 30 June 2023, and, if so, how does he think that cutting the number of roles focused on suicide from five roles down to two roles will help prevent suicides in New Zealand?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, I can’t be any clearer: the current Suicide Prevention Office sits at 5.5 fulltime-equivalents; after the proposed restructure, which is still a proposal, it’ll go above 6.5. So if that member’s worried about bereaved families of people who took their life—565 of them—tell the PSA to stop politicising suicide.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that our coalition Government is committed to increasing funding for Gumboot Friday, and would the Minister outline how the provision of those front-line mental health services will make a difference to New Zealanders, and has the PSA put a PR out about that?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, that’s exactly the point, isn’t it? The fixation on the back office in what’s important is about increasing access to timely suicide prevention and postvention, and this is what this Government will deliver.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What proposals has the Minister announced regarding the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Last week, I announced the Government’s intention to strengthen oversight of organisations that care for our most vulnerable children. These changes include restoring the single Children’s Commissioner, and making the Independent Children’s Monitor an independent Crown entity instead of a departmental agency hosted within the Education Review Office. These changes will enhance oversight of the entire Oranga Tamariki system to deliver greater accountability, improving vulnerable children’s safety and welfare.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government proposing to restore the single, independent Children’s Commissioner?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We believe children deserve a fierce, independent champion. In 2022, the Children’s Commissioner was disestablished and replaced by a five-person board. Our view, and the view of many others, is that the board weakens the visibility and advocacy of the commissioner’s role. For years, the single, independent commissioner was effective, and we are restoring the single commissioner to be a strong advocate for children.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government proposing to make the Independent Children’s Monitor a Crown entity?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The children’s monitor must operate at arm’s length from the Government, and being based within the Education Review Office means it is not fully independent. Making the monitor a Crown entity will establish a structure to protect its independence and allow it to provide robust assessments and comments on how institutions treat vulnerable children. This fulfils a coalition agreement with the ACT Party.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Minister proposing these changes now?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Our Government wants to get on with this work because we are concerned about the safety and welfare of our children. We will also bring forward the review of the Children and Young People’s Commission Act 2022 and the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Act 2022 to give everyone a say on the changes and also enable input from the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State care.

Question No. 9—Oceans and Fisheries

9. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: What strategies, if any, are being implemented to protect marine wildlife from harmful fishing practices?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I thank the member for that question. Around 12,000 people are employed in the fisheries sector—$2.3 billion worth of exports for the current year. Strategies are being implemented that impact on the ability of the industry to mitigate. A national plan of action for seabirds, a national plan of action for sharks, a dolphin threat management plan, and, beyond that, there is also an extensive regulatory set of measures to manage risks for specific species.

Teanau Tuiono: Does official advice show that cameras on boats are an essential accountability measure, and, if so, why is he planning to wind this back?

Hon SHANE JONES: The roll-out of the cameras is continuing, and, obviously, camera footage from time to time, when it is tested, is giving additional ballast to the models that the civil service already rely upon in terms of fisheries management.

Teanau Tuiono: What advice, if any, has he seen on reasons why the reported number of dolphin captures has increased by 700 percent since cameras were put on boats?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, a great deal of focus is now upon dolphins, but inevitably when the fishing industry interacts with the sea of Tangaroa, from time to time there will be captures. This is already in the model. It’s called the wildlife interaction with industry. The Minister before me, and other Ministers before her, received advice as to how initiatives can be sharpened to lessen the impact on vulnerable mammals. One was recently seen in Rongotai on its way to the Chathams!

Steve Abel: What measures, if any, will he implement to mitigate bycatch from surface long-line fishing, given data shows that albatrosses are caught at a rate of 350 percent higher than reported by industry?

Hon SHANE JONES: That question is a very good question. As of today, officials, at the leadership of the director-general, are working through what additional measures should be pursued to ensure that trawl and long-line vessels are not indiscriminately, or disproportionately, having a deadening effect on albatrosses and other such birds. A pilot project is under way on the east coast of the South Island. No one on this side of the House is happy when an albatross disappears, but, once again, technology is delivering results. The director-general and his team are ascertaining whether or not additional measures may be required to improve the ability of the fishing industry to cope with the occasional death of a seabird or a mammal.

Steve Abel: Will he introduce fishing-related mortality limits or bycatch kill limits for leatherback turtles, considering New Zealand vessels caught more turtles in 2021-22 than United States and Australian vessels combined?

Hon SHANE JONES: I won’t comment on either Australia or America, other than to say, on an ongoing basis, the officials of the Ministry for Primary Industries, on behalf of our Government, are engaging with the industry. Indeed, there are four occasions every year when such engagements take place. Engagement takes place also with civil society and a number of the green groups. Many of those suggestions will be taken on board, but I repeat yet again: this is the wildlife industry. This is an industry that generates wealth well over $2 billion, jobs well over 12,000, and anyone who thinks there won’t, from time to time, be a critter that goes by the way does not understand how wildlife industries function.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with the statement of Paul Goldsmith that “One of the pillars of democracy is that every adult has an equal say in who governs them, and through that vote, an equal say in important government decisions affecting their lives”, and is he committed to an electoral system in which the franchise is as accessible and broad-based as possible?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): In response to the first part of the question: yes. My comment was in response to the previous Government moving away from the fundamental principle of equal voting rights in the Canterbury regional council Act, which this Government has indicated it will overturn. In relation to the second one: yes, within the scope of appropriate legislative rules. For example, we have no plans to broaden the base to enfranchise murderers currently spending time in prison, which I understand is the Greens’ policy.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does he consider it a success that 110,000 voters, the population of Dunedin, enrolled on election day and thereby had a say in important Government decisions affecting their lives?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m not sure it was necessarily a success. I would say that it’s been a significant change over the last two elections to enable people to enrol on election day. Yesterday, we had the delivery of a report from the Auditor-General which outlined many, many problems with the election result and count in 2023, where quality checks weren’t done or they weren’t done with the rigour required, and then the national quality assurance checks weren’t carried out with the information required, and then the processes weren’t in place. So that was a very concerning report, and it’s concerning because all New Zealanders need to have confidence in the electoral system. One of the issues raised in that report was the extra pressure in the system caused by election-day registration.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: When he said to Mike Hosking this morning that “Every three-year cycle there’s a law to review the election and we’ll be making some changes.”, was he referring to disenfranchising the 110,000 voters by removing their ability to enrol on voting day?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, certainly I reject any such suggestion around disenfranchisement. There are two steps that happen, actually. We’re going to be getting a report in the next week or so from the Electoral Commission, which is a standard report within six months of the election, which outlines some of the issues that were raised. I think everybody in this House is aware that a number of problems were experienced through the election. Whole boxes of votes were lost, there were dual votes not counted, and there were a whole range of issues that need to be dealt with. So every three-year cycle, Parliament considers the situation and makes sure that our electoral laws are in shape, and I have indicated that we should be considering all those things.

Cameron Luxton: Does he agree that the ACT-National coalition agreement to repeal race-based appointees to Environment Canterbury moves Kiwis towards an equal say in who governs them?

SPEAKER: Look, that’s very wide of the primary question. Do you want to try something different?

Cameron Luxton: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question’s asking if he believes that an equal say is important in Government decisions. This is something that is moving Kiwis—in my opinion; I’d like to know the Minister’s opinion—towards an equal say.

SPEAKER: Yeah, and I’ve just asked you to ask that question in a different way to the one you just had, which you more or less could do under your point of order, so do it again.

Cameron Luxton: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that clarification. Does the Minister agree that as part of the ACT-National coalition agreement to repeal the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu—

SPEAKER: No, no. Sorry. The question is not about the Canterbury regional council; it is about electoral integrity—so ask a question that goes to that heart. Last chance.

Cameron Luxton: OK. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister believe that electoral integrity is improved by New Zealanders having faith that we are moving away from a race-based representative system, as is happening in Canterbury?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I think it is important that all New Zealanders have equal voting rights, and the previous Government did move away from equal voting rights in the local government setting and we have committed to change that.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: If the Minister supports equal voting rights, will he commit to equal voting rights for busy working New Zealanders who get to vote only by enrolling on voting day?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I think if he looks—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: I think that’s everybody.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: For most of the electoral democratic history of this country, people have had to enrol the day before election day—including in the 2017 election, which I think I recall was a reasonably important one for the Labour Party. If he’s suggesting that somehow there was a democratic deficit in the 2017 election because people weren’t able to enrol on election day, I think he’s rather confused.

Question No. 11—Health

11. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Health: When he committed to providing “timely access to quality healthcare for all New Zealanders”, did he consider the implications of this generalisation for Māori women, who suffer disproportionate rates of maternal and infant inequities compared to non-Māori women?

SPEAKER: Shane Jones—sorry; Shane Reti.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Oh, boy. I’ve so got to go to the gym! This Government is committed to providing timely access to quality healthcare for all New Zealanders, including Māori women. In fact, I was honoured to be asked to officially open Te Kotuku extension last month in Whangārei. This facility will provide in-patient care for tamariki from birth until their 15th birthday. In addition, the new neonatal unit will provide comprehensive care for unwell or premature babies. This Government cares about the health needs of all children and parents.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does the Minister agree that Māori-led health initiatives such as Ngā Wānanga o Hine Kōpū, a wānanga run in Te Tai Tokerau for hapū māmā are critical for the health and wellbeing of our people, and, if so, will he continue resourcing these types of initiatives?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I agree with is that the use of activities such as Hapū Wānanga, which is a free kaupapa Māori antenatal service, is useful to help reduce some of the uneven harms that we have in mortality for New Zealand women.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does the Minister accept that racism and oppression are contributors to the fact that Māori women in pre-term labour are less likely to receive the full and necessary amount of antenatal steroids?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I accept is what the Health Status Report tells us, which is that birth complications are more common for Māori, Pacific, and Indian women, and that these groups are more likely to have pre-term births and require blood transfusions after delivery.

Question No. 12—Corrections

12. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Corrections: What reports has he seen about the recent announcement of a $1.9 billion investment in Corrections?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): Many. The one I was most proud to see was one titled “Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announces $1.9 billion plan to make … [New Zealand] safer.” That plan includes financing to deliver 810 new beds at Waikeria, taking its total capacity to over 1,860. It meets the funding shortfalls Corrections is currently grappling with, gives the system extra capacity and staff to provide real consequences for crime, provides rehabilitation, and moves money from the back office to the front line of Corrections. The Government is working hard to restore law and order and get New Zealand back on track.

David MacLeod: What changes is the Government making to rehabilitation?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: As part of our investment in Corrections, there will be additional finding for the department to deliver on our 100-day plan commitment to provide access to rehabilitation for remand prisoners, which has the potential to benefit 1,400 prisoners at any given time.

David MacLeod: How much is the Government investing in delivering rehabilitation to prisoners on remand?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: As part of our $1.9 billion announcement, $78 million has been set aside to ensure that the remand population has access to, and is provided, the critical rehabilitation programmes that they need. This is to ensure that the time remand prisoners spend in the corrections system gives them the best chance of rejoining society in a positive way.

David MacLeod: Last supplementary: what programmes will remand prisoners have access to?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thanks to this investment, alongside our recent 100-day plan, remand accused prisoners will be provided access to non-offence - based programmes. Remand convicted prisoners can expect to be provided the full suite of rehabilitative programmes.

Hon Nicole McKee: Has the Minister seen any reports of children being sent to prison?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, this morning, I saw the comments from the Leader of the Opposition that children can “take comfort from the fact that if things go wrong for them, there’s an 810-bed prison waiting for them and they can get a free hot healthy lunch when they go to prison”. Not only is this deeply reductive, I find it highly offensive to consign our children to prison in this way, especially given that this Government has had to top the school lunches programme up after the previous Government left a fiscal cliff.

Hon Nicole McKee: Is the Government investing in any remand capacity in the Chatham Islands?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That question would be better directed to the MP for the Chatham Islands.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Since becoming the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, I have had the privilege of going around communities, hearing and listening to what some people have had to say in this area. I think it’s really important that we bring awareness to this very important week, which is Rape Awareness Week, because many people become victims of serious sexual violence or rape in this country, and the more we talk about this issue, the more we can actually deal with it and learn where the gaps are and how we can help people when they do become victim to these heinous crimes.

The Ministry of Justice estimates that 23 percent—nearly a quarter of New Zealanders—will experience sexual assault in their lifetime, with 26 percent of women and 11 percent of men experiencing this before the age of 15. We need to acknowledge this and we need to realise that we have a problem in this country, and we need to be talking more openly about this and allowing people to heal. In order to do that, we need to have open, honest conversations. As a nation, we need to stop making excuses and excusing this behaviour. It is really, really never OK to harm somebody or hurt somebody in this country. So we must do better, not only to encourage and support victims who want to seek justice but to ensure that justice is actually delivered.

I’m proud to work alongside a Government who has made this one of their priorities: lowering the amount of victims of sexual assault and family harm in this country over the next few years. We want to see a reduction in the number of people impacted by serious offending, including sexual assault, to 20,000 fewer by 2029. We also want to make sure that we are focusing on the victims: the people who are actually affected by these kinds of crimes—serious crimes that take years and years to sometimes get over, if they even are able to get over this.

This is why we are bringing in policies like three strikes, in order to make sure that if you are victimising someone and you are a perpetrator of serious sexual violence or rape, that you will be locked behind bars. But not only that, we’re making sure that rehabilitation is a focus in our corrections system, so that if you are behind bars and you do commit these serious crimes, you have the support to turn your life around so that when you come back out, we’re no longer revictimising people again. I’m really proud to work alongside this Government in these areas to make sure that we have less victims in our communities.

I actually was humbled in the last few days, speaking to some women who have been the victims of rape, and hearing how that has harmed them and hurt them, and how it has affected the way they look at the world, how it has affected the way they parent, how it’s affected the way that they behave around their family and friends, and how they are really struggling to heal. I was humbled to be a part of the conversations. What I would like to say is victims of these crimes don’t necessarily want to be treated like victims. They don’t want to be seen as what has happened to them. They want to be a person, not to be seen as what a perpetrator has done to them.

We need to stand up and thank every single community organisation and every person out there who is standing beside victims of rape or sexual violence to help them put their lives back together. We need to thank all those people who are there at moments where if maybe they weren’t there, we could have worse results for these victims. We need to make sure we are wrapping around and watching and looking in our community, and if we see something, say something.

We as a society need to say enough is enough and we’re not going to tolerate this anymore. This is a problem that is not just a Government problem to solve; it’s society’s issue to solve. It’s not OK to put your hands on somebody and to hurt somebody or to even have any form of sexual contact with somebody without their consent, ever. When somebody says no, it means no. And we need to take the shame away from victims. There’s no shame when something happens to you. The only person who should be blamed for that is the person who harmed you.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Some have likened being in Opposition to being lost at sea without a safe harbour. Well, Carmel Sepuloni in the Labour Party has found one: a lucky, special place known as Treasure Island. She’s washed ashore off a rickety old listing ship formerly known as the good ship Labour. One would be forgiven for asking what is going on. Carmel Sepuloni has been invited on to Treasure Island. Willie Jackson, of all people, has been invited to speak at the Oxford Union. It’s a real problem for Chris Hipkins, as he struggles to get an invite to his own caucus meetings these days.

Now, I have never seen Treasure Island, but I did a bit of Wikipedia-ing, I am told that contestants are split into competing tribes, taking part in various challenges. Now, the Labour Party is well known for its tribes. Back in the 1980s, we had the “Fish and Chip Brigade”. In the 2010s, we had the “ABC Club”—“anyone but Cunliffe”. And this venerable tradition continues. These days, we have the “Piketty Pirates”—David Parker’s crew of merry men following the edicts of Thomas Piketty: David Parker, Arena Williams, Phil Twyford, Helen White: the “Piketty Pirates”. They’re off there, inside the Labour Party, fomenting happy mischief, trying to get a wealth tax or a capital gains tax and/or all of the above. They’re loving it, and they’re working away with Michael Wood on the policy council—I’ll come back to Michael Wood later on. That’s faction number one.

And then we’ve got the “Hapless Hipkins” faction. That’s sort of the other people left right out, who are backing the current leader of the Labour Party. And then, of course, we’ve got the people who are considering walking the plank. They’re just considering leaving. They’re considering abandoning ship. Megan Woods, off to be the next Mayor of Christchurch, I’m told. Adrian Rurawhe, he’s considering it. Greg O’Connor and Jenny Salesa—people who are considering abandoning the good ship Labour.

Of course, there’s one thing we can all agree on and that all of the Labour Party agrees: when the tribal council meets, also known as the caucus meeting, there’s one person who’s never invited, and that’s Ginny Andersen.

Now, I’ve also discovered that in this most recent season of Treasure Island, they did a special thing, the first time in the game’s history. This is real. They introduced a thing on this this year’s season called “The Captain’s Coup”, in which the day’s winning team gets to pick a member from the losing team to go up against their captain. Now, I can see why Carmel jumped at the chance. What better form of professional development could there be for a senior Labour Party MP than spending weeks deserted on an island while everyone around you is trying to bring you down and participate in a captain’s coup.

Kieran McAnulty’s been there biding his time slowly and quietly, which is why he’s asked only two oral questions in the last six months. Now, Michael Wood would have been there, ready and waiting, but the current captain, Chris Hipkins, got there first, eliminating him from the island. What a savvy thing to do, because we shouldn’t rule out a comeback for Mr Michael Wood. He’s been elected to the illustrious body of the Labour Party policy council. Chris Hipkins, the policy council has spoken. Extinguish your torch and leave the island.

Now, there could be an intruder that gets flown into the island. This often happens in these reality TV shows. Craig Rennie was running around on the weekend, waving signs, fresh from his job of being the impartial academic commentator, fresh from Grant Robertson’s office. Fresh from that task, he’s running around. Maybe he wants to take on the captain as well.

Now, I’ve also discovered that in season three—and we’re yet to find out if the next season will have this, but in season three, two contestants were handcuffed together for 24 hours. David Parker from the Piketty team would have wanted that as an option last year when Chris Hipkins tried to lump a wealth tax on New Zealanders. It is anyone’s guess as to how this season’s going to go.

But the one thing we know is that the Labour Party, the good ship Labour, is in dire straits, and that’s why people voted for a good ship led by a great captain—Christopher Luxon—to take New Zealand through these troubled, broiling seas of the future.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): That side of the House this week have expressed an obsession with reality TV and I can see why that side of the House—coalition party, a bit of a three-way, awkward Married at First Sight kind of combination going on there. It’s a bit of a game of Survivor, who’s going to last the distance, how long are they going to last, who’s going to be kicked off next. That programme Traitors, very similar to that side of the House. But I have to refer to Monday’s post-Cabinet stand-up with Mark Mitchell and Luxon. It was awkward to watch. It was a bit scary. It reminded me of that programme Naked and Afraid. If that side of the House were in a reality TV programme, I guarantee you the ratings would plummet. Oh, hang on a second, they’ve already experienced that.

Anyway, moving away from reality TV to the reality for New Zealanders. Today, I’m here to speak about the reality for New Zealanders. I’ve been on the phone recently to many of our social services; I’ve been on the phone to the umbrella organisations that watch out for them, and they are really concerned with what they’re seeing. The Government’s been ignorant to the fact that their policy changes and what happens at the front line is going to have an impact on the social services, and we’re already starting to see it. What I’m hearing from social services is they’ve got more people going to them for food parcels because they’re being declined hardship assistance when they go into Ministry of Social Development offices. It’s like history on repeat from the last time that National was in power.

We’ve heard from our financial services across the country, our very reliable and trusted budgeting services, that they are going to lose funding at a time when the financial stresses and pressures on Kiwis are only going up. And what does that mean? That means that we’re going to see many of our centres, I think, including Dunedin and some others, across the country, who are going to lose those services and who will no longer be able to provide access to that support to their people who are experiencing increased interest rates, cost of living hikes, their incomes are not keeping up with the cost of living, and they’re struggling to pay for food. And then here we have a Government who is cutting support to social services. They have always done what they’ve done with limited resourcing but I’m proud of the fact that I was in a Government who responded to the need at the time. We came in when financial capability services had not received any baseline increase under the previous National Government for nine years. We increased their baseline funding. We responded to their need when they experienced heightened demand because of COVID and because of cost of living increases. That side of the House needs to be responsive to our social services as well.

I’m really concerned because as New Zealanders continue to do it tough, as front-line services are diluted even more because of the funding that’s been taken away from them to give as tax breaks to landlords and to tax cuts, then the pressure goes on our social services and yet we haven’t heard anything from that side of the House to say that they’re going to provide any level of reprieve for those social services to be able to respond to that need or demand. They are worried. As I said, I have been speaking to them particularly over the course of the last week. they are seeing more New Zealanders walk through the door; they have limited resourcing. They have put their case to the Minister, to their local MPs, and to any relevant Minister. What they tell me is that they are not being listened to.

It’s important that the country knows that the cuts to the public sector are going to have a wider impact than just backroom functions in our Government agencies. It will affect our front-line resourcing and ability to respond to New Zealanders, but the flow-on effects go on to impact those trusted, reliable social services in our local communities, and it’s the New Zealanders who need that support most that are going to find themselves in a situation where that support is no longer there. It comes down to choices, and that side of the House have chosen tax cuts and tax breaks for landlords over our most vulnerable people and making sure that the support is there for them. That is the choice that they have made and we do not support that choice.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Aucklanders are rejoicing: a 26 percent increase in water rates has been averted. Congratulations to local government Minister Simeon Brown, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, and Mayor of Auckland Wayne Brown, and of course the 20 Auckland councillors who unanimously supported our Local Water Done Well plan. Balance sheet separation has been achieved, council ownership and council control have been retained, and now much, much more water infrastructure can be delivered. Auckland households will not be hit with huge water rate increases any more, and that’s thanks to this Government. And the good news is: for the other 77 councils in New Zealand, Local Water Done Well is coming to a town near you.

Aucklanders are rejoicing. Roads of national significance are back and Auckland has got a lot to celebrate. We are building the long overdue north-west alternative highway, aka the Kumeu bypass, the East-West Link, Mill Road—Mill Road! And what’s more, this Government will construct the north-west rapid transit corridor, aka the dedicated busway, up the north-west motorway, State Highway 16. Great for Upper Harbour. Great projects that are being progressed by our Government, not by the last Government. They did nothing. In fact, they vindictively cancelled the likes of Mill Road. Aucklanders are rejoicing that as of 1 July there will be no Auckland regional fuel tax, a saving of 11.5c per litre for Auckland motorists. What’s more, only half of what’s collected since 2018 has been spent, with most spent on speed bumps, red-light cameras, and cycleways.

Aucklanders are rejoicing: failed light rail is dead and buried. Despite them wasting $228 million on consultants after years of trying, the only thing Labour delivered on was a string of media releases. Not one inch of track despite the promises. And yet Aucklanders were promised—get this!—a 13-kilometre tunnel from Wynyard Quarter to Mount Roskill and then stretching above ground to the airport. Never doable, never achieved, never got off the ground. It made building 100,000 KiwiBuild houses look even doable. So the cost all up of $29 billion was averted with that light rail fail and they spent, of course, $30 million on the Kiwi Bacon building that was now not needed.

Aucklanders are rejoicing that Labour’s $785 million cycle bridge across Auckland Harbour bridge is not getting off the ground. It was chucked in, but, of course, not before $51 million was spent on consultants, designs, and engineer fees. And, of course, Aucklanders do not forget the $45 billion promise that Chris Hipkins made on the waterfront in Auckland in August last year for their additional harbour crossing and the spaghetti jungle that would be dropped on the North Shore, and that included trams up Glenfield Road. This is pie-in-the-sky stuff and, thankfully, we’ve got a new Government that’s now focused on what Aucklanders really want.

Finally, Aucklanders are rejoicing because tax relief is coming. Tax relief is coming and it’s targeted. It’s targeted to a big voter base in Auckland, our low to middle income earners. They deserve some respite after this cost of living crisis that Labour have driven up after six long years of recklessness come the economy.

Thank you for your support, Aucklanders. Thank you. Over 40 percent of Aucklanders voted for the National Party in October—over 40 percent. Auckland was a stronghold for the National Party. In fact, 57 percent of Aucklanders voted for one of the three coalition parties. We won’t let you down, Auckland. We’re backing Auckland. Auckland’s going to be back as the commercial capital of this country. We’re going to drive Auckland into prosperity. It’s Auckland all the way.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I’d like to acknowledge the speaker from across the House earlier—we are listening. Since taking on my role as Associate Health Minister, I have been listening. I have been listening to the consumers, to the industry groups, and to practitioners, and they have demonstrated that there is absolutely no level of comfort or satisfaction with the Therapeutic Products Act (TPA). So, today, we have announced that the Therapeutic Products Act will be repealed. This repeal will clear a pathway for a modern, risk-proportionate regulatory regime for medicines and medical devices. Separately, we will develop a modernised regime for natural health products.

This was legislation where, of the 16,500 submissions, 95 percent opposed what was being introduced. It was clear and broadly accepted that the 1981 Medicines Act had long since passed its suitability, and, for 30 years, this issue has been kicked around and discussed without a solution. Unfortunately, the solution that was implemented missed the mark completely. After extensive consultation, we are now talking to the industry and we are, at this point, going to fix it. The legislation strayed from the foundational requirement, which was to provide New Zealanders safe, timely access to medicine critical to improving health outcomes. We need cost-effective access to the right products. At the same time, we must have the ability to utilise and benefit from the advancements in technology and scientific progress that will improve the health of Kiwis.

The reality is that the TPA was not the answer. We were yet again heading down a path of over-regulation, overcomplexity, and over-costings. This is the clear message from the sector who have the knowledge and expertise on what is needed. In addition, the sector were eager to work to improve access to medicine but felt they were being ignored. By repealing this legislation, we can now clear the path for a system, legislation, and supporting resource to improve access to medicine.

In addition to medicines and medical devices, we are also committed to a proportional and relevant system for natural health products to provide New Zealanders the alternative solutions that suit their needs. The legislation captured the sector in an over-regulated turmoil—they are lost. This legislation would have created barriers to the essential products that people prefer. We are repealing the TPA, and will look at two options and interventions that will not only create clarity for the future but look at options for urgent relief to the sector.

Natural Health Products New Zealand estimates current outdated regulation is costing our country half a billion dollars in foregone export revenue. We will fix this. The repeal now is important to provide surety, but it does not leave New Zealand unregulated. This legislation was not to come into effect until 2026, which gives Government and industry time to implement sound regulation. I would note also that the work recognises that the last Government had not funded for all the change and regulation needed to put the TPA into effect—for example, creating the new regulatory regime.

Importantly, we are not starting again. I have met, over recent weeks, with the key stakeholders. We are talking, we have learnt, and we are moving forward. We will build on submissions that have been made and provide a new opportunity for further reconnection with the sector. At our heart, we are committed to improving health outcomes through legislation that provides safe and timely access to medicines, medical devices, and natural health products. The first step forward required is the repeal of the Therapeutic Products Act, and I look forward to continuing to work with the sector for the benefit of Kiwi health.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Mr Speaker, firstly can I thank you very much for your support of my trip to the Oxford Union. It would have been very hard without your support, so I thank you very much.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, look, you have soft days, don’t you? You know.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah, well, that’s right, that’s right. And it would’ve been very hard at the back of the plane. So thanks very much, Mr Speaker. Not sure about your humour though, Mr Speaker. When you saw the invite and you talked about from Lange to Jackson, it doesn’t sort of quite work out for you. So you thought there was a bit of a gap there and I will—

SPEAKER: I’m quite sure you’ll make the international media.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I will agree that it’ll certainly be hard to fill that gap. But as you know, Mr Speaker, the British museums are not very British, and I’ll of course be running a very strong line in terms of the indigenous argument, given British museums hold and have indigenous artefacts, and particularly Māori artefacts, that have been taken over the years.

But I have been thinking, over the last couple of days, given this Government’s performance, that it will probably be appropriate for me to go off the moot a little bit because I think it will be such an ideal opportunity, I think, to be able to slam the Government on the international stage. I know that probably doesn’t go down too well. I mean, I’m meant to be going to the Oxford Union and speaking on the moot, but, I mean, what an opportunity. How often do you get an international audience and you’re able to actually expose our Government? I’m really looking forward to it. I know some of the Opposition may think it’s a little bit treacherous, but they should know all about that, given the Prime Minister, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, slammed the Government when he was over in England. Treacherous behaviour, I thought. So the Prime Minister should support me, given his behaviour. It was unprecedented, really.

So I look forward to telling the Oxford Union about some of the worst things that are happening here. First of all, I’d like to tell the Oxford Union that we’ve got the most unpopular Prime Minister in the history of Prime Ministers. No one has polled as low as this Prime Minister in recent weeks after an election. I’d like to tell the Oxford Union also that they’ve got some of the worst—and anti-Māori, anti-worker, anti-disabled, and anti-renter—policies in the history of New Zealand politics. I don’t have time to roll them all out, but three of them stand out for me.

The peeling back of the smoke-free legislation, that is world-leading legislation. It’s been lauded in London, it’s been lauded in France, it’s been lauded everywhere, and this Government took the opportunity to get rid of that smoke-free legislation guaranteeing that thousands—thousands—more people will die.

As well as that, the next disgraceful action that I can pick out in terms of my top three is this fast-track legislation. What a disgraceful piece of legislation. A legislation that excludes our people, Māori. We saw them out there today, didn’t we, tuahine—Marama? We saw them out there today—the riri, the anger, from Ngāti Toa. What a disgraceful piece of legislation that keeps out communities, that keeps out iwi, that reduces this just to three Ministers. A disgraceful, disgraceful piece of legislation. And now we have to trust these three Ministers. It’s shocking.

And the other area: the disability area. We went to a disability centre last week and we saw, firsthand—firsthand—the anger from workers there who now will be given no respite, no rest, nothing, because of this nasty, selfish Government.

So I understand the emotion. I understand my tuahine over there when she talks about, “This is a Government exterminating Māori.” I don’t agree with those exact words, but our people feel it—our people feel it—because there’s an attack on the reo, there’s an attack on the Treaty, there’s an attack on tikanga. So, of course, my tuahine, maybe I wouldn’t describe it that way, but, you know, it feels like extermination for Māori. And I feel like I should probably be telling them about this at the Oxford Union. I’m thinking I should do that, but then I think I may go back to the moot just for the tikanga, and that would probably be the right thing to do. Kia ora anō tātou.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I truly, genuinely believe and hope that everyone here in this House upholds the vision and the right for people to live with peace, with security, with dignity of life, here and around the world. Today, I really wanted to send aroha and all eyes on Rafah. What is happening in the south of Gaza at this time, we can surely agree that this is not how we want our world to proceed—surely, we can agree on that.

Countries such as New Zealand, with our relative privilege and with our expertise and experience, have a lot to offer in pushing for peace through justice, an end to the killing, ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches through to the 1 million people who are displaced. Surely, our New Zealand Government would like to send a really clear message that the Israeli Defence Forces completely ignored the broad warnings—including from its own mates; including from its own buddies—that any insurgence into Rafah would dive the already abhorrent humanitarian situation into the deepest depths. People just have not got access to water, to medical supplies, to shelter, to dignity.

What is happening now, and what had already been happening for at least 100 days to this point, but also for the many decades of context of oppression before October, is something I would think we should all be deeply uncomfortable with and deeply disturbed by, waking up this morning to the news in New Zealand about what is happening in Rafah, and wanting to make sure, once again, that our Government is doing absolutely everything that it possibly can.

So far, surely, we’ve had enough. We’re up to almost 35,000 Palestinians killed in the Gaza Strip since 7 October. Of those killed, 70 percent are reported to be women and children, but let me be clear: the loss of any civilian is a loss of humanity for us all—any civilian. But 70 percent women and children—that is not defence; that is offence, and it is offensive. And 78,000 further Palestinians are reportedly injured, and we can’t even begin to imagine the thousands and thousands more who are going to continue to bear the brunt and impacts of what Israel is doing to Gaza and, right this second, to Rafah.

So there are things that we should and must do. We must send a clear message to urgently increase funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to free up the only last crossings for humanitarian aid left: Kerem Shalom and Rafah. There is no other way to get aid in to people who need it.

There is nowhere left to go. The Israeli Defence Forces sought to evacuate people and to move people into so-called safety, and there is nowhere left to go that is safe. There is the last European Hospital being bombed to oblivion and any of the so-called camps and sites that were supposed to be put aside are not safe. Even if we think they are, there is no way for people to access goods and aid. This Government should use all diplomatic channels to push for a ceasefire, including through our role as part of the multilateral force and observers on the ground as part of upholding that—

Mark Cameron: Release the hostages as well.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: —peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, and support the internationally backed, just negotiations for a peaceful resolution of the broader conflict.

I’ve been hearing here “release the hostages.” Of course—of course. Israel has not accepted a ceasefire deal mediated by Egypt and Qatar, which Hamas had agreed to—let us be very clear about that. Let us also be clear about the tens of thousands of people held in Israeli jails over decades, including children, with no judicial process. So let us not ever invisibil-ise what is happening. Ceasefire now. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): As I rise today, I would like to acknowledge New Zealand Sign Language Week. This is always a week that I personally reflect on my childhood. My older brother, Jeremy, he’s intellectually disabled and he’s never been able to talk. But, as children, my mother was so determined for him to be able to communicate that she taught us certain signs. I can’t confess that I remember the signs very well now, but it enabled us to communicate with our brother in those early years when he was still trying to understand oral language.

Sign language was not an official language in New Zealand at that time, but it is now and I stand here today to celebrate New Zealand Sign Language as an official language in New Zealand. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge our Deaf community and reaffirm our Government’s commitment to creating a more inclusive environment for everyone.

Speaking of communication and education and the power it has to create equality, I recently had the privilege of visiting some of our Tukituki schools in my electorate to see structured literacy in action in the classroom. At Havelock North Primary School, they have been leading the way in Hawke’s Bay in structured literacy across the school from year 0 to year 6. Teachers and parents I spoke to there say it makes a real difference. I could see in the classroom the children’s faces light up as they sounded out the words and repeated the sounds of the words. Rather than just memorising the words, they were learning the basic sounds—and it works.

Structured literacy is about getting the foundations right so children can read and write by using sounds and phonics to read out and understand words. It provides the essential building blocks of literacy. Seeing it in action with my six-year-old and nine-year-old, I’m a massive advocate for structured literacy and I’m pleased to see our Government rolling it out across all schools. I believe it empowers children to become confident readers, setting them on a pathway to positive success. Our National-led Government is laser-focused on education and lifting performance in our classrooms.

The other area that our Government is laser-focused on is reducing red tape through changes like the fast-track bill, which is a key part of our plan to rebuild the economy—because we are focused on building things, and that includes building roads. I’m so pleased that Hawke’s Bay’s four-lane expressway is on the roads of national significance and is a priority for our Government. This will drive productivity and efficiency.

Water storage is another area which drives productivity and is especially relevant in Hawke’s Bay. I’ve been receiving a lot of concerning feedback to my electorate as our Hawke’s Bay Regional Council moves to halve water allocations across the Heretaunga Plains. Water is the lifeblood of our economy, our agriculture sector, our industries, and our livelihoods. Our Government’s commitment to water storage—not only large-scale but small-scale dams on farms—is vital for the future growth of our country.

Our Hawke’s Bay farmers had been villainised for the past six years with red tape and regulation. When I was a kid growing up on the farm, Dad would get the digger out and build a pond, store water in the summer, and use it in the winter because this makes total sense. But on that side of the House, they’ve got bureaucracy far too involved in farming, with clipboards, paperwork, and officials—which has stagnated growth. We need to get the wheels moving again.

But, as I conclude today, I’d like to pay a special tribute to all the incredible women who have shaped our lives. This week, I was proud to receive this white camellia brooch as the symbol of women’s suffrage in New Zealand—and officially the 194th female member of our New Zealand Parliament. I wear this brooch with pride as we have come a long way in New Zealand to having stronger female representation in this House. I’m proud that my daughters are growing up in a country where it is normal to see their mums in public office.

As Mother’s Day approaches this Sunday, I’d like to wish all the mums out there a happy Mother’s Day. As one mother to another: let us honour the immeasurable contributions, not just today but every day.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We’ve just heard from the Minister for Energy earlier today, and he provided an update on the very concerning position New Zealand finds itself in. So my contribution today is indeed about energy. Energy comes in many forms. Some examples are the obvious likes of petrol, diesel, natural gas, LPG, methanol, oil, coal—all of these ones particularly are made from decomposing plants and animals from thousands of years ago, and otherwise known as fossil fuels.

We also now have hydrogen available and being generated in New Zealand. I recently went to the opening of one of New Zealand’s first hydrogen-fuelling stations at Wiri, in Auckland. This is one of three stations now open and servicing the “golden triangle”—that being between Auckland, Hamilton, and Tauranga. This hydrogen is not derived from fossil fuels, but cleverly uses water, electricity, and the air we breathe, and produces it right there on site. Although there aren’t a lot of hydrogen vehicles on the roads here in New Zealand today, orders are now being placed by some large fleet owners.

The other obvious energy form that affects our daily lives at home and at work is electricity. Electricity is generated by using other primary energy sources that ultimately turn a rotor within a stator, and via a process called electromagnetic induction—voila!—electricity is produced. You couldn’t tell I’m an electrician. Some of the primary energy sources we use in New Zealand are hydro, wind, geothermal, gas, and coal. The one variant to these is solar, which uses photovoltaic process generating from the sun’s energy.

There are, basically, two classes of electricity generation plants—those that provide base load and those that provide peak load. The peaker power stations are critical when extra electricity is required during very high-demand periods. These plants need to generate electricity very quickly to be effective in doing their job. Hydro stations can actually achieve this, but sometimes we don’t have enough water in our lakes, so hydro has its shortcomings.

The other peaker generation of plants we have in New Zealand are gas-driven. These are, basically, large jet engines, just like we have on aeroplanes. They can turn on very, very quickly, within minutes, and these plants are reliable if we have gas to supply them.

There is another alternative to keep our electricity supply secure, and that is grid-scale batteries. These store electricity that is excess supply to our demand, and then poke that electricity back into the grid when we need it. If we are to create a grid-scale battery storage of some kind in an efficient and effective manner, that would also help our electricity security. Peaker plants and batteries supply electricity when our lakes are short of water, when the sun is not shining, when the wind is not blowing, and they are essential to the quality electricity supply at a national level.

We, as a country, are transitioning our electricity to renewable generation. This is a mammoth task, considering the growing demand that is happening annually. All of the thermal heat required by industry is transitioning away from fossil fuels. Natural gas appliances in our houses are moving to electricity. More electric vehicles are coming on our roads. The list goes on. It is predicted that we need to generate twice the amount of renewable electricity we produce today to meet the 2050 demand forecast. Just think about that—that’s a lot of electricity. And you’d like to think that we can make this transition with very few disruptions to our supply, hence the importance of peaker plants and/or, hopefully, batteries in the forthcoming future.

Realistically and logically, gas is an essential fuel at this time. You’ve seen the forecast. We are looking at huge amounts of coal being imported from overseas. Just to remind everybody, coal is twice as bad emissions-wise than gas. Yet we have gas here in New Zealand, and if we could only work together and provide the needed confidence back to the exploration industry. Energy is too important to be politicised. The country needs a quality energy strategy that has strong cross-party support. We need to remove the flip-flop out of our policy vocabulary. We need a consenting process to get this infrastructure built efficiently and effectively—aka fast track. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to the member David MacLeod for looking across the aisle, because indeed we do need an energy strategy that will help us decarbonise and that will endure through Governments, to the end of this Government in 2026 and to the future Government, which will truly deliver climate justice. I listened carefully to the Minister for Energy’s explanation of why we must continue to burn gas, and we know he loves gas, but what I also heard was a lot of gas and a poverty of imagination, because what is evident now is that this Government is intent on driving us backwards.

The problem is we’re in the 21st century, not midway through the 20th century, and we’ve got all the tools and knowledge to decarbonise our energy system; we simply lack the political will. Modelling by Mason and co. shows that a generation mix comprising 49 percent hydro, 23 percent wind, 13 percent geothermal, 14 percent pumped hydro, and 1 percent biomass fuel generation on an installed capacity basis—that’s a capacity market—is capable of ensuring security of supply, even through the dry years. That’s a really simple, simple solution. I didn’t receive any responses to the questions I posed earlier, but we know that there’s a much more intelligent way of doing things.

The work to ensure climate justice for all requires us to link the cost of living, energy hardship, and Cyclone Gabrielle recovery. It requires an understanding of how we can use data, digitalisation, and the internet of things to fully electrify our economy. This Government talks big about the energy transition, but is instead turning back the clock to a fossil-dependent future, which leaves no future for our youth. It’s really impossible to marry the Government’s rhetoric on meeting our climate targets and their actions to pursue oil and gas through a fast-track power grab and species extinction. This is not a future we want, and I’ve got to say, if we think about how we can manage this energy transition, the cheapest power is the power we don’t use.

That’s where we’ve got to come back to the Energy Hardship Expert Panel’s expert report late last year. Their report provided to the Government—which I hope members opposite will all read—has several recommendations. One of them is to strengthen leadership and accountability—so that’s energy wellbeing legislation; Government coordination across agencies—and establishing an energy hardship expert advisory group to monitor progress on reducing energy hardship and on insulating our homes and on ensuring that we do better.

The second recommendation is to improve the health of the home. So that’s to strengthen healthy homes standards, expand tenancy support, improve housing build standards—so improve the building code. It’s not to build to the minimum standard, which is the worst house you’re legally able to build, but to build zero-carbon housing, or use an existing healthy homes assessment tool that everyone uses.

A third recommendation is to expand energy access and choice. So that’s things like social hedges for social retailers, very much like the Toast Electric model here in Wellington, which survives on the smell of an olive oil rag because it actually doesn’t have the security of long-term hedges. But those social retailers enable everyone to remain connected, and that will enable bulk deals for social housing. So we could review and monitor pre-pay tariffs, fees, and disconnections, and prioritise energy hardship as an emergency issue. We also need to improve access to energy-efficient appliances.

There’s so much more we can do. We need to fix the market. We need to enrich data and information. We’ve, unfortunately, seen this Government stepping back on the Clean Car Discount—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired. Thank you.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of my favourite parts of this role—and, I’m sure, most people in this House’s favourite parts of this role—is actually going out and visiting our schools and our early childhood centres, seeing the wonderful young people that we have in this country, but also our wonderful education workforce and how amazing those teachers are. I know, often, people say to me, “I couldn’t do that job”, and I just know how difficult it is. It is a really, really tough job.

Lately, I’ve been really concerned as I’ve been going around schools—and, just in the last week, I’ve been in both Dunedin and Auckland schools, talking with principals and talking with teachers. One of my biggest concerns is that they feel unsure where things are going. They say, “We hear things in the media, but we’re not really certain when those announcements are hitting us, because nobody tells us what’s going on. We learn about initiatives in the media.” Take, for example, the Minister of Education talking on The AM Show on Friday, when she let it be known that she was cutting reading recovery—thousands of jobs gone overnight; people heard about it in the media. On Monday, they got official confirmation of that. That’s a really odd way to consult with the sector—that we would actually go through the media to tell them that their job is on the line and then consult with them three days later. I’ve never heard about that happening within education before, but that’s the sort of way that things happen at the moment—that this Government is not consulting with schools or with educators about what is most important to them.

Then, we hear that that there will be no cuts to the front line. Schools are already seeing those cuts impacting upon them. The cuts that have been announced in education are already making an impact on them. When this Government says they are not going to cut the front line, they really are cutting at the front line. Take, for example, when the ministry said, “We are no longer going to have student assessment function practitioners.” Well, if that’s not front line, I don’t know what is, particularly when it says on a ministry website, “Student assessment function practitioners are based within region as front-line staff to support schools and kura.” So they’re going against what’s on the ministry’s website—what already has been identified as front-line staff. Maybe this Government doesn’t understand what “front line” means in education.

Something else that schools have been saying to me over the last few months is “We’re confused about what the priorities are. What is the subtext of what that means?” Last week, we heard about education priorities that this Government and the Minister announced. There were six priorities. What do they mean? A prescribed content-heavy syllabus for core compulsory subjects—think the 1990s. The Minister talks about the 1990s as though it’s the nirvana of education. Well, I can tell you that there were a high number of young people in the 1990s for whom the curriculum completely failed, absolutely failed. In those classrooms, we did not have the diversity that exists now, and it seems that those young people who come from diverse backgrounds are being totally ignored by this Government.

There is minimal, if any, focus on schools. There is a focus on singular, silver bullet initiatives such as structured literacy and teacher-led standard mathematics modules. Now, don’t get me wrong, I love structured literacy. I love the results of the structured literacy that our Government introduced under the better structured literacy in the junior years—after we introduced that. I’m always really interested in how the other side of the House has so many arguments about that, but go back and read the history of what happened there and you will see that it was us that introduced that programme, and even your own Minister says that. So you’re arguing with your own Minister if you want to argue that point.

But there is no such thing as a silver bullet in education; there are professionals that we need to support. It’s those professionals, as our educators, that we need to ensure have the skills to be able to determine the best way to teach for those young people that sit in front of them. Everything else that these priorities relate to are things such as compulsory standardised testing with a portfolio assessment or exam at year 6. That didn’t work out last time with national standards; it won’t work this time. Thank you.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I think this whole House knows what didn’t work out last time and, hopefully, we won’t be trying that for another 21 years.

Hon Jan Tinetti: National Standards. Yes, we hope you don’t either. Don’t do it.

TIM COSTLEY: I love it, and I listened during question time as that member interjected yesterday as well with these big gotcha moments as our fantastic Minister of Education spoke of our commitment to structured literacy. And it’s as if this is some kind of gotcha moment—this big conspiracy that we would introduce this thing that has decades of evidence behind it.

There is no doubt now about how the brain works, about how students learn. This is a fundamental skill that too many Kiwi kids have been missing out on for too long. And we experimented with other things, we tried the no leadership from the Minister thing—that didn’t work. We’ve gone to something that does work, and I am so proud to be working with someone like Erica Stanford, the Minister of Education. I am so proud of this structured literacy announcement. About the only thing that made sense from that last contribution was that she was confused—and she is. She certainly is confused about who brought in structured literacy.

Last week, I was visiting Nayland school. I got to have a chat with the kids. Do you know what they told me? This was a random selection. In fact, the principal said, “I just asked the teachers to all send a few kids over.” He didn’t know who was turning up. I asked them all, “What’s your teacher like? Do they give you too much homework?” I said, “What do you love about school? Why do you want to get up in the morning and come to school?” And all but two of the kids, genuinely, the thing they said was “We love reading. We love reading and learning to read and write.” I thought, this is what we need in New Zealand. This is what we want.

As I met and I spoke with the principal afterwards, I said, “What’s the difference here?” He said, “Four years ago”—and, to be fair, it was just before he started—“a couple of the teachers really took the lead and moved to structured literacy.” And he said, “It was a couple of years of hard work as we made that transition”, but he would never have it any other way. Māori achievement is on par with Pākehā. This is what structured literacy does.

This is not something that we should be debating—trying to rewrite history. They did that once and it wasn’t that popular then either, to be fair. This is the way forward. And I’ve read the comments from teachers around the country: they love it—they love it. Parents love it. I love it. My oldest daughter had her first year of primary school in the UK when I was studying there and learnt systematic synthetic phonics—structured literacy. And the difference between that and what we have in New Zealand was vast and it literally makes a difference to a kid’s upbringing and to their future trajectory. I am so proud that we are bringing that in in New Zealand. And I’m not going to sit there and listen to that criticism of a fantastic Minister of Education.

Now, actually, what I wanted to talk about today was not that, but how could I sit by when we need to set that record straight? I have to just briefly, for these last two minutes, talk about the Kāpiti Expressway. In fact, only a month ago—[Interruption] Well, it’s a great road, built by the last National Government. And I have to acknowledge the work that Steven Joyce and Nathan Guy did to make sure that we had that—opposed by Labour. They didn’t want any expressway. Certainly, the Greens and a particular member, in particular, were not particularly keen on new expressways.

So we built that and funded it, and we’re going to build the road up to Levin. But as I was driving down in Hamilton with Ryan Hamilton, the local MP—they love him up there. Literally, he is true to form; when he turned the car on, AC/DC started playing. We were driving down the expressway at 110 kilometres per hour, and I asked the question that so many have asked me: why can we not have 110 kilometres an hour on the Kāpiti Expressway? It is world class, it is built to be safe at higher speeds, but we’ve got the wrong speed limit on it. So I would encourage anyone who’s listening to this—and I see a significant proportion of members from my electorate in the galleries—and I would encourage every single one of them to sign my petition. Go ahead to my social media, you’ll find it. There’s a link in the bio, there’s a link on the page. Sign the petition. I’m going to submit all the names together in bulk—there are thousands—to support 110 kilometres per hour, because we can absolutely do that. It’s safe, it is built for it.

And some people say, “Oh, but we can’t go from 110 kilometres an hour to suddenly being at 80.” You kind of actually can. We do 100 to 50 all the time and it works out fine. But don’t worry, because at each end of the 110 kilometre per hour section between Raumati and Ōtaki, we will have at least 1.6 kilometres of road—nice, safe, National Party - built road—at 100 kilometres per hour, so there won’t be any transition. No one has died on this expressway. It is world class. It is safe. We need to change the speed limit. I need support on the petition, and I would encourage everyone that can to sign the petition. It’ll be even easier if you learnt through structured literacy.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I move, That the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill be now read a second time.

It’s a real pleasure to come to this House to assist the McLean Institute with the work it’s doing. This is a trust that was set up out of the will of Allan McLean some years ago. It’s a fascinating bit of parliamentary procedure to see how a private bill like this is managed. Essentially, Parliament has been asked to assist in the redrafting of the trust purposes. The reason for that is that the trust was, in fact, contained in a piece of legislation, and the McLean Institute did its very level best not to trouble this House with the details of its trust deed and, in fact, went to the High Court and asked for a trust deed variation under the Charitable Trusts Act. But the court was of the view that, because the trust was established and its tenets were contained within legislation, it was for this House. So they were sent here, and we’ve obviously got to this stage in the process. I thank the members of the Social Services and Community Committee for, actually, a really useful process. They’ve gone over the proposals and made some improvements that might not be world changing but they increase the workability of this trust deed significantly.

I won’t trouble the House for too long, because I know there’s other members’ business, which we’ll be keen to get to, but, essentially, for the record, the trust deed was outdated, and if you look at what’s contained in a preamble—which we don’t see in many Acts—in the purposes of the old trust deed there, it refers to the furniture and property to be used for “gentlewomen or women of refinement or education in reduced or straitened circumstances and the children not being over the age of ten years of any such gentlewomen or women my special intention being that the Holly Lea property shall be reserved exclusively for the use of gentlewomen or women (including their children as aforesaid) who either by their birth education previous life or manner may be able to live in harmony under the same roof.”

Now, those words are from a different age. We don’t have a system of colonial aristocracy—at least I hope not—and so the new purposes in the legislation simply reframe that purpose of the trust to provide assistance and to promote the welfare and wellbeing of disadvantaged women residing in the region, being Canterbury, who the board considers are in need of care, support, and assistance due to poverty, ill health, or other circumstances, whether temporary or long term. So just modern and much more embracing and encompassing language, and that’s a great change. Basically, it will enable the trust to really do what the donor, Allan McLean, really wanted, which was to help out women in need in the Canterbury region.

There are some other, essentially, bits and pieces in the legislation: tidying up, for example, the removal of a trustee for incapacity—again, using some old language. The select committee has gone through and said, “Well, we don’t really say ‘unsound mind’ anymore. It’s a little bit of a vague term.”, tying it in with existing law relating to things like “loss of capacity” rather than “unsound mind”.

So, again, the McLean Institute’s done some great work. It’s offered accommodation over many years to people and women in difficult circumstances. It’s now largely a fund, which will be managed, again, for these purposes. This is a modernisation. Importantly, the other one thing I will mention, because it is really important, is we won’t be seeing the McLean Institute trust before this House again, because this makes it clear that the High Court will have the power to make trust variations, which will be a much more efficient process and quite possibly a lot cheaper. So that’s another important improvement in this bill.

So, as I said, I won’t trouble the House any longer. I do want to thank the select committee, because they did go through it in real detail. There are a number of technical changes in the trust deed, which is attached as a schedule to the Act, and it makes it a much more workable document. So thank you again. I commend this bill to the House.

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

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I begin my contribution by commending the Hon Dr Duncan Webb for bringing the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill through the process in the House and now on to its second reading. It is a timely variation bill. It is timely because the McLean Institute Act, which established the McLean Institute, was enacted in 1909. This was two years after Allan McLean wrote in his will that he wanted to provide care for women and their children should they come into difficult circumstances—just bearing in mind that the will was written in 1904 and then amended in 1906. That led to the establishment of the McLean Institute Act in 1909.

This is timely because the fact that the McLean Institute was created in legislation required that amendments to the McLean Institute trust that was created by the will that was embedded in the Act could not be amended without resorting to the High Court and/or through legislation again. So, in 1930, the Act was amended again—then in 1934. Both amendments dealt with issues that were, essentially, the sign of the times and the changing need for the trust to carry on with the intent of the will of Allan McLean. What happened in 1930 was that the original Act had provided that women and their children who had already been receiving a type of pension then existing could not be given assistance by the McLean Institute Act. That was amended in 1930, and then again in 1934. Another amendment through legislation again had to be made in terms of providing specific funding to specific women and their children.

So one can see very clearly that to go through a process to amend the Act through legislation, like we’re doing, entails considerable cost. I repeat what the Hon Dr Duncan Webb pointed out, which was that the institute board had tried to amend the Act through the High Court, which the High Court pushed back on and declined, saying that they were not empowered by the then trusts Act of 1957 to deal with the amendments that the McLean Institute board were asking for—hence, this legislative process. The amendment that the bill seeks to make is to take the McLean Institute out of the legislative process, thereby saving on cost and allowing for the McLean Institute board to make decisions administratively with regard to the changing needs of the intended beneficiaries of the trust. Also, there was need to ensure that the trust’s objectives, however, could not be changed without the High Court going through the process and approving such changes. So those are the two changes, essentially—that it’s taken out of the legislative process and then, administratively, the board could make decisions without resorting to the process. And, if there were changes that needed to be made to the trust deed, the High Court would have to go through and approve those changes.

At first glance, the McLean Institute Act really spoke about a time that we only see in movies. I have four daughters and a wife, and I must have watched Pride and Prejudice so many, many, many times. This is a house favourite. There are 17—there are 17—movie versions of Pride and Prejudice. I was shocked to find that out, but I would have probably watched the last four versions over the last 30 years at least—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: The BBC’s the best.

PAULO GARCIA: —yes—hmm—well, about 20 times, you know. So it’s always a house favourite. Thinking about that time helps us understand what Allan McLean wanted to do. He envisioned that women should not have to go through hardship and that he wanted them to be provided with accommodation and care, especially for them and their children. When Allan McLean referred, in his will, to women—“genteel women”, “educated women”, “women educated by their families”—it really conjures up the images of Miss Elizabeth as against Mr Darcy in those movies. I must admit I’m a fan after so many viewings!

So, thinking about what he intended, it was actually quite admirable that he had that intention. Now, that intention needs to be broadened out, because the challenges to women have expanded dramatically and radically and now women have mental health issues, addiction, disability, trauma, violence, homelessness, poverty, dislocation. It’s expanded so much from the time of Miss Elizabeth, and it is time to expand the ability of the trust to address these new world issues. Allan McLean should be commended. I thought that he must have loved his family so much that he wanted to extend that to others, something that we would like to be able to see more of. But the McLean Institute board, in recognising that the challenges to women have become so complex and so, so many and so varied, must be given this opportunity to make this amendment and carry on with this expanded use of the McLean Institute and the Holly Lea, which was the entity that was set up to care for women and their children. The trust also expands application to children from just 10 years old up to 18 years old—so, again, recognising the challenges that our young people face. So I commend Allan McLean and his will and this trust variation bill to the House.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): I rise today in support of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill and its amendments provided by the select committee stage. This bill represents a crucial step forward in updating and in refining the terms of the McLean Institute trust deed, ensuring its continued effectiveness in serving our community’s most vulnerable members.

Our Christchurch, our Ōtautahi community—my community—knows how to care for each other and give back for the betterment of our people. The people of Ōtautahi have been through so much. Like the phoenix that rises from the ashes, Christchurch and its people are creating a resilient and connected community. It’s why I choose to raise my children in Christchurch, so that they can grow up in a community that leads with generosity and manaaki. There are many reasons why there are structurally disadvantaged people in Christchurch who need support. This bill allows the spirit of manaaki and generosity to lead and brings the trust deed into current times.

Established in 1909 by Allan McLean, the McLean Institute holds a venerable legacy of providing financial assistance to women and their children. However, times have changed, so the language must change and come into the scope of its charitable objectives. The current trust deed, while notable in intent, has become outdated and restrictive, hindering the institute’s ability to adapt to modern societal norms and to adequately serve those in need.

I commend the work of the Social Services and Community Committee and the member. The amendments proposed in this bill seek to address these limitations by broadening the purpose of the trust. By allowing for this application of trust assets to a wider range of good causes, we ensure that the McLean Institute remains relevant and responsive to the evolving needs of the community. This is not merely a matter of legal technicality but it is a moral imperative to ensure that the institute can continue on its mission and to bring it into the 21st century.

The legal commentary provided on this bill, as well as the recommendations made by the Social Services and Community Committee, underscore the importance of these amendments. From ensuring the accuracy of the trust’s status, to clarifying jurisdictional matters, these amendments are essential to the bill’s success in achieving its objectives.

The Greens are happy to see this progress. By doing so, we reaffirm our dedication to supporting our community, fulfilling Allan McLean’s original intentions, and ensuring that the McLean Institute can continue its legacy of manaaki, based in the beautiful community of Ōtautahi. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

LAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill and the variations from the Social Services and Community Committee. Being a member of the select committee with this bill, it was quite interesting to learn a little bit more about the McLean Institute and their role. Being from Christchurch, I think it was a really nice tie-in, because Holly Lea, or the McLean estate, is a pretty magnificent, large building that was left to us from Allan McLean.

It’s actually kind of funny that Paulo touched on Pride and Prejudice, because Allan McLean himself was a Scottish philanthropist but he was also a bachelor. And he had a little bit of a reputation—I think he was quite well liked by the ladies. So when he made a home for “women of refinement or education in reduced or straitened circumstances”, I have to wonder if there was a potential ulterior motive. He built this home in the 1880s and the architects were wondering “Why are you building such a large mansion; really stately home?” It wasn’t until his will was actually presented that they realised that this home was going to be for women to, obviously, find a safe place to stay if they had, in fact, been divorced.

So that was his original kind of purpose, but as a philanthropist he was obviously really involved with the community and he wanted to make sure that women were looked after. So I think, obviously, the trust had gone to the High Court to try and change the deed of settlement and given the fact that this is actually a piece of legislation, because it was so long ago—1909, as they mentioned before, this was set up—it, basically, fell back on us, the legislators, to actually change this deed.

We can say that the language was antiquated—and it really was antiquated; I’m not going to lie, it was pretty antiquated. So the reason this bill obviously sits before us is to change the deed and adjust it so that we can expand on the scope and the operations that we need in our community in 2024. Look, I can tell you: in Christchurch, there is a big need for safe housing, and for women to find a safe refuge. So I’m really happy that this bill’s before us and that the McLean Institute is actually going to be able to change and broaden their scope to adjust for the needs of the community. So that’s awesome.

The select committee spoke in depth with the trust and their lawyers about the intentions of Mr McLean and his goals and aspirations for the trust. While we do believe the original language is a barrier to the trust providing extra finance and services to the community, we obviously wanted to make sure that the scope was still encompassed. So it’s leaving it with women and, obviously, expanding it to children, as well, in the community. The bill’s wording is now more generic: “The purpose of the Institute is to provide assistance to and promote the welfare and well-being of disadvantaged women residing or located in the Region”, which I think is far more appropriate and brings it back into the 2024 realm.

This bill will allow the institute to adapt to the needs of all women living within Ōtautahi Christchurch; it will allow for emergency accommodation—mental health assistance, for example. So we support this bill and we commend it to the House, and I have no further things to say on that. Thank you.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. I too was on the Social Services and Community Committee, and it was an interesting process, because it was the first time that I was going through the process of a bill being amended and discussed, and having people come and give submissions. So it was a bit of a learning process, for me, and one that I’m really enjoying, I must say, to see it all the way through. It’s really good to be able to now speak on it. Thank you to the Hon Duncan Webb—he’s not here—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, the member’s not allowed to say the member’s not here.

TANYA UNKOVICH: Oh, beg your pardon, you’re right—yes, you’re right. Yes—beg your pardon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a thankyou will suffice.

TANYA UNKOVICH: Thank you, and he’s not here but thank you for that—

Cameron Brewer: You can’t say that he’s not here.

TANYA UNKOVICH: Oh, right!

Hon Members: Just thank him.

TANYA UNKOVICH: I thank you, and I appreciate you showing me how to speak correctly in the House. Thank you very much.

Hon Member: I think it’s out there now.

TANYA UNKOVICH: It’s out there now—ha, ha! [Interruption] Yes, yes. So this trust does address the need to update the charitable purpose and the administrative purposes of this trust, which was established over 100 years ago by Mr Allan McLean and it was really lovely to actually hear a bit of the story about him, so thank you to the member opposite for giving us that information; it was really good to hear.

It was originally intended to provide support for the “destitute women”—I haven’t heard that word for such a long time—“of refinement or good character”. As you can see, there was a need for this language to be updated. This bill seeks to repeal and replace previous Acts which have been related to this institute, to enable these updates, so ensuring that this trust can now better serve the needs of the “disadvantaged women”—the new language that has been introduced—and children.

Does New Zealand First support it? Of course we do. Before we deliberate on bills and that, we really look at how these align with our policies and our principles of the party. We really did see how it aligned with the things that we believed in which was, of course, our dedication to social welfare of all of those people in our society who need support, those who are marginalised in whichever way, or disadvantaged. So it really did align with us during our discussions there. Also, the emphasis on social responsibility, for those of us to really acknowledge who does need help. Our party, New Zealand First, really believe that the Government and society as a whole does have a duty of care to those who are most vulnerable in our society. It’s about identifying who they are and really providing for them. Also, New Zealand First are real advocates for equality here, and we really believe that it’s important to help people in some way, whichever way we can, to lift them up and for them to feel valued in society. We feel that helping people—women who are disadvantaged, and their children—is one way that we can assist them in providing this confidence and just so that they don’t feel that there’s any inequalities there.

What are some of the parts of the bill that we support? Well, of course, modernising the operations of the trust. That is very important for the trust to be able to be effectively understood, and going through the process correctly; also the adaptation to contemporary challenges. This bill provides the necessary framework for the trust to remain relevant during our modern times, and also for us to be able to streamline the administrative processes. That is one of the beliefs that we have: to ensure that by making everything as streamlined as possible, more people can, in fact, be assisted.

During the select committee process, there were some parts of the original wording that we were not as aligned with, and alongside our coalition partners, we made the decision that we wanted some wording changed. In New Zealand First, we have always believed in speaking up for people who at times feel that they don’t have a voice, and we really campaigned on and we continue to address issues around gendered language, and some of the original wording that was brought before the committee in this deed—it was clause 5.4—originally said the reference to “women” is to be interpreted “in [this] broadest possible sense, having regard to both biological sex and gender identity.” This was one area that we did not feel aligned with, and we all made the decision that it was to be changed. That is something that was changed during the select committee process. So that was just the one area at this point that we felt that we needed to speak up on, and we see that it has now been changed.

Look, apart from that, there’s nothing really more to add. The documentation now is in alignment and is more easily interpreted in this modern day. So thank you, Madam Speaker. New Zealand First supports it and commends it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Matua, Tama me Te Wairua Tapu, ngā Anahera Pono me te Māngai. Āe.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. I acknowledge the House. Father, Son and the Holy Ghost, the Angels and the Prophet. Amen.]

Firstly, on behalf of Te Pāti Maōri, it’s been—can I say this bill was my very first select committee bill to ever be a part of. So it is good to see my fellow colleagues talk about the bill and see it get to this stage. So congratulations to our Social Services and Community Committee.

Secondly, I just want to acknowledge the McLean Institute and their mahi, because, you know, we all want to see our communities, our wāhine, and our tamariki being supported, being looked after, being taken care of. In the McLean Institute, the variation and amendments proposed in this bill will allow the institute to broaden their horizon and broaden their scope to be able to support more wāhine and tamariki in this current day for what they propose to do.

One of the things I remember in select committee when we were talking with the trust was that they wanted to be able to provide more support, for instance, for more Māori wāhine who were vulnerable. So that was always something that I acknowledge with the McLean Institute trust. You know, with the day and age, with the cost of living we’re currently in, with the price of petrol, with the increase in rental prices, we need an organisation like the McLean Institute trust who are taking on some of the responsibility of this Government, where whānau are being sanctioned with benefit sanctions and they can no longer afford to live day to day. So we, Te Pāti Māori, support this bill to the House, to ensure that organisations and charitable trusts, like the McLean Institute, can continue to do their work. Kia ora.

LAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I’m so pleased to take this call today in supporting this bill, firstly because what a great opportunity to highlight great people doing great deeds in Ōtautahi Christchurch—of which there are many—but, secondly, it’s about supporting this bill that embodies the spirit of positive evolution and change. It really underscores the importance of taking action to help others, and we know we so desperately need more of that in this world today.

We’ve heard outlined from the Hon Duncan Webb about the purpose of this bill being about updating the charitable purpose of the McLean Institute trust, and I wanted to touch on specifically—which has been mentioned by previous contributions—the vision and where that stemmed from, from Allan McLean. I’ve read that it stemmed from his personal experience with seeing his mother struggle after his father’s death and being unable to make a life for herself, providing for him and her family, falling into poverty. I wanted to touch on that—particularly with Mother’s Day coming up this weekend: really, a shout-out to our inspirational mums everywhere—and it’s so cool that Allan took that inspirational story from his own life and his mother’s life and turned it into actual action.

The Green Party supports the newly proposed purpose: to provide women in distress with aid—and that’s across so many areas where they might be in need—and we really support that, in that it will be a broader range of needs that can be addressed through this bill.

The Hon Duncan Webb already touched on, as well, that the bill streamlines the process of, actually, future updates of the trust purpose and avoiding the need for it to come back here to Parliament, and clarifying that the High Court has jurisdiction to approve changes to the trust. This is a great evolution, ensuring that it evolves with the needs of community into the future.

The importance of this bill to real women in real need in Ōtautahi Christchurch—and indeed across Canterbury, Waitaha—cannot be overstated. Without these changes, the number of people benefiting from the trust would decrease over time. So we really support this bill in the way that it enables positive change in Ōtautahi Christchurch. We really want to honour the legacy that Allan McLean will leave in embracing the future.

We support this bill and how it is one important piece of the puzzle in paving the way for a more equitable, more inclusive future for all. Thank you.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to stand in support of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. As others have covered the purpose and context of the bill, I thought I would pay tribute to the select committee, ably led by our colleague Joseph Mooney, and I know he’s disappointed not to  be here today, but I suspect he’s watching online and wondering what we’re going to say next.

Now, the bill was referred to the Social Services and Community Committee at the 53rd Parliament back in June, and the committee called for submissions. It was reinstated, like a lot of pieces of legislation, by this incoming Government for ongoing examination on 6 December, and the Social Services and Community Committee considered submissions from three interested individuals and groups. They heard oral evidence from two submitters via video conference and in Wellington, and they received advice from officials, including from the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Clerk, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office with legal drafting.

So, as others have traversed, this bill is updating old England terminology, and it goes to show that we can change, and I want to be able to put it forward to those that are thinking—the wealthy amongst the community of philanthropy—as to whether things will stick in this fast-changing world, if they were to bequeath something. This is proof. This is proof—

Tom Rutherford: It’s over 100 years old.

CAMERON BREWER: —that’s right, Tom Rutherford; this is over 100 years old—that things have stuck. So many women have benefited since and will continue to, and the legislation and the wording and interpretation and definitions can change accordingly.

I also reflect, as an Auckland MP, if I may, on Sir John Logan Campbell, almost a contemporary of Allan McLean, and how he bequeathed Cornwall Park and One Tree Hill Maungakiekie. And that’s been in trust because he wanted to bring farm animals to the people, the children of Auckland, and he knew that Auckland would grow, and he foresaw that. And so he was a contemporary. He also lived a big age—not unlike Mr McLean. Mr McLean was well into his 80s—85—when he died in 1907. Sir John Logan Campbell was 94. So, Stuart Smith, I can only think that, perhaps, if you’re generous in life, you might live a little longer. Who knows, for those wealthy that are considering philanthropy?

I also reflect on the days of this that New Zealand, when this was first established, was a country, as we heard during the Anzac Day once, of less than a million people. So for people to have this foresight as to the challenges that lay ahead and the complications with society pre - World War I was quite phenomenal. You also have to reflect that only a decade earlier, Kate Sheppard and her fellow suffragists gathered 32,000 signatures, and, subsequently, this Parliament passed the Electoral Act against the wishes of Richard Seddon in 1893, and, of course, it took effect on 19 September.

So this is the kind of era and landscape and context that this operates in. So my contribution is about highlighting to those that might be watching or listening, to encourage those that they know that might have something that they want to leave the public, going forth after this life, that it can be locked up in statute, it can be changed, and it can be delivered. This is, kind of, action in motion as we’re seeing.

Tim Costley: Keep going!

CAMERON BREWER: You also have to think, Tim Costley, that Julian and Josie Robertson, some of the great modern-day philanthropists that gave $178 million worth of art to the Auckland Art Gallery, including Picassos—as Americans, they bequeathed that to New Zealand—

Katie Nimon: And to Hawke’s Bay.

CAMERON BREWER: —and in 120 years’ time, our descendants—and you’ll be in one of your final terms by then, Katie Nimon—will be able to still enjoy that $178 million art collection, thanks to the late and great Julian and Josie Robertson. So it is good to see that philanthropy is alive and well and needs to be encouraged.

I also want to acknowledge the sponsor of this bill and a passionate Christchurch MP, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, for shepherding this through. And, just to reiterate to those that might have joined our TV audience in the last few minutes and are wondering what we’re up to, this is a bill that seeks to vary the charitable purpose of the McLean Institute trust, which was established through the will of Allan McLean, who passed away in the 1900s. It would also vary aspects of how the trust is administered and the powers bestowed upon the board of the McLean Institute and all those definitions that have been mentioned before that are up for due change.

Aren’t we lucky that the McLean building, the McLean mansion, remains? We have got to do a trip down to Christchurch to have a look at this 1900—amazing; it was one of the largest timber buildings in the world when it was constructed in 1899 to 1900 and then, of course, the Christchurch earthquakes. There was actually a call for it—well, the owner wanted it demolished—

Tim Costley: Oh no.

CAMERON BREWER: —but a charitable organisation, Mr Costley—good, willing—intervened, the courts heard it, and they saved it. I understand that there has been a restoration project under way ever since McLean Mansion looks like it should be on any New Zealand historian’s general charter of going through Christchurch and having a look at the fabulous buildings that have been retained, thanks to the generosity of community and the generosity of trusts—just like the McLean Institute that continues its good work. I also note that I think he arrived on a ship called the Tory. So maybe—

Hon Member: Hey, one of us!

CAMERON BREWER: —that indicated his political preferences—one of us, one of us—and so we treat this man with great dignity. Another thing: he was described as a New Zealand runholder and, of course, a philanthropist. He moved from Scotland to Australia as a child and to New Zealand.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What colour was his hair? Keep going!

CAMERON BREWER: Well, I can see, Carmel Sepuloni, that by the end of it, at 85 years of age, he had grey hair. He had grey hair, but these days, of course, as a man with such means, he would have the Just for Men, and he would have dark hair like Tom Rutherford and I—Tom Rutherford and I will never go grey. Unfortunately, for McLean, there was not the technology to colour his hair. So to answer that very insightful question of the colouring of his hair: at the time he reached the big age of 85, photographic evidence shows him with grey hair. And, of course, like most of that generation and that time, Tim Costley, bearded—a bit like our MP for Maungakiekie.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I think the member is straying from the bill.

CAMERON BREWER: I am talking about the centre of this institute, the late, the great Allan McLean, who sailed here on the ship Tory, built a fabulous house, left a fabulous legacy, and, today, we improved the institute’s direction and definition, and it continues on not just for the 20th century and 21st century but well into the 22nd century, as well. Thank you.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): So, clearly, there’s something on the Order Paper on this members’ day that that side of the House don’t want to get through, given that they are reduced to talking about the hair colouring of a man who donated millions of dollars 100 years ago.

I do want to re-traverse this bill very quickly because it’s important for anyone that may have just tuned in and is wondering what this bill is about. The bill is a private bill which seeks to vary the charitable purpose of the McLean Institute trust, established through the will of Allan McLean, who passed away in 1907, and who we have had explained to us in great detail by the former speaker, Cameron Brewer. Originally, it was set up to provide benevolent asylum for the benefit of destitute women. The trust board wants to vary the charitable purpose to better address the current needs of women and children and establish a new deed of trust, reflecting this new purpose.

It’s nice when we have bills in front of a select committee where everyone agrees. This was non-controversial. In fact, we really only needed to look at the level of detail in the change and agree to some different wording; otherwise there was no dissent within the Social Services and Community Committee. It certainly was non-controversial.

I do acknowledge that this philanthropist has donated a significant amount of money, and that has been used to serve a wonderful purpose with respect to women and their children. I also do want to acknowledge the person who has barely anything in their pocket that gives their last $5 to charitable purposes as well.

We will be supporting this bill, and there really is not much to add to this. I acknowledge the McLean Institute trust and all the work that they have done over the course of the years that they have been established and I wish them well moving forward into the future.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): It’s a pleasure to speak on this, the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. I would like to bring this back to values, if I can. There’ll be some watching—maybe they’ve just tuned in, and I think it’s worth recapping—thinking “Why is Parliament spending time looking at a charitable trust?” I mean, many people in our community have vast experience with different charitable trusts. I, for one, formed a charity called the Missing Wingman Trust that looks after Air Force families when someone is killed, injured, wounded, or ill—we call them our KIWI families: killed, injured, wounded, or ill. Of course, that was incorporated through a trust deed registered with the Charities Commission at the Department of Internal Affairs. So the question that some might asked is: why would this one go through Parliament? Some of those watching this may have missed the earlier part where it was explained that, obviously, this was taken to the High Court, but because it was incorporated by an Act of Parliament, it needs to be adjusted now through Parliament—the trust variation comes through this. This will, in process—

Katie Nimon: Set them free.

TIM COSTLEY: Well, it will set them free, Katie, and it will allow this, in future, not to have to come through Parliament for variation. But we are caught in a situation where it’s necessary to come back to the House of Parliament to put this trust variation through.

I, for one, would like to be focusing Parliament’s time on some of the other members’ bills instead—for example, the Crimes (Impeding Major Bridges, Tunnels, and Roads) Amendment Bill, a great member’s bill in my name, which I’d love to see come before the House. But instead, due to process, we have to speak about this one, the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill.

I thought that to understand some of the values, it’s important to understand the history of Allan McLean. We’ve heard a little bit, particularly about the end of his life, but I don’t think we can understand why this trust was set up in the way that it was, and ensure that we are maintaining that alignment with values, unless we really understand the man and his thinking at the time. I was really interested, as many others in this House may well might be, to read about his early life. Obviously, McLean from the island of Coll; my ancestors would be Maclean of Duart, but we’d probably share a tartan somewhere along the way. So that was a nice little personal touch.

But, of course, he had a tough upbringing. His father, tragically, was killed in a boating accident when he would have been around 14 years old, from my reading. His older brother, John, and he and his younger brother were left to run the family farm—his older brother only 18 at the time—plus two sisters. A family of five kids and the mum left to run the family farm. If that wasn’t tough enough, four years later, the crops failed. They could have been left destitute. And we see that early sign of why he would be thinking about women that were left, through no fault of their own, in a tough situation, because we saw that right at the start of his upbringing.

His mum was a strong woman by all accounts and actually took the very bold step of moving the family to Australia. They were close to the final solution—to that place that the McLeans would call home. But they moved to Australia, pursuing gold mining near Ballarat, situated near Melbourne, in Victoria. It looked like the family had got themselves back on top, when they were tipped off by a Chinese friend by the name of Fan So that someone was plotting to kill his older brother, John, to steal the gold that they had found—literally, it was hidden in their tent and they were going to be killed in the process. So, once again, they sold up the property they had acquired in Australia, and moved to New Zealand. That’s when they came and they arrived in Canterbury, and I think this is important, with the small means—“the small”, it says; the small—they had, which included 500 ewes, cattle, and horses—not that small.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): And this is going to come back to the bill.

TIM COSTLEY: It is, because I think we need to understand that not just once but twice, his family were left in a terrible situation, not because of anything his mum or his family had done, and this speaks to the motivation of the bill.

When we consider varying a bill like this, one that was written, as my great colleague Paulo Garcia said, in a completely different time to what we speak in now, we talk about different cultural norms, we talk about different practices. The language we’ve heard from many members across the House is so different. We have to fundamentally understand the values that would have driven this, the values as he arrived on that farm in Waimakariri—good Matt Doocey territory, that one. We have to understand the values.

I’d like to speak to what the values of this man and his family were. They were known for having, and I quote, “Loyal heart, gracious manners, and the will to work hard”—loyal hearts, gracious manners, and the will to work hard. People spoke of their steadfastness, their courage, their faith in each other, and Allan Mclean’s fundamental faith in other people. This is why, I believe, he wanted to form this. You know, this trust that we’re speaking of here today was formed without anyone knowing until the time of his death. People said, “Why is he building”—Cameron Brewer just gave us a great example of this—“this massive wooden mansion?”, as it was known at the time. Why was he building this? He was a bachelor, he never married, and he didn’t have his own children. But his secret plan all along was to use the wealth that he had accumulated for the betterment of others. It was this altruistic principle that drove him—that drove him.

So when we consider amending this—and his will is spoken as being one of the most detailed, written by three lawyers—we have to run this through a filter of: is this the intent? We can modernise the language, but are we maintaining that original intent? Would Allan McLean be proud of what we’re doing here today? We are proud of the great work that the trust he formed, his charity, has done for so many people. Are the changes that we are making today, as we send this through, aligned with his original intent?

Katie Nimon: And will they last another hundred years?

TIM COSTLEY: As I read well—well, it is important that they would last another hundred years, because this is the last time that Parliament will have to look at this, as it moves through this process now and then is taken outside Parliament. I think we owe it to the Allan McLeans of this world to ensure that we are sticking to those original values—values like strong families and caring communities; values like personal responsibility, for working hard, competitive enterprise, and reward for achievement; loyalty to his country. These are the kind of values that we read of when we read the history of Allan McLean. Great values. Values that every Kiwi would, I think, want to be proud of.

So the language may have been different back at that time, but the values, I think, that we can extract are really important and something I’m proud of to stand here today—and I hope that Allan McLean would be proud of the new version of the bill. Modified, I think positive changes have come out of the Social Services and Community Committee; it certainly removed a few questions that some might have had.

But, I think, when we think back to that experience—I mean, Madam Speaker, can you imagine being put in a position where, as a 14-year-old child, you’ve lost your father, you have seen the only source of income, your farm, completely wiped bare by crop failures, as was around that whole community?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Come back to the bill.

TIM COSTLEY: Well, this is the bill, because this bill is about the McLean Institute and why he would have founded that, what he would want us to have at heart.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Madam Speaker knows what the bill is about.

TIM COSTLEY: I think—well, some members in this House may not care—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: She spoke more on it at select committee than anyone else.

TIM COSTLEY: —to spend more than two minutes on this and just dismiss it; they’ll be back to the island in no time, or maybe they got voted off the island.

But this actually matters because values are important. Values are what drive us. Values come from the unique and harrowing experiences that someone like Allan McLean had—that drive to ensure that we are caring for people in our community, that women and their children have a means to be looked after, where otherwise they may not, and not because it’s their fault in any way that they found themselves in these circumstances. That is very clear from the bill. We need to care for them and help them.

Here is a man that took his entire life’s work and was willing to dedicate it to others. I think that’s something we can learn from. I think that’s something that we can take heart in. Those great values that we saw from Allan McLean—caring community, strong families, competitive enterprise—are great values for all of us—great values for all of us. That’s why, as I read this bill, the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill, I have no hesitation—thinking about his life and the values that would have underpinned him and what he would want from this—in commending this to the House.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): This is an interesting bill, and there have been some interesting matters discussed today. I want to refer back to a speech given by the honourable member Paulo Garcia. He referenced Pride and Prejudice and talked about the values expressed in Pride and Prejudice. I just want to update him on a couple of things. He said that this trust deed was originally set up in a time which had the same sorts of values as Pride and Prejudice. He’s out by about 100 years. Pride and Prejudice was published in 1813, and the trust dates from 1907. However, there is a particular relevance to this, and I wish to advise Mr Garcia to watch the 2005 movie of Pride and Prejudice, with Matthew Macfadyen and Keira Knightley—

Tom Rutherford: She’s great.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —getting there—Brenda Blethyn, who plays Mrs Bennet, and one of the things that drives Mrs Bennet in terms of marrying her daughters off is the sheer economic necessity of doing so. There is no other support for a gentlewoman other than being married, and I think this is partly what Mr McLean was referencing. It is that particular concern for women, in particular, of how they could support themselves and that there often were no options for women. That was a particular value he was expressing in 1907. So I do advise Mr Garcia to watch that particular version of Pride and Prejudice; it is really worth the time.

Of course, our sensibilities have changed in the 100 years or so since Mr McLean set up this trust, and we have now taken a fair amount of pride in changing this trust deed to fit with our new senses in these days. It has seemingly taken little persuasion for the House to actually all agree on this bill.

In updating it, we have updated this bill to ensure that the trust still supports women and children, but we’ve updated it to modern times. Instead of being children aged 10 and younger, as in the original trust deed, now they’re children aged 18 and younger. That’s to do with whether or not children work in paid employment, and, of course, we’ve changed the laws around paid employment as to what age people may work at. So we have suitably updated this trust deed in order to make sure it reflects the sensibilities, the sense of our times, and yet it still achieves the charitable purpose of supporting women and children in need. I commend the Social Services and Community Committee that has worked on this bill, I commend the member for bringing it to the House, and, indeed, I commend this bill to the House.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I’m pleased to be able to take a split call on this bill because I really want to talk about the importance of keeping this trust alive. My colleague Paulo Garcia talked about Price and Prejudice, but I think it might also be important to add in a little bit of an ability for us to understand the difference between now and what was, with Bridgerton being perhaps a more modern version. But, look, I just want to come to a point about the fact—and it is something that has been mentioned a number of times—that the language is very archaic, and this is the very, very reason why this Act is being amended.

I want to make a couple of points on this because, of course, this is not the only time we’ve seen legislation like this having to be addressed for futureproofing reasons. Of course, the intention of Allan McLean was to help a great number of women in difficult situations, and certainly wording such as “in straitened circumstances” is perhaps not something that we would understand now, or it is something that is quite foreign to us. But the intention was to help women, and certainly not the cast of Bridgerton or Pride and Prejudice, but my hope is that the changes that we are seeing—and thanks go to the Social Services and Community Committee that has worked on this. We are aware of how much it has been thought through and deliberated on, so that it prevents the trust from having to come back and continue to go through this laborious process, which actually hinders the trust from doing what it has set out to do, which is to help women.

One thing that was brought to my mind when we’ve been discussing this bill was a novel that I read when I was at high school. Now, actually, I can’t remember the name of it, so I do hope that, in explaining this, someone can tell me, because I’d quite like to revisit it. But the book was about two young sisters that lived in Christchurch. It was set in the early 1900s, and it really talked about the different paths that these two sisters went on. It was a novel from which I learnt a lot about—given that I’m from Hawke’s Bay—the differences in Christchurch, and the suburbs and the schools and what they mean to people who live in Christchurch.

But what it talked about with these two sisters is the different paths they went down. Now, one of them was going on to higher education. People saw that there was a path for her that they didn’t see for her sister. Now, her sister’s education ended at a young age, but that meant that her path was incredibly different to her sister’s. It meant that she wasn’t able to perhaps marry into the same place that her sister was able to, or to have access to the same work or access to the same means. I’d like to think that what it is that Allan McLean has set up with this institute would have gone to help that one sister that for reasons that were very much distinctly of that time, it would mean that she would have a very supportive life ahead of her, because I think that’s something we have to consider here. Allan McLean would not have thought—and, look, he may well have, but I would doubt, going by the wording that is set out in his will and also in this Act in its most recent version—which is 1934, I might add—that it would have considered people living in 2024, or, for that matter, perhaps people living in 2094, and my hope is that as a well-managed trust, there would be funds that would continue to help women in those circumstances.

Now, to think about the fact that these two sisters lived in a time that I couldn’t even imagine. The fact is that the schooling for at least one of them would end at the age of 15, or even the age of 13, and that they would go down different paths, and, of course, this was the case for boys, as well. To think that I was able to go through high school and it was expected that I would go through high school to the age of 18, and then that I would have every opportunity to go on to university, no matter what my experience or background was—and to think that something like this was in place for those women that had perhaps lost family members and so wouldn’t have had that financial aid to marry well or to go to a technical institute, which would mean that they could have worked and supported themselves as well.

I think that the most important thing we need to address in this bill and with the changes that are here is that the work that has been undertaken by the Social Services and Community Committee is going to go a long way to help women in 90 years’ time or 100 years’ time who are going to be in equally difficult circumstances, but for very different reasons, because women that experience hardship today, in 2024, are not under the same circumstances for the same reasons that they would have been in 1924, let alone 1907, when Allan McLean died. So I’d like to think that this has brought back some hopeful and positive memories for those who have been helped by Allan McLean’s legacy, because there are a great number of women that have been helped from his philanthropy, and I am sure and I have no doubt that they will be absolutely thrilled that what we are doing will help—I can’t even tell you how many more women will be helped by the changes that we are seeing today. So I commend this bill to the House.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I’d like to join together with members across the House in supporting this bill. I want to acknowledge the Hon Dr Duncan Webb for bringing it to the House, and also the Social Services and Community Committee for the work that they have done on this bill.

I’m not going to repeat what everyone has said—I listened really carefully and there’s been some really good contributions. I just want to highlight the futureproofing aspect of the deed of trust, because, it seems to me, after going to the High Court and going through that process, and the High Court not having the tools to be able to give effect to the changes that were absolutely needed—that’s very clear—that this bill will now futureproof that and give the ability to the High Court in the future, because we don’t know what might be required in 100 years or 200 years. We know what’s required right now is significantly different than what was required in the early 1900s. So it’s really good that the select committee, and indeed the institute, has seen to make that significant change, which I totally support.

The second point that I wanted to make is around the legacy of Allan McLean and the ongoing future legacy that he created—and I want to acknowledge the many other trusts that perform similar functions throughout New Zealand, along with the whole community and voluntary sector. I think, as a totality, every Parliament and every Government is fortunate that that work is done, because it actually makes the work of Government a lot easier, and I think we should acknowledge that. That’s my contribution, and I commend this bill to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It has been a really interesting debate to listen to over the last hour or so, listening to a variety of contributions from each side of the House on why they’re supporting this bill, and the different provisions that they’ve seen in the bill that they think are really good, being updated in 2024 by this House. So it’s been engaging to listen to—particularly the contributions from some of my colleagues have been fantastic.

Before I sort of go through a process of picking apart the different aspects of the bill that are looking to be updated by the House, I actually did a little bit of a deep dive to actually want to know a little bit more about the man of Allan McLean and who he actually is. A number of my colleagues have talked about him already, but there’s some things here that I pulled out. One I would note says, “Allan McLean was a somewhat eccentric figure. He frequently wore a plum-coloured suit, bow-tie, and white socks”. Now, I wonder if that would be pressing the rules of Parliament if he were to wear that here today in 2024.

He also travelled around the district in a white wagonette referred to locally as the “Yankee Express”. However, he was also known for his generosity to the poor and had a large bunkroom for swaggers built on his property. What a really generous man in his own individual right.

Then I looked into the history of McLean’s mansion, which we’ve discussed a little bit this evening already. This magnificent residence, containing 23,000 square feet and generally referred to as “McLean’s Mansion”, was completed in 1902. Allan, with the aid of his very capable housekeeper, Mrs Emily Phillips, and staff, then went into residence. And I thought, actually, I’m keen to know a little bit more about the residence and then tying that back into the bill, around how that residence still remains with us today.

I read that he commissioned his solicitors to prepare what was a very long and clearly expressed will. This document, after making generous provisions for his relatives, his housekeeper, and his staff, provided for the establishment of the McLean Institute. Upon Allan’s death on 12 November 1907, 90 years before I was born, the trustees announced his magnificent benefaction. His reason for building such a fantastic residence now became apparent to all. It had obviously been his intention to provide and endow this beautiful property to be used, as his will expressed—and I quote—as a “home for women of refinement or education in reduced or straitened circumstances”. The institute was incorporated by an Act of Parliament, the McLean Institute Act 1909.

And that brings me to the bill. That’s the journey we’ve taken to where we are today. The McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill is a private bill being led by the MP for Christchurch Central, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. The first private bill I’m actually aware of that we’ve had in the 54th Parliament. So it’s been an interesting journey for those of us that are new, seeing the processes behind a private bill versus the other bills we have coming before the House. I read through the report from the Social Services and Community Committee, and one of them, well, they talked about some of the amendments which were all recommended unanimously, just like this bill is tonight.

I want to talk about the five amendments from the select committee. The first was future changes to the trust, involvement of the High Court under the Charitable Trusts Act. Now, the Charitable Trusts Act consolidates aspects of New Zealand’s legislation and the common law relating to charitable trusts. The select committee noted that the board followed the process—the board being the board of the McLean Institute—under Part 3 of the Charitable Trusts Act in 2021, seeking to vary the terms of the trust as reflected in the Schedule of this bill. The court declined to make the requested changes because they were inconsistent with the McLean Institute Act 1909, 1930, and 1934. The court ruled that the changes sought could only be made by an Act of Parliament. That brings us to where we are today, why we are in fact debating this bill here in Parliament.

The second amendment the select committee talked about was proposed amendments related to the Charitable Trusts Act, and clause 6 of this bill, as introduced, refers to the Charitable Trusts Act and its functions in relation to the McLean Institute. It sets out that the Act would apply to the trust and the board as if the powers and constitution of the trust were set out in a deed and not in statute. The intent of this clause is to allow the court to approve the changes to the trust in accordance with Part 3, despite the trust and deed being set out in legislation. Then the committee went on to say they recommended amending clause 6 and adding 10A to the preamble to clarify this intent. The committee also recommended the deletion of clause 24.2, which would be unnecessary, given their proposed amendment to clause 6.

Then the third amendment the select committee looked into and has recommended was amending the trust’s charitable purpose. Now, the bill, as it was introduced, would set new charitable purposes for the McLean Institute’s trust, and the select committee heard from the board’s representatives that it feels it is no longer able to fulfil the charitable purposes laid out in the original deed of the trust, as societal changes have meant the criteria are no longer relevant. Now, the select committee, having heard from the board’s representatives, were satisfied that the changes to the trust’s charitable purposes are consistent with the wishes of the late Allan McLean, and that’s got to be the priority here. Mr McLean bequeathed this money and it needs to ensure that it is being utilised, as was his intentions and his wishes. So now the Schedule of the bill outlines a new deed of trust which would vary the charitable purposes so that the trust may be better administered and can continue to support disadvantaged women.

The fourth amendment from the select committee was around the incorporation of the trust board, and the select committee noted that the board was established through the will of Allan McLean and incorporated as a body corporate under the McLean Institute Act 1909. However, the bill as introduced incorrectly states that the board was incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act. Therefore, the select committee recommended several amendments to the bill to ensure that it accurately reflects the trust’s status and does not unintentionally change it. There are four recommendations in this part, and they are: affirming that the board continues to be incorporated under the McLean Institute Act 1909, despite that Act being repealed—[Bell rung] there goes the bell—rather than the Charitable Trusts Act by amending clause 4 and adding clause 4A, which clearly states this.

The next point was removing requirements in clause 5 for the trust deed to be lodged with the Registrar of Incorporated Societies. This would only be needed if the board was incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act. The third was removing the requirement in clause 6 of the Schedule for the board to remain an incorporated body and as amendments to clause 4 and the proposed new clause 4A already states that the board remains incorporated despite the repeal of the McLean Institute Act 1909. The final was changing any instances of the term “registered charitable trust” to “registered charity” to indicate that the trust is a registered charity under the Charities Act, not a registered charitable trust under the Charitable Trusts Act.

Now, the fifth and final recommendation from the select committee was removal of a trustee on the basis of unsound mind. The terms of the trust as originally written contains language that in 2024 is outdated. Therefore, the select committee recommended that there was some confusion of the term “of an unsound mind” and suggested that it be updated so that the language used aligns with the provisions set out in the Trusts Act 2019, which instead of being of an unsound mind referred to the “loss of capacity to perform the functions of a trustee”.

I have traversed the journey of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill and I recommend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill.

Bills

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

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments relating to overseas travel reporting

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee for the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill. Members, we now come to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 and 5, “Amendments relating to overseas travel reporting”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. Therefore I call on Part 1 to stand part.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): It’s a real privilege to stand and speak on, I think, this term’s very first committee of the whole House stage for a members’ day, so it’s good that it’s a good bill from a good man. As they say, good things take time, and I think this bill has taken its time to progress its way through the House to where we are now. I understand it was actually pulled out of the ballot, probably, back in early 2022—Mr O’Connor is in the chair and he could possibly correct me if that’s incorrect. But it seems like it was drawn in 2022 and if we just go back to that very first reading of the bill and understand what it’s actually about, we see that, fundamentally, this bill is about one thing: it’s about keeping children safe.

In this particular bill, we are looking at what requirements and what restrictions we, as a public, like to put in place for registered child sex offenders who have served their time in our prison system, are subject to the registration system and are then, as a right that they have, are entitled to travel to some countries abroad; and, when they do undertake this travel, what restrictions and what rules and what requirements we can put in place, as a Parliament, on their movements, on their activities, in order to make sure that when they are undertaking these activities, this travel, they are keeping themselves safe and that we are also ensuring that the children in our country and around the world are also being kept safe.

So that is what I understand is the purpose of this bill from Mr O’Connor, and it, essentially, requires a couple of things. It requires these individuals to provide additional information to the authorities about the date they intend to travel out of New Zealand; the names of the country that they intend to travel to; and, if they don’t intend to return to New Zealand, statements around that intention. That is what we’re looking at in Part 1 and around clause 4.

Then, of course, clause 5 actually incorporates Amendment Paper 175 from the Hon Erica Stanford, who worked with Mr O’Connor through this process, and there was an agreement reached to incorporate that Amendment Paper into this bill. That Amendment Paper is around sharing of information between agencies and disclosure of personal information. So I think at last point we were discussing this during the second reading stage, the paper may have sat on the Table still but it is my understanding that that may have been withdrawn because it’s been incorporated into the bill now.

So I wanted to go back and actually look at some of the information the previous Justice Committee actually received during consideration of the bill. One of those was a piece of advice from police, and it, essentially, gave the committee some advice as to what happens in other jurisdictions—because it’s important that we are aligning ourselves with comparable jurisdictions around the world when we’re looking at what restrictions and requirements we place on registered child sex offenders.

So the committee won’t be able to see this because it’s in teeny, tiny little font on half an A4 page, but we were provided with a summary table around what happens in countries like Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand—and we’re actually out of step with those countries on a lot of things.

So, for instance, there is a requirement in Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada for registered offenders to provide information on where they intend to travel. That existed in those other countries—didn’t exist in New Zealand. Timing of notification prior to travel: in Australia, in the UK, and Canada, actually, it was about seven days—in New Zealand, we were requiring it to be 48 hours. So part of what I think the member is intending on doing—from his experience and years working with the police—is align some of our requirements of what we place on sex offenders when they are wanting to travel; align that with other countries so we make sure we’re aligned with those jurisdictions.

The other thing that we’re wanting to do is align it with our own domestic requirements, because there are some requirements in law about what information is required by registered sex offenders when they travel nationally. They have to provide information about where they’re staying, what they intend on doing, how long they’re going to be away for, and, essentially, what they intend to do. That is, of course, in order to protect and make sure that we keep children safe and make sure that we’re aware of where these offenders are intending on going and what likely exposure they may have to previous victims or other vulnerable individuals who may well be subject to people who slip in their rehabilitation.

So part of this bill is actually aligning those requirements to what we actually already require of domestic travel, and it only makes sense that we do it for international travel as well. So I was actually quite surprised—and we mentioned this in the second reading and previous contributions—that we didn’t already do this, so this bill solves part of that problem.

There are a few other things I’d like to talk to later on in the committee of the whole House stage, but, hopefully, we’ll look forward to some more contributions from other members as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume in committee at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, before the dinner break, the committee was considering Part 1 of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I had intended to stand and summarise the bill but Mr Meager has done that for me very well—far quicker off the mark than I am, these young blokes. You’ve got to be pretty quick, I tell you.

I would also like to thank Mr Meager. I think he and his committee have done a very good job of bringing this to this stage of the bill, helped by Vanushi Walters in the previous Parliament. Also, I’d like to welcome and thank the officials who have worked on this bill, who are back here after dinner; we’d sort of thought they might have got home before dinner, but a bad case, perhaps, of filibustering seems to have broken out in the Chamber. You never know when it’s going to happen. They can come like a fly, like the flu, like COVID-19.

Look, this is a very serious piece of legislation; a relatively simple piece of legislation but many of the speakers who’ve spoken in the previous stage have expressed surprise that we didn’t have this before, because what this does is bring into line the requirements that a sex offender in New Zealand has to report their absences and where they’ll be, what address they’ll be, and, importantly, whether there’s going to be children at that address. If an offender in Wellington wants to go to Hawke’s Bay for the weekend, that’s what they’re required to do. However, they can jump on a plane to Sydney, to Nuku’alofa, to anywhere else in the Islands, to Queensland, and they’re not required to make the same disclosures. In fact, I’m advised that about 20-odd offenders do that each year.

I was up in the Cook Islands earlier this year and I mentioned this piece of legislation to the Cook Islands Parliament. They were very interested in it because they see people—family members, generally—who are coming back; they see a vulnerability there. This legislation isn’t about the “stranger in the park”, which we tend to think about when we’re thinking of a sex offender; the person hanging around the school. That’s not the “why” for this legislation—when those people are caught, they’re relatively rare. This is for the 90 percent of the cases where the offender and the victim are known to each other, often because the offender has targeted, has through predatory behaviour put themselves in a position. But even that’s relatively rare. Often it is actually a close family member who will be the offender. This is my experience as a detective when I’ve interviewed these people, and a lot of the time they’re not the heinous criminals they are often portrayed as; they’re often quite pathetic individuals.

The best thing about this legislation is it’s removing them out of harm’s way, which this legislation is intended to do—to ensure that we know where they’re going to be, which is one of the best defences we have, and that does work. They don’t want to go back to jail. It’s a heck of a time for a sex offender in jail—some would say rightfully so—but they don’t want to go back. By making sure that we as a country are protecting our victims—and it’s all about protecting the victims—we are also making sure that they don’t put themselves into that position.

So the bill has come here. This is Part 1, and Part 1 amends section 21 of the principal Act, and it simply means now that section 4 requires that a registrable offender who intends to return to New Zealand would need to report each address at which they intend to stay while overseas, the dates in which they intend to travel to and out of the country, and information will be required for each country the offender intends to travel to and remain in for more than 48 hours.

Anticipating, perhaps, some of the questions: one of them may be about how enforceable this is. Well, like each of the Australian states—each Australian state has its own legislation—while there’s no requirement on the host jurisdiction to actually do this, what we do have is good cooperation between police forces. We have liaison people in Sydney in the Police. When I say “we”, old habits die hard. The Police have liaison people in Sydney and in Canberra, as they do in a couple of places in the United States, the UK, Europe, who, through their relationships, will be able to ensure that inquiries are made when necessary. I’m happy to answer any questions, particularly on Part 1.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It’s great to stand up in support of Greg O’Connor’s member’s bill here, and, as we did in the last reading, we salute his passion and dedication to this cause. As I think we noted last time, members are almost unanimous in our support, other than the Green Party, who have voiced reservations.

I’ve got a couple of questions. They pertain to Part 1 of this bill, and one is around the reporting time of 48 hours. The explanatory note to the bill says, “Section 21 … sets out when registrable offenders must report their travel plans to the Commissioner of Police, who maintain the Child Sex Offender Register. If they are travelling overseas for more than 48 hours, they must inform the Commissioner at least 48 hours before travelling (unless there are exceptional circumstances)”, and so the first question is: why do they have to be overseas for more than 48 hours? A lot can be done on the East Coast of Australia within 48 hours.

The second one is: how does it actually look on the ground? Looking at the purpose of the amendments here, which is to allow the New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Customs Service to use their networks to better protect children in countries where offenders travel and to identify cases of sex tourism, noting that these amendments would align reporting requirements with domestic and international travel—but how does that actually work on the ground?

We know that this is about improved international cooperation and protection, we know that this bill goes some way to demonstrate New Zealand’s leadership in protecting children from this exploitation by highlighting our protective reach beyond our borders, and we know that it establishes international cooperation and prevents offenders from using travel to avoid detection, but how does it actually work on the ground as far as a registered offender who intends to return to New Zealand would also need to report each address at which they intended to stay while they’re overseas, the dates on which they intended to travel in and out of the country—and, again, there is the 48 hours for reporting it to the police. How does that actually work—is my question—around the international agencies?

On the ground, what does it materially look like if that information is given to New Zealand Police 48 hours before they travel, and does that information follow them over the border to the New South Wales Police? Is that information held in reserve, and if an offence is committed or reported, they go back to New Zealand and seek what information they have sought at the point of travel?

So my two questions are around why have we put more than 48 hours, and why not just say that it is for those travelling overseas—period? What is the logic behind that, and how will the agencies between countries interact with that information at a material level, such as when the registered child sex offender travels, does New Zealand alert the next country, and if an offence occurs or an allegation is made, does that host country then contact New Zealand and obtain that information?

So I’d just be interested in exploring those two issues with the bill’s sponsor, Mr O’Connor. Thank you.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Yes, certainly, interesting points. As far as the 48 hours go, the 48 hours was in the original bill—as in the primary legislation, which it seeks to amend. It’s two 48 hours. It’s advising 48 hours before travel—before travel for 48 hours. And not having been involved in the writing of the original bill, and I’d take advice from the officials if I’m incorrect on this, I’d imagine that if someone had a job, perhaps, travelling to the Wairarapa or travelling around, going back and forth, it would probably be a little more onerous or unmanageable, so the 48 hours is simply, now, with an amendment, moving it from the original Act.

As part of the second question, it doesn’t actually change any requirements internationally. My understanding is that the way it works is that currently an offender will notify someone who’s a manager of the register and the manager of the register locally—bearing in mind each police district, I understand, has a register—will then notify, for international, the national office headquarters, who would go through the Interpol office, and Interpol would then be liaising with their equivalents in the country the person was going to.

As far as, yes, each jurisdiction—and the Canadians have just done the same thing requiring this—unless you have an international treaty—and there are some international treaties on cooperation—specifically it would require cooperation between agencies, which, I’m pleased to say, is considerable. Our liaison officers—you may have noticed I mentioned in my opening that our liaison officers exist and do develop those relationships. It’s likely to be that if the New Zealand—and bearing in mind if an offence is committed, there are offences here that, were this to be suspected, it would be relatively simple to get the agency’s cooperation to get it checked to see that they are where they said they were going to be.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, it’s good timing, because I was going to raise a point around enforcement. The member Greg O’Connor referred to this, about there being some questions and some discussion in the Justice Committee about enforcement of the provision. There were some concerns raised that we may introduce these changes and introduce these laws, but the enforceability in another jurisdiction may be hard to undertake or to enforce. Of course, then we did have officials advise us that there are issues sometimes with enforcement domestically. So I would have thought that enforcement is not necessarily a terminal barrier to this bill progressing, because there are reasons that you would want to pass this legislation which aren’t to do with the enforcement and the enforceability of it.

Having the requirements in and of themselves may be a deterrent for the offenders. In terms of maintaining their commitment to any programmes they might be undertaking to maintain the conditions of their release, and having some requirements on them to do the reporting process—failing to do the reporting and the consequences of that may be in and of itself a deterrent, so it helps with that factor too. So the enforceability is not as critical a point. I wondered whether the member could comment on that because he, I believe, approached that issue during the select committee stage and had some pretty reasonable arguments about that as well.

Of course, part of the reason why we’re doing this is so that law enforcement agencies do have knowledge of offenders’ movements. I had looked at some of the original advice from Police about how the enforcement mechanisms are undertaken. When it comes to non-compliance domestically, it is dealt with on a case by case basis. Some of the consequences may be offence provisions, but some of the consequences are also contacting case managers and making sure that case managers engage with the offender. Because non-compliance could be a sign that their rehabilitation may be slipping, so, actually, it could be a good intervention point to make sure that whatever programmes the offenders are on, based on their offending, are being upheld. So I wonder if the member could address that point, and just clarify for us his views on the enforceability mechanisms with other jurisdictions and whether that can be comfortably overcome.

The other thing I wanted to raise was—just going back to my original contribution, not having time to finish this off—with some of the other differences from existing jurisdictions and trying to bring them into line. For example, other countries do have quite significant safeguards in place that we don’t have. Australia actually requires the passport of the individual to be sighted upon return. Now, that’s not a requirement that we have suggested putting into here, but it goes to something that I want to talk to you later on in Part 2—I’ll probably touch on some of the implications of section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—that there were some concerns about how some of the provisions may touch on the rights of offenders. I just wanted to make the point that in this part we have not gone as far as some other jurisdictions may have gone. So that goes some way to limiting the impact on the rights.

For this part of the contribution, I just wanted to ask the member his views on the enforceability of the provisions and whether or not he is comfortable with what we can do at the moment around liaising with our international partners, and, also, whether or not in the future there might be some things we could do domestically to make sure that the compliance of domestic offenders, and the requirements here for their travel, can be properly enforced as well.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I’ll just do that question. Yeah, look, it’s important—sex offenders actually have one of the lowest reoffending rates of all classes of offender. There’s several reasons for this. One of them is that often they are caught later in life for historical offending, so they may be imprisoned or punished later on in life, where perhaps some of those triggers for their offending may not be existing any further. The second thing is they’re heavily monitored. It’s also important to remember that where an offender is under probation or corrections monitoring, that will override these provisions. So some of our more serious offenders are still under supervision orders, and some of them quite strong supervision orders as well. Bear in mind, we’re talking about people on the register, which generally means their offending or their punishment has been dealt with.

I think I’ve also mentioned, in relation to the internationals, that this doesn’t compel. But I’m also advised, or reminded, by the officials that there is a transnational crime unit as well. I’ve seen that the interjurisdictional issues we often have with Australia or other countries also exist within Australia, within the states. It’s only in the latter years that they’ve even had joined-up intelligence systems, fingerprint systems—things like that. So when we talk about Australia, we actually talk about the states. Canada is a little different. Canada has one criminal code, where the Australians have, I think, eight criminal codes. So it’s important that we do understand that.

But as far as the enforceability goes—I mentioned before about offenders who perhaps go on sex touring. It’s important to remember, we do have on our statute book—I haven’t got it in front of me—if you do commit an offence, child sex trafficking in, say, one of the Asian countries, for example, you can be convicted of that offence here. In fact, ironically, it becomes then a qualifying offence to go on the register. As I’ve been at pains to point out, there will be people who, hopefully, will be caught by that, but, really—and I do ask the member to think about this—the danger is much closer to home than that. The danger is someone going to a family wedding in Queensland, from here. The Australians will let them in to do that; families, these people, haven’t offended. But making sure that they know that we know—I think that we can’t underrate that, and that’s really the purpose of this.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank, again, the member Mr O’Connor for bringing this bill to the House. As Mr Meager said, I think New Zealanders would be somewhat surprised that this regime doesn’t exist. I think this is a very important bill to actually close a gap in our criminal justice system and bring protection to these children or ensure increased protection for children in these sex offender cases. I also was lucky enough to be on the Justice Committee that inherited this, and I hope the member thinks that we did his bill justice in our consideration.

I also just want to talk a bit about Part 1. Obviously, we’ve talked quite a lot about the requirements that are going to be put in place for when sex offenders travel overseas, and the kind of information they’re going to have to provide. I’m interested in hearing from the member—because I think this will be interesting for people—how this is similar or different to the requirements when sex offenders travel within New Zealand. I note that we did actually discuss that in the committee and kind of contrasted the obligations for a sex offender travelling within New Zealand.

It’s important, because we acknowledge that there was some enforcement—and we were just talking about enforcement earlier. We noticed that there were some enforcement difficulties for cases of offenders travelling in New Zealand. So when we, obviously, considered the kinds of obligations we were going to be putting on people and the types of information and then this very important discussion about enforcement, I think it is interesting to hear how it contrasts these new provisions with what exists currently. So thank you—that’s my question.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): The whole point—thank you, Madam Chair. The whole point is to align with overseas. So the whole point of the bill is to take what we currently do have and to ensure that it is actually used internationally. That’s the whole point of the bill.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to speak today on this bill and ask some questions, so thanks to the member. So rights, by nature, rub up against each other. We’re always weighing up rights of one group over another, and by nature they do this. So that’s why we have things like the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to help guide us.

I want to understand, in relation to the report of the Attorney-General, which found that the bill was inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, has the member considered the inherent tension between children’s rights and their right to be free from harm, which we all are dedicated to, and the right to the freedom from double imprisonment? Does he consider that children’s rights, in this instance, outweigh the principles of natural justice and the inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?

Protecting children is important to us all. And I can see everyone here is very passionate about it, including the member whose bill we are speaking on. We need to bring bills that protect children, not just make us politicians feel good. So I want to know and really understand, has the member seen any evidence which shows how many children this bill is likely to prevent sexual harm to? What stakeholders and experts did he engage with from the sexual violence sector in drafting this bill to ensure that it does effectively minimise harm to children?

Of course we want to protect children from any kind of harm, and especially from sexual harm. So what advice has the member had on how to ensure that the bill is targeting higher-risk offenders and the sharing of the information between Police and Customs targets those offenders who are highly likely to reoffend? Has he seen evidence on similar schemes in Canada which only target those offenders who are high risk? And did he consider a similar scheme for this bill?

Rehabilitation is a vital part of protecting children and ensuring members of society are functioning once they are released back into society. Has he received any information or assurances from the Government that extra resources will be provided to Customs to ensure that they have the tools to work with offenders who have been on the register and are at risk of reoffending? Has he received any information or assurances from the Government that extra resources will be provided for rehabilitation of offenders on the register domestically to prevent harm to children? Because that’s what we’re all here to do, while still ensuring that they are not subject to potential hefty fines for the rest of their life or facing double punishment.

With one more reading in the House, there is a possibility that the Greens could support it. It’s my understanding that some level of travel reporting requirements for offenders on the sex offender register already actually exists. Could the member please share any detail about those travel reporting requirements and why the introduction of new ones will achieve reduction of harm to children? And did the member receive any advice on how child sex tourism or harm to children overseas from offenders in New Zealand could be better prevented without creating new inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? Thank you for your time.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Look, a couple of issues there. I think one of the most important ones there—you talked about a threshold around serious offenders. Can I just say, if you have a look at the legislation and look at the list of offences in the Schedule which are qualifying offences, I think you can be satisfied—or certainly I’m satisfied by looking at—that that you have to be a serious offender to get on the register on the first place. This is not a randomised population. These are people who have qualified for the register by—and I’m happy to share with the member what the qualifying are, but there is quite a list of class 1.

And the actual definition, broadly, is that a person is a registrable offender who’s been convicted of a qualifying offence—which is those offences I’ve spoken of, but I won’t go through in detail—and has been sentenced to imprisonment or has been sentenced to a non-custodial sentence and has been made subject to the registration order. In that case, an extra decision has been made by the judge that this is a person who, even though they haven’t gone to prison, still needs to be on the register. They’re not a registrable offender if at the time of the offence they were under 18. And these qualifying offences—which I think is the basis of your question—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. So, again, without going through the list, it covers those serious offences in the Crimes Act.

Also of note with the international, a corresponding registrable offender is a person who as a consequence of a conviction in a foreign jurisdiction—and this may relate to some of the questions previous—has been sentenced to imprisonment or, essentially, would be eligible for an equivalent child sex offender register in their own jurisdiction. So, for example, if someone in South Australia was eligible or on their register, came back—and this could be the case with the 501s we hear so much about—they would go on to our register. So it’s a fairly high threshold to get on to this register, and it’s not permanent either.

Now, the other question you asked, as far as resource. Well, Customs currently, and Immigration, passports are checked, just to answer that question that came from my right before. There is actually a requirement to check the passport when they come back to New Zealand for offenders. As far as much of that work that member’s talking about, no, it is already done when the bill was originally written and conceived and has come to what we have today. So this is an amendment bill that really just speaks to those provisions that where the requirements of an offender in New Zealand which, by the relatively low rate I spoke of before for sex offenders, would be good evidence that it is probably working. There is no better evidence than that that these offenders have the lowest offending rate.

I think that covered all your questions. If there was anything else, I’m certainly happy to answer another question.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Mark Mitchell, then I’m going to come to you, Rima, because you’ve been waiting for a while.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I feel fortunate that I happened to be in the Chamber when the bill came up, because, in the last term, I was on the law and order select committee that dealt with this bill.

The reason why I wanted to take a call is to acknowledge Greg O’Connor. Greg and I don’t always agree on everything, but if there’s one person in this Parliament that understands the risk that children face with these types of offenders it is Greg O’Connor. He was a highly respected police detective with an outstanding career, and he specialised in this area. In fact, I think—I may need to be corrected—had he been required to give evidence in court, his evidence would be considered expert evidence. So, when he stands in this House, he stands from a place of deep knowledge and understanding in terms of the threats, and he’s brought this bill because he understands that—he knows that.

It’s not a frivolous bill; it’s an extremely important bill, in my view. I’m pleased to see that it is passing through the committee. It was nice to see that the Greens member Kahurangi Carter indicated that they may even support this bill, and I would encourage them to do that.

I think that one of the questions that was put to Mr O’Connor was, “What evidence does he have in terms of how many children could be affected or impacted by this?”

Hon Karen Chhour: If it saves one.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Minister Chhour makes a very good point—it’s the same one with me. Is one enough? Is just one enough? Because I think it is. I think that if all his bill achieved was saving one child from being subjected to a sexual predator, that is enough. And that should be enough for all of us in this Chamber.

So I just want to acknowledge you, Mr O’Connor, in bringing this bill, and I feel fortunate that I could actually take a call on it. I know that this is actually a bill that is going to make a difference and I believe, personally, that it is going to stop offending against our kids—and our kids are the most vulnerable people in our society. Thank you, Madam Chair.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Madam Chair, thank you. Look, again, I’d like to add my thanks and my gratitude to Mr O’Connor for championing this bill, and not only that but for having the foresight to see how important it is to make these changes.

As I mentioned during the first reading, to me, sexual abuse against children is a different level of abhorrent, and the child sex abuser is not merely an offender, but he or she is a life wrecker, a youth destroyer, and a thief of innocence. And so, for me, personally, yes, children’s rights in this instance do outweigh natural justice. And, as Minister Mitchell just said, if we happen to save one child from the abhorrence of sexual abuse, then I feel our job is done to a great extent.

So, Mr O’Connor, what I’d like to just explore, if you can please not really reiterate but expand more upon a couple of things. In the first reading, one of the members from the Green Party said that this only captures convicted, known offenders, and my colleague across the House kind of alluded to that just now in her kōrero. Can you just expand, please, your thoughts on that, on how, in light of what you said earlier that the thing with sex offenders is, yes, they’re one of the lowest reoffenders, but one of the reasons is because they haven’t actually been monitored before they’ve been caught? So, for me, I wonder: the lack of being caught, does that mean as well that by putting in these extra regulations, we’re almost certain that this will prevent sex offenders—will they think twice, three times, before going out of the country and trying to sexually abuse children?

The second thought I’d like, please, from you, Mr O’Connor, is to just expand on that example that you mentioned earlier—and we’ve spoken about in private before—about the possibility of sex offenders popping over to countries like Australia and about 90 percent of sexual abuse happening at the hands of people that are known to the victim. So can you give us maybe another example of how easy it is for sexual offenders to go under the radar under a pop-out visit from New Zealand?

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, well, I’d say that that’s the essence of sex offending—that it is under the radar and because it happens in families. Again, without the risk of moving off the topic at hand, I remember when I worked in Porirua—in fact, I established a sexual-abuse team out there in the 1980s—and we had several cases where offenders from families in Auckland had been moved on down to Porirua because of the shame in the families. They’d been found out in families, but rather than be dealt with, they’d been moved to Porirua. And three in about a fortnight came in, and in the case of each one of them, the victims disclosed the offending to school friends, and it came through the school. We work backwards on some of their offending. So these people do exist in a world where, as I said, when they do get found out, it’s so important that we do have them in a system that monitors them, because, as I said before, many of them are quite pathetic individuals who don’t respond to a lot of the same stimuli in life as the rest of us do, and so they need to be under this system of offending.

I go back to the question by our Green colleague about this balancing of the rights, and one thing I can assure is that with the register now, the monitoring that takes place in the register by the teams is commensurate with the risk. So the more serious offenders, those deemed more likely to offend, will have greater requirements placed on them by those administering the register. So it’s not just a one-size-catches-all, and that takes into account that—you know, people—even with the 48 hours and the questions asked earlier—are better off having a job. We don’t want it so onerous that they can’t ever work, so that may require them to move around. That’s where the 48 hours pretty much came from, I’m led to believe.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Chair. I move, That debate on this question now close.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Madam Chair, thank you. It’s really good to see Dr Webb get to his feet. He had a number of contributions to make at the Justice Committee and I’m sure he’d be raring and ready to go to support his colleague in his member’s bill, but I’m sure he probably also supported it at his caucus as well. So I’m sure Dr Webb would have a lot to add and contribute to the committee of the whole House stage as we move forward. I feel like we’re just getting started, so I’m looking forward to a lot more contributions in Part 2, which he seems very, very keen to get on to.

I just wanted to do a little bit of admin as well. I wanted to just raise a point with the member Kahurangi Carter, who seemed to indicate that the Greens may not be supporting this bill anymore. My understanding from reading from the Hansard was that they actually voted for it at second reading, so if the Greens have changed their mind and if there is something in the bill that they don’t disagree with and they’re going to vote against it now, can they elaborate on that? Can they explain that to us and maybe offer some amendments? Because this is the only stage where we can change the bill in order to get it fit for purpose so that they would support it. So if the Greens are considering changing their mind from second reading, I’d ask them to make a contribution and explain why, so that we could perhaps make some changes at this late stage.

Then I’d just also like to point out that we have a section 7 report to consider. Part of the original Attorney-General’s report did talk about clause 4 and some of the concerns around clause 4. Coincidentally, we actually have the author of that paper in the Chamber with us today, so if the Hon David Parker had a contribution to make on the section 7 report and whether or not the changes that have been made in the select committee have dealt with some of those issues, I’d really appreciate that contribution. Because if Greg O’Connor is the expert in this particular area, then we must have the grand expert of section 7 reports sitting opposite us. So I’m sure the member would love to explain his view on this now, and whether or not he thinks that the changes that have been made in clause 4 are sufficient to overcome some of the concerns in the section 7 report that the Attorney-General at the time, the Hon David Parker, made and wrote and we considered during the select committee.

Of course, this is the last remaining chance to make amendments to this part of the bill, and so I did want to ask a question of the member. Given that the child protection aspect of it is the key part of it and we had submissions from a couple of submitters, including one from Piki Kotuku Mahuta, who, basically, outlined that child sovereignty is child safety, and child safety is child wellbeing. Did the member have any thoughts about expanding the protections given in the bill?

In particular, I want to look at this idea that we’re going to put some restrictions in place on registered sex offenders from travelling overseas. Was there ever any consideration of going a little bit further and maybe considering some requirements on prohibiting some forms of travel completely? That would provide the ultimate form of protection from those close family members, for those children who are family members of registered sex offenders who live overseas.

I would be interested in the retrospective aspects of the bill which will come up in Part 2, because that deals with some of the definitions. I believe, in the Attorney-General’s report that was presented to us, he had some concerns that if the provisions weren’t made clear that they were retrospective, he would probably have to issue a subsequent report. Now, I know that’s not within his purview anymore, but he is sitting in the Chamber and I would certainly respect the views of the member, given that he has very strong views on a lot of things in this House. But if I could ask the member whether or not he considered any further amendments to expand the scope of the bill, even at this late stage, that the committee could consider.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Look, a couple of things. In relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, it’s important to remember that the same New Zealand Bill of Rights Act concerns were brought up from the time of the original bill—in fact, through two further amendments until now. Essentially, the balance that Kahurangi Carter brought up, that they have been balanced against each other and the rights of the offender versus the protection of the child—that’s been a constant through all debates on this issue.

As far as further—no; I mean, the reality of it is that, again, we’ve talked before about the people who are the most serious offenders. Many of them are still on Department of Corrections restrictions as well. A lot of it is family and going to family weddings where, perhaps, the ability to travel—a family member getting married or a funeral. It may be actually they that will suffer through not having a family member there as well. So I personally think, currently, a case, essentially, needs to be made, if not here, certainly when they get into the border, given what I’d spoken about before about the Interpol notifications. So it is about 20 offenders a year. I understand it virtually stopped—well, obviously, it stopped and even immediately following COVID, but it has slowly started to build up again, so this is not a theoretical piece of legislation; it is a very real piece of legislation which actually will be used.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take another call from James Meager, but I think at this point we’ve all established that we want to protect children, and the member has made a very good effort to answer the questions. So any new details around the actual workings would be the things that I’ll be looking for from here on in.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Absolutely. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask a question around clause 4(2)(c), and it’s a clause which outlines that “if the offender does not intend to return to New Zealand,” they must make “a statement of that intention; and” they must name the country that they “[intend] to generally reside in after leaving New Zealand.”

So I’m interested as to why we have inserted that provision into the bill. What would be our concern about the risk to people, and why would we want to basically have to have on record that the offender isn’t intending to return? Are we going to be passing that information on to the country of destination? I assume that would be the case because that’s why, in (ii), we’ve asked for the name of the country that the offender intends to generally reside on. Would we be using that as some sort of early warning system for the intended country of destination so that they can put some protections and some measures in place?

Because otherwise, if the offender intends to leave and does not intend to return, what would be the reason for us as, a country, as an authority, to need to know that? That a person is, for want of a better way of putting it, no longer our problem onshore? There must be some connection with the overseas authorities. Was it a recommendation made by officials? Where has that particular amendment come from?

I just very much wanted to finally touch on clause 5, “Section 43 amended (Information sharing between government agencies in interest of public safety)”. I just wanted to point out that in Amendment Paper 175 put forward by Erica Stanford, the wording is slightly different but the substance of it has been incorporated into the bill. So I wanted to assure all members of the committee that if that Amendment Paper has been withdrawn, it has been incorporated in here so that agencies do have the ability to share information. The reason it might look a little different is because we removed some of the specificity about particular agencies that needed to share information with each other, because the drafters and the officials—and I think the Parliamentary Counsel Office—advised that the way that it has been worded here will meet the intention of Erica Stanford’s Amendment Paper.

So just that question around that clause about intention to return, having to notify authorities here and having to provide the name of the country that they will generally reside in. In fact, having brought up that point, why would we not make some sort of amendment—or why did we not make it clearer that it may be the country or countries that they generally intend to reside in? Are there any further restrictions we can place on that? Because they might say one thing and do another, and I guess that goes to the enforceability point. But I’d appreciate the member’s thoughts on that point as well.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I think I have touched on this, but we don’t have any jurisdiction. This bill doesn’t allow us—and there are no bills, unless there’s, essentially, an international treaty involved, that can compel any other country unless they agree they will. But there are such provisions, not specific but certainly those cooperations generally done through Interpol and other agencies.

And, yes, the whole intention is that, if they don’t intend to come back, the best we can do is let the country that they’re going to know where they’re going. I think with modern passport monitoring, it’s generally fairly easy to track where people are going—so we’re notifying the country that they’re ultimately going to that they now have this offender. Even, of course, there will be occasions when offenders will be deported. Of course, that will be—and I talked about it earlier; if someone is deported here and they’re eligible, they’re on the register in that country, they can go on the register here under the existing law.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, sir, for the work you do. Having worked with many victims of sexual violence, it is a part of their life that stays with them for a very long time. And so often, as you have rightly said, the perpetrator was someone very close to them, someone whom you would never think would do that. And so, for me, I always focus on the victim. And whilst someone may not go overseas with the intention of doing this, it may just happen. Whatever we can do as a deterrent, I feel, is important.

Rachel Boyack: Repetitive.

TANYA UNKOVICH: And I will get to my point. So when I look at what the information is that they have to give over, it is their address—each address. I suppose I’m wondering: is there any more information that can be asked of them as a further deterrent? For example, do they have to give names of whoever they will be staying with? Do you have to cite travel documents? Do you have to actually physically go to the Commissioner of Police to give that information? Anything that maybe was reversed during this process in the amount of information that had to be given just to pose as an additional deterrent to stop someone who makes a really bad decision and affects the life of an innocent child or person. Thank you.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I think, again, additional information, I mean the information of pretty much where they’re going to be staying, given that what I’m trying to achieve with this amendment is to, essentially, give to children living in their family home in Queensland or Apia the same protections as someone living in Napier or in Oamaru has, which currently is the whole intention of the bill.

I think we could sort of put more reporting requirements on, but, again, in my experience the more you ask for, the more it’s likely to be in the breach. Whereas, never forget what we’re trying to achieve here—well, certainly what I’m trying to achieve here—which is granting overseas children, in particular, the same protections that New Zealand children get from people who are on this register. That’s the essence of this bill.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Point of order, Madam Chair. Thank you. I can’t remember the Standing Order that we’re supposed to refer to, but I understand that all members are entitled to five-minute calls, and I wondered whether you wanted to grant the Opposition a chance to take some of their five-minute calls, because they haven’t had a chance to contribute yet.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, I think that this part of the debate so far—if you don’t count the bit before dinner, we’ve been going for close to 50 minutes now, and I think it has been a relatively good question and answer session, rather than a five-minute call session. As Chairs, we are encouraging people to get into the question and answer, so I think we’ll stick with the question and answer, and now I’m going to take a call from Rachel Boyack.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 34

New Zealand Labour 34.

Noes 83

New Zealand National 49; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Motion not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So I really want some relevant calls here, because just remember that the Chair can also make closure motions. They need to be new questions about the enacting of Part 1.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question has to do with Part 1. So, first, on Part 1, I understand from Mr O’Connor that the most usual case which the bill seeks to prevent is offending from people who are known to the children that they violate and cause violence to. And there’s a possibility that there would be families connected to them in New Zealand as well as overseas.

And the question that I have for Part 1, because the bill specifies that we should monitor their movements and that they are required to provide their addresses and all of their details as they leave and where they will reside, what accounts for situations, Mr O’Connor, where they have given addresses for where they are headed but they will be on the move regardless? And on the move—I understand that you did mention that these are, you know, low-life types who may not be super-sophisticated and who prey on children that are within their reach, particularly those that are known to them. But could they be on the move, and how is it that the bill could address that kind of movement from the addresses that they have already provided?

Also speaking to Part 1, my question has to do with providing the Police with the opportunity to prepare and inform offenders that this will be put in place so that there will be an opportunity for everyone to be informed and to move accordingly and proceed on the basis that they are completely informed and have the opportunity to comply and be aware that the registration and the requirement for tracking their movement overseas will have already been in place. Thank you.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I have some questions on clause 5, which we have barely, barely touched in the past 45 to 50 minutes that we’ve been up here. And it is, of course, the clause around privacy. And I had two questions for the member. The first one was that I’ve been through the submissions, and I can’t recall seeing anything significant from the Privacy Commissioner. Now, we are dealing with a proposed section which would involve the sharing of personal information, so I wonder whether the member had any insight as to whether or not we didn’t receive some advice initially from the Privacy Commissioner—or “Priv-a-see” Commissioner, depending on who you ask in the House these days—because, of course, those parts of the submissions were done in the previous term where many members weren’t here. So if the member has any knowledge of the views of the Privacy Commissioner on that particular clause, I’d be very interested in that.

And then, secondly, just on clause 5(1)—and it’s an interpretation question, really, and I’ll read it out for you. It reads, “A specified agency may disclose personal information”, and then it lists a range of purposes, and the purposes include “monitoring … whereabouts:”, “managing … risk or threat to public safety.”, and “managing … risk that the offender may commit further sexual offences against children:”, and I wondered whether or not we may have missed a beat here when we say that the agency may disclose personal information. Should that or could that not be “must disclose personal information”?

If the purpose of this clause is to manage risks or threats to public safety, to manage the risks to offenders, and one agency requests or requires that information, currently the only obligation on the agency that holds the information is that they may disclose it, and there is no actual obligation on them to disclose it. It’s not the mandatory; it’s only permissive.

So I wonder, in the time remaining that we have officials with us, whether or not the member could possibly consult his officials as to whether or not a change would be appropriate there, because the risk I think we find with this is that while we have a lot of confidence in our agencies and we have a lot of confidence that they work well together and would share information where appropriate, it may be that there are some tensions between two agencies where one thinks that it is not appropriate to share that information, but the other thinks it is incredibly important to receive the information for monitoring, for managing risks, and for managing risks against children.

So I wonder whether or not to change it from “may” to “must” would be appropriate. And I think that this is the only stage that we really do get to consider that particular issue. And I know that we are possibly drawing towards the end of this of the part, but if the member could respond to that first question about privacy, then, perhaps, that gives officials 30 seconds or so to offer a view as to whether or not a change would be appropriate. And if a change was appropriate, I’m sure Dr Webb has plenty of blank paper at his desk that we could scribble on a quick amendment to table in the Chamber and then consider that amendment. But I’d like the member to at least consider that.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Yeah, look, I haven’t had a specific interaction with the Privacy Commissioner on this. However, in relation to clause 5, remember it amends section 43 of the Act, and the criteria of the Act enables “(1) A specified agency” to provide “personal information in the register to another … agency for …(a) monitoring the whereabouts of the offender: (b) verifying personal information reported by the offender:”—which is all very important material to monitor it—“(c) managing the risk that the offender may commit further sexual” offending, and “(d) managing any risk or threat to public safety.”

So I think, when you look at the criteria that are met, they pretty much cover what we’re looking to do, or what I’m certainly looking to do, with this bill, because that is the criteria applied. And any of those four criteria will trigger the release of that information. Bearing in mind this is information that the agency has, which is not on the register already; it’s the type of information you’re talking to. And that’s the criteria that is applied. It’s fairly comprehensive, really, as far as ensuring—and that was certainly what gave me the comfort, shall we say, that the member’s discussing.

James Meager: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll let you ask a quick question while the member’s just getting his head round the answers that have just been put in front of him.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe I could clarify my possible slight concern. It’s not that I don’t believe that agencies would apply this section correctly and would release information where they are entitled to. My concern would be that if an agency requests the information and another agency which might not be as much of an expert in this area—and I’m trying to think of a good example off the top of my head. But, say, if the police requested information held by the health department for the most recent address of the offender, and in that instance, the second agency, or the requestee, is not obliged to provide the information despite the fact that those other qualifying criteria are met, the agency may provide it, but they are not obliged to provide it, even if requested to. So I wondered—and, hopefully, the member has some advice there—because I wouldn’t want to get into a situation where agencies are trying to obtain information for the purpose of managing risks and threats to public safety and another agency declined them, not because they didn’t think that it was possible to meet that end, but because they’re not required to.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Chair. In regard to my personal information, I’m wary of “musts” because “musts” means lots of information, which means that it’s more likely something pertinent will be lost. My personal preference in these things is to make sure that you’re going to get the relevant information, and as soon as you start putting “musts” in there, then you come into a whole different criteria. You’ve got a whole different monitoring regime, but lots more information, which, when there is probably an operation failure—again, my experience is that those operational failures go looking for where there’s been a breach, and that’s where it will become the end in itself, rather than the protection.

So, again, look, there is no right answer to these things. Don’t lose sight of what we’re trying to achieve here. We just want to make sure, and certainly in relation to that, that there is the ability—and this is why I think the Justice Committee chaired by yourself, Mr Meager, actually did some very good work on that. In incorporating that, you referred to the fact that the Hon Erica Stanford had an amendment which was more specific than it needed to be, and so I believe that you were the chair of the committee that made the decision that these provisions would actually be sufficient to cover that.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendment to Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clause 6, amendment to Schedule 1, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): It feels like just a moment ago we were discussing Part 1, but now we’re on to Part 2. Part 2 is our part around the amendment to Schedule 1, which inserts the parts set out in the Schedule of this bill, as the last part. Of course, the Schedule, being inserted in new Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016—the way I understand it, it’s an interpretation section, and that is the clarifying provision to ensure that retrospectivity is clear in this instance. I refer back to the report of the former Attorney-General, who I thought wrote a well-written, very insightful report a couple of years ago. If any members have it in front of them, I actually thought it was quite a good way to approach the issue. The Attorney-General wrote that he interpreted the bill in line with the Interpretation Act and the legislation design advisory guidelines, which state that if retroactive application is intended, it must be stated in the legislation.

Now, what you have in part in new clause 13 of new Part 2 is the “Interpretation”, which defines what a “specified registrable offender” means. You’ve got paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) there, which actually list different dates as to when offending may or may not apply. So the way that works in practice is that paragraph (a) defines offending occurring before 14 October 2016, which is when the Principal Act was passed into force, I believe, under—well, it was under the Key Government, so it must have been, probably, Minister Tolley back then. Then, paragraph (b) has offending on or after 14 October 2016 and before commencement. So that’s that period after the original Act came into force and before this amendment bill has come into place. Then you’ve got subsection (c), which is offending on or after commencement.

The combination of those paragraphs, I understand is—and I may be well off track and members opposite can jump to their feet and let me know if I’m getting any of this wrong—that the intention of this clause is to deal with the retrospectivity aspect of it. That is important because it is a fundamental principle of the rule of law, and it’s actually stated in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that when Parliament passes laws that have or may have retrospective effect on individuals or on people—or on anyone, really—that retrospectivity must be stated as explicitly and as clearly as possible. We actually had this discussion in the Justice Committee.

The reason that principle is important is because the rule of law will tell you that in order for law to be good, it must be known and it must be understood, and it must be known ahead of time. We’ve always got to know what the law of the land is, and what the rules are that apply to us. The inherent unfairness that exists when a law is passed to condone or make illegal activity retrospective of the current situation—if a new Government comes along and says “What you did 10 years ago is now unlawful, despite the fact that what you did at the time was lawful”, that is a serious breach of the rule of law. So when Parliament does that, it does it very deliberately, it does it very carefully, it does it very rarely, and it makes sure that when it does it, it is explicit and it leaves no room for doubt.

I don’t want to comment on any particular court case, but we’ve seen what happens to laws that are ambiguous and unclear when they go through to the courts. The courts will give a rights-consistent interpretation, and where a statute is seen to be possibly retrospective or not retrospective, the courts will fall on the side of caution and they will interpret that section as not having retrospective effect. Then, of course, what happens is that Parliament then needs to return to the House and make clear the changes that say that the law does have retrospective effect. So I wanted to highlight that one very, very clearly because it is an important part of our constitution; it is an important part of legislating. It’s something that we always need to be cognisant of, and it’s something that we actually discussed at length in the committee.

In my final 43, 42, 41 seconds, I did want to make a comment on the other aspects of the section 7 report, which talked about inconsistencies. I wanted to bring a point that the member Greg O’Connor actually made: this is now, by my counting, the fourth time that Parliament has considered this piece of legislation. It has considered amendments to the legislation. It has passed them in full knowledge, with full support of the public, with democratic mandate. If that is not the elaboration of demonstrably justified changes to the law, I do not know what could be. If that is not a justified limitation—if Parliament comes again and again and again and says that we support this as the democratic lawmaking body, I do not know what else we could go to.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. Again, I refer to the good work done by the Justice Committee on this, because this is a matter I know they considered seriously. They also heard from the police advisers in making the decision that in creating almost two classes of offenders—which that would do—could impact seriously on the intention of the bill, which of course is to protect potential victims. So the application, the retrospective application, is only for people who are registered offenders, so the offending before 14 October 2016, of course, which is when the bill was passed. So, again, the balance—and again, I thank the good work done by the committee there, that agreeing with the concerns in considering the bill should apply retrospectively and propose the amendment that the member has spoken from, which is to ensure that it makes this intention explicit.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Chair. I didn’t get time at the end of the last contribution to just finish off and expand on that point. But if we do look at, under new Part 2, new section 16, there’s actually a very good, I think, drafting exercise that’s been undertaken there. Because what this section actually does is it says “Clauses 14 and 15 override any inconsistent other law”.

So not only have we made the retrospectivity quite clear in the law, we’ve also made it very clear to any possible legal body that may be looking at or interpreting this legislation in the future that despite any other law, these clauses override that law when they are inconsistent. That includes sections 25(g) and 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. That’s very, very important because we have seen some developments in jurisprudence where the courts have taken an interpretive approach to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which say that they may choose to not apply legislation passed by this House. That is fundamentally contrary—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: No, they haven’t. You’re making it up.

JAMES MEAGER: —to our constitution. Well, I mean, the member opposite can make a contribution—he’s a professor of law; he’s a very smart, talented man who made a lot of contributions during the House. If he wants to give us a rundown of the Fitzgerald case and the court’s interpretation of that and how they have looked at how Parliament is passing laws, he can do so. But why else would this clause be in here? And why else would the member have supported it through the select committee? And why else will he be voting for it, hopefully today, if not for that very fact?

In fact, new section 16(2)(c) explicitly names a particular case of which these clauses will override—to avoid any doubt at all by any judicial body in the future whatsoever. So the member can make a contribution—and it’s a debating chamber, it’s the committee of the whole House stage; it’s the last chance for him to change that if he thinks it’s an egregious overstep by the only democratically accountable body in our constitution. But if he doesn’t make that contribution, then I will have to just assume that he agrees with me wholeheartedly now and forever. So, on that part, Mr Chair, and the member, I just wanted to make that part finally very clear.

Now, the only other one I wanted to draw the committee’s attention to would be new section 14, and that is the application of section 21(4). It’s a difficult one to get your head around, this one, and the reasons for it being in there, but it “applies only to a specified registrable offender who intends to travel out of New Zealand for more than 48 hours.”—“On or after commencement,”. I’m yet to actually wrap my head around how that interplays with new section 13. I know officials are in the room, so if they can just give us a quick couple of lines as to why we have 14 and 15 in place and why that’s not encompassed within 13 around—I am only making assumptions it is to do with the retrospectivity sections, but it wasn’t addressed in our select committee report.

It may have been that Dr Webb was making such vigorous contributions in committee that we were all wowed by his oratory and missed the additions of the officials in select committee and we weren’t able to actually look at that. So if the officials do have time, and if the member can explain just the purposes of 14 and 15 being separate from 13, I would very much appreciate it. I’m sure Dr Webb would appreciate me being able to sit down and sleep peacefully tonight knowing that the jurisprudence in the country won’t be drastically altered by our amendments here tonight.

So, if the member in charge could draw his attention to that—and I know he’s looking keenly at his officials—I would definitely very much appreciate that.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to draw the member’s attention to section 15, under Part 2. And I’d just like to ask—this is the section where it “only authorises a specified agency to disclose personal information about a specified registrable offender … to another specified agency.” And what I’d like to ask is does the member for this bill, Mr Greg O’Connor, foresee that in the future this can be expanded to not just another specified agency but agencies in general that will relate or pertain or can assist in the kaupapa that we’re trying to reach with this amendment? So can you foresee, in the future, this being expanded to not just to another specified agency but, for example—actually, I won’t give you an example now. Can you see this section in the future being expanded?

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Well, thank you, Mr Chair. Anything’s possible. Again, with a member’s bill, I think it’s pretty important just to keep the eye on the prize and just look at what we’re trying to achieve here.

Mr Meager, interesting questions. Probably going a little bit beyond my Buller High School education a little bit, and something that you and perhaps Dr Webb might, over a coffee, be able to have a much better dissertation on. But certainly, from my point of view, I look at the broad outline of what we’re trying to achieve, and I’m very happy with the select committee’s work that saw that very important—I think the clause that you’ve discussed there, that clause 16(1) “The following clauses have effect, despite any other law if, or to the extent that, the other law is inconsistent with them”. And I think, when I saw that, again, in my humble police officer training, I thought that certainly gave me the reassurance I was looking for. But, again, I’m not a trained legal mind, so it may well be it does need more.

But just give me one moment, I have been handed a note just to see—my advice is that only the travel after the amendment. Making it very clear that specific registered offenders are catered for.

James Meager: It’s travel after the amendment date?

GREG O’CONNOR: Yes, yes. It’s making sure it’s catering for those registered offenders is my advice. Thank you.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you for that clarification from the member that it is only applying to travel taking place after the amendment, so the retrospectivity doesn’t apply to travel which took place before the amendment Act. The registration may have occurred beforehand, but if the travel occurred beforehand, we’re not retrospectively going to go back and ask for information about where they had been or intended to go. No, that’s very clear, thank you.

I wanted to raise a point in and under clause 13—that’s the interpretation section; it’s the commencement clause. It’s an important one for me to raise, I think, because it says “commencement means the commencement of the amendment Act”, which is actually very clear. Part of the issue we get when we have amended a piece of primary legislation for the fourth time is that we can start running into definitional issues. We can start referring to acts and amendment acts and bills and all sorts of things. So, having that in the interpretation section is actually quite clear, that’s actually pretty helpful. I wanted to draw members’ attention—and this is something that I got tripped up on quite a few times in my past, as someone who looked at legislation for a living, and had a pretty moderate attempt at interpreting it for a billable rate; that is that when you’re looking at a bill, you’re seeing that the bolded text in the bill refers to amendment Act 2021. Those are the parts of the bill which will be changed administratively later on. So, just for any new members around the Chamber—I have been caught up with that before, and I certainly wouldn’t want them to be jumping up to their feet, leaping up and saying “There’s an error in the bill; we have to change it to 2024.”

Actually, it is relevant, because one of the amendments that’s been made to this bill was made under urgency in 2017, because, I think, an actual date in the bill was incorrectly drafted when it went through. The bill was passed; it wasn’t picked up. Then, only several months later did the bill have to reappear before the House to change a very, very minor provision. So I think that’s very important for members to take notice of when we’re talking about the actual drafting of the legislation at the committee of the whole House stage. We can never lose sight that this is one of the most important stages that we go through in the House. It’s the final chance, really, for the House to make amendments. In the old days, we’d go for a clause-by-clause analysis; we’d really get down to the commas and the semicolons and the periods and the full stops. I don’t use semicolons because I don’t know what they’re for, so I avoid them like the plague—

Simon Court: You’ll want to—you’ll want to.

JAMES MEAGER: I’ll want to at some point, says Simon Court. He’s the expert in drafting—I’ll ask him. But, no, I appreciate the clarifications. That was all I really wanted to highlight from that particular part of the clause. I guess I’ll leave remaining contributions for other members to jump up and have a good crack at this part as well, before we move on to title and commencement.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I think I’m hearing a good argument to keep lawyers out of the whole thing. That’s just my interpretation.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, we now come to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3, “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): We’ve reached the most exciting part of any bill going through the committee of the whole House stage: the title and commencement clause debate. And I’m going to start my contribution by focusing on what I believe may hold the record for being the longest title of any bill ever entered into this House. I struggle to think in recent memory of a bill with a longer title, and I commend the member for—you know, if he’s going to get a member’s bill through, he might as well get as much through as possible, right? So you get that into the title clause.

But on a serious note, the full title of the bill is the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill, which will become the amendment Act. But I did ask the member whether or not he did consider dropping the Government agency requirement or the Government agency part of the title. I think the title would still read perfectly sensibly if it was just the “Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Act 2024”. I think it would still read the same. I wonder whether or not—my understanding is that didn’t come up at all in the Justice Committee; generally, titles of the bills probably don’t come up—but whether or not there’s a particular reason why “Government Agency” has to be in the title of the bill.

I think if a bill can be titled in a way which gives you a correct and accurate impression of the bill, it reflects the purposes of the bill. It’s not contrary to the intentions of the bill. It’s not a frivolous title. I think if you can make those changes, we should. Because we should always be concise and precise with our words. As one of our esteemed colleagues often says, “words matter”. And I’m sure that’ll resonate with members to my left in the coalition. So if we can be somewhat precise in the titles of our bills, I think that would be a good thing to do. I’m sure the member has got some advice from officials as to why that particular term is in there. It might be to do with the fact that there may be another register or registration not belonging to Government agencies that might apply, and we wouldn’t want to get the two Acts confused. So I thought I would just raise that as the very first point. And, look, I haven’t got any good alternatives at the moment. I will rack my brain as to whether or not we should put an amendment up as to other forms of the title of the bill, but I’ll think about that in a second.

Then the next one is that there’s a very good reason why we changed the commencement date. I wonder whether other members can help remind me, because I didn’t pay enough attention to that. But perhaps I was distracted by other members’ vigorous contributions, from his caucus colleagues who are very much in support of his bill and I’m sure are raring to get up on their feet and congratulate him on the success that he’s had in getting this bill through. But from my recollection, there was a particular reason why we changed the commencement date. I wouldn’t want the member to jump too far ahead of me, and maybe some of my other colleagues could help remind me as well.

But if the member could address that point around the title of the bill and why we added those extra words, or those extra words are in, I’d very much appreciate it.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, in an ocean of legalese, there’s still room for common sense and that was actually to give the police—those administering the register—time to advise the offenders that there had been a change—which is only fair—and to implement the change, and just to make sure it was done properly.

The first question in relation to—well, again, at the risk of sort of we’ve always done it this way, that was actually the title of the original bill that we’re amending, and the bill passed in 2016. So the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act was the original bill. So, naturally, as an amendment, we keep the name of the original bill in there.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): So, taking that response into consideration, we would have to make an amendment to the original Act in order to change that verbosity that is creeping into our legislation. So I don’t know whether that would be outside the scope of the bill, because that may turn it into an omnibus bill, because we are not only—no, actually, we are amending the original Act, so we could pass an amendment. We could have passed an amendment in previous parts to do it, but not in this part—so I get where that’s going. Thank you for the clarification on that one.

Just on the commencement clause—and, look, I don’t want to take too much time on this, because I know we’ve had a history in the House of spending a lot of time on titles and commencements, and people use it to drag it out and talk about the history of the bill, and this particular word and title. What’s the definition of “child”? What’s the definition of “overseas”? I know the committee doesn’t have much time for that, and I’d be hesitant about setting a precedent about dragging it on too much, because we wouldn’t want that that to go on in the future—you know, being able to speak endlessly about titles and commencements.

Arena Williams: Point of order, Mr Chair. Speaking to Speakers’ rulings 127/3 and 127/4, given that Government members are making contributions about rejecting the title of this clause, those are out of order because you’ve already heard from Government members that they intend to support this bill. But if this clause was voted against by the Government members, it would fail. So we are hearing here from Government members about a rejection of the title clause, which would make this entire thing farcical, or more farcical than it already is.

Hon Member: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you—let me just speak to this point of order. I’m just reading here the Speakers’ rulings that you just referred to, and it refers to “The rejection of a title of a bill by a committee of the whole House”—I haven’t heard a rejection from the member.

JAMES MEAGER: Mr Chair, I won’t take a point of order on that because I think you’re obviously correct. There’s no question that we’re not going to support the excellent bill by the member Greg O’Connor. The question was whether or not there’s an opportunity, based on the feedback from the member, to put an amendment to the House and change the title of the bill. Now, the member’s quite clearly illustrated why that might not be appropriate on this occasion, and I was about to go on and say about how we don’t want to talk at length ad infinitum about the title and commencement clause, because we don’t want to set a precedent of dragging it on for ever.

So the only thing I really wanted to say in the remaining sort of couple of minutes of this debate is that it is important to get some good reasons from officials as to why we don’t have a commencement date coming in the day after Royal assent. I mean, it is quite typical these days to give agencies a significant amount of time for implementation. One question might be: why was the three-month balance reached? Why wasn’t it six months? Actually, I think there’s probably some reasonable arguments from officials during the select committee stage that a longer time to implement this might have been better, based on some of the other priorities that they might have at the moment. I’m not saying that this kind of enforcement of this action is low priority, but there are always questions about why we pick three months, why it isn’t just the day after, why it takes the full three months for officials to get the systems in place. So I think a response of “Yep, they need some time to get it in place, and this seems fine” is OK, but I just wanted to put it on record that we do need to know sometimes why we want to delay the implementation of the law.

This bill was introduced in 2022 by the member, so we don’t want to wait for a moment longer than we need to get this very good piece of legislation out of the House and on the streets—you know, out behind the desk and on the streets, keeping our citizens safe. The sooner we can get this piece of law into force, the better. So the justification for why we need to wait another three months after Royal assent, I think, is worth asking about. Beyond that, I actually agree with members opposite that, you know, we may want to keep these title and commencement cause debates relatively tight, here and into the future.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

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

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 April.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So there’s an interrupted debate on the second reading of the second reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Anyone—oh, we’ve got a call over there?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, we can swap them around. The Labour member hadn’t called, so we’ll take you—oh, now they’re both sitting. Cameron Brewer, we’ll let you go first and then we’ll take Helen White following that. There we go.

CAMERON BREWER: Oh, thank you so much, Madam Speaker. It’s great to be standing in support of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. I want to first acknowledge our illustrious colleague Stuart Smith. We were told not so long ago that Stuart’s been pushing this along since 2015, and so, as the Mainland Cheese ad once famously declared, “Good things take time.” So Stuart comes to this piece of legislation with a lot of industry and professional knowledge and some minimal social experience as well.

So, as a committee, we in the Justice Committee worked judiciously through this piece of legislation to make it as workable to the industry and to the communities and to the public as best we could. Just as the previous member on the previous bill said, “Let’s keep our eye on the prize.”, I think, James Meager, that we need to keep our eye on the prize here. Some other members were interested in broadening the scope of who this legislation could apply to. Could it apply to gin distilleries? Could it apply to craft beer? Frankly, as Greg O’Connor said in the last bill, let’s keep it in the spirit of a member’s bill and let’s keep our eye on the prize.

James Meager: Good idea for another bill, though.

CAMERON BREWER: That’s right; there are always opportunities for other bills, but we here certainly thought that this was being restricted to the wine industry and the very successful wine sector, with $2 billion - plus of exports every year and a big part of the “New Zealand Inc.” brand. We think that this is another natural progression in the wine industry’s growth, not just commercially but in sophistication and its marketability and sound and sensible access.

We also note that there are very few industries and parts of the commercial world that are as heavily regulated as those pertaining to alcohol. So, while this amendment bill allows cellar doors to be able to charge for tastings, we are heavily protected as a public and as politicians by sale and supply legislation which is rigorously enforced and conscientiously monitored in and around those that might be off- or on-licences or both.

Now, the committee heard that this was referred by the 53rd Parliament. We know it’s had a long gestation. The committee called for submissions to the bill and received 72 submissions from interested groups and individuals. We heard a number of those in person and on video link from all walks of life—some in the industry; others not. We got advice on the bill across many of our officials within the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Clerk, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. So I just wanted to start with an acknowledgment to our chair, James Meager, who shepherded us through this, and the many members on the committee, including my colleagues here—Rima Nakhle, Paulo Garcia, Todd Stephenson—and the very hard-working and diligent Jamie Arbuckle, who also knows the sauvignon capital of the world that is Marlborough pretty well, given that that is his home patch.

Of course, this piece of legislation, it pertains to all of the country. Whether it’s the chardonnay cellar doors in the Gisborne Tairāwhiti area or whether it’s the pinot noirs in Central Otago, this amendment applies to all of those that are running cellar door operations. It doesn’t make it compulsory, but it gives those that are running small—often small—cellar doors, the ability to charge and to claim many of those costs back.

Now, there has been concern, and there may be concern raised tonight, that the definition is too broad and that some with an eye to business might take the definitions of this—even though it’s written in as not the intent—to take it away from the environment of the cellar door and set up shop in Oxford Terrace in Christchurch or Courtenay Place in Wellington or Broadway in Newmarket, and sell—can you picture this, Mr Speaker—and try and make money off selling 35 millilitres, because that’s the max—just think of that cough medicine that you have in the morning—35 millilitres, 7 teaspoons—of profiteering from that by taking the mickey out of this legislation and setting up shop and trying to make a dollar while paying top rates and top commercial leases on Oxford Terrace by selling 35-millilitre pours. We have dubbed that “Webb’s Wine Bar”—“Webb’s Wine Bar”. So if our friend and Opposition member Duncan Webb suggests—

Hon Scott Simpson: The Hon Dr.

CAMERON BREWER: —the Hon Dr Webb suggests that some, like Leo Molloy or whoever, might set up shop and work around this legislation. Well, we have looked at this closely, we have examined this—

Ryan Hamilton: Forensic.

CAMERON BREWER: —we have been forensic, Ryan Hamilton, with this and that would make no commercial sense and that is not going to happen. The Leo Molloys of this world are not going to get into the wine business so they can sell 35-millilitre pours. This is for those operators that have been forced to—because of the legislative and regulatory restrictions, they haven’t been able to sell wine but they have to give it away.

So the irony is this is adding regulation and adding public safety where we didn’t have it. So for the wine industry, they are happy with where we landed. They are happy with the size of samples being no more than 35 millilitres. They are happy with the provision of water being put there as part of host responsibility—and, again, if we status quo, it doesn’t put any of these provisions on: on size of pour, water availability, and the provision of snack food.

Now, we had a look at this across the aisle. We worked because we didn’t want this to be an arduous requirement that would mean that you’d basically have to set up a—

Mike Butterick: A commercial kitchen.

CAMERON BREWER: —commercial kitchen and cook hot meals—Mike Butterick, hot meals—and provide a substantial meal that most people going in and having a wine taste probably don’t want. So we have landed in a place around snack food where the difference is there but it’s not over-cumbersome that it forces cellar doors just to say, “Look, it’s getting too hard.”

So we think we have struck a balance here in enabling our fabulous wineries in and around the Wairarapa, in and around Gisborne, Central Otago, Martinborough, Marlborough—

Hon Member: Mid-Canterbury.

CAMERON BREWER: —mid-Canterbury, and even in the north-west of Auckland to actually be able to recover some of their costs, keep their doors open, and to continue with that organic experience. We think, through many years of forensic work and looking at this legislation that Mr Stuart has done and the select committee has also done in the recent weeks and months, that we’ve arrived at a very good place where it’s workable, the industry is happy, the public can be happy, and the Parliament should be very proud.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member’s time has expired.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’d like to take a call on this bill just to indicate to Stuart Smith—and congratulations to Stuart for having his bill pulled—that I am going to support this bill. This is a conscience vote in the Labour Party. I’m going to support it because I don’t think regulation in an area like this necessarily does any good, but I also want to respect the view that, in fact, many of the people across this House will have that this is not necessarily what we should be spending our time on in Parliament. I am concerned that we are in a society where we have real, serious issues with drugs and alcohol, and I am not sure that I’ve got all the answers to that, but I’m just not sure that stopping things like the sale of samples in this way would do any good at all.

So I will be voting for the bill because of that, but I want to use my time in this House to talk about the issue of how we might tackle a problem associated with alcohol, because alcohol is probably our most serious harmful drug in this country, and there are some other contenders. But it is a very serious drug. It’s carcinogenic, and it is actually very romantically imagined in this particular setting that we’ve got today of the beautiful vineyards that we have and the beautiful ingenuity of our wineries. That all adds to its romance, but the reality for most people with alcohol addiction is something so different from that, and it affects so many of our families and it hurts them so badly.

I recently went to see an operation called AF Drinks, and it’s a really interesting operation that has started up in Auckland. It’s a profit-making company and I was interested in them because they have portfolios in small business and manufacturing, and I wanted to see what they were doing and how they were doing it. I was told by the woman running it that she had done it because when she’d stopped drinking in, I think, a lockdown, she’d been asked by people what was wrong. She’d been asked whether perhaps she was pregnant. There was no tolerance in our society for a decision not to drink, and I could relate to that. I think it’s probably a really common experience. It’s so ingrained in our culture, and in each class, in a way, that it means that to not drink is seen as unusual and something of a social disadvantage.

So she invented a whole lot of drinks where what they are doing, in a very sensible way, is not building from alcohol, but building layers of flavour up so that you end up with something that’s complex like an alcoholic drink in its flavour and it gives people the same opportunity socially to sip. In that situation, people who are taking that alternative are doing themselves absolutely no harm whatsoever, and that business is skyrocketing. But I was told by that manufacturer about several parts of our law which could change so that they could put that product on the shelf more efficiently.

We have things in our law that are getting in the way of a manufacturer of a product that will actually help our population kick a really dangerous habit, and we have not taken the time to address that issue in this Parliament. So what I would ask is that this Parliament, when it puts in yet another very narrow bill that looks at one area which might suit a particular group in its constituency, thinks wider—think wider next time there’s a member’s bill and put in one that will help this problem. Even if you don’t agree with temperance and you’re not from the same camp that perhaps some of our colleagues are about banning these things, let’s think wider about this issue and get it right, because this is actually an issue that should absolutely rise above politics, and what I would say is that at every doorstep, I found that that was the call I heard. It is time for us to rise above politics about issues like this—absolutely rise above it—and that’s my challenge here, which is that on an issue like this we should be able to do it.

So I commend Stuart Smith for bringing this bill, but I ask others to think—and maybe Stuart Smith next time—to balance this out and put in a bill which helps promote things that are an alternative to alcohol. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call between Labour and the National Party.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): I rise to speak on this bill, the cellar door bill, and I rise to speak against it, and I’ll tell you why. I’m speaking against it because I think it’s an inaccurate bill, and I think it’s inaccurate because I think that the word “cellar” should be spelt with an “s”, not a “c”, in the context of this bill—

Hon Matt Doocey: He’s not selling doors.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: —perhaps you should—because there is no distinction here. There is absolutely no distinction. There’s no need to be a cellar with a “c”, because all you are being through this bill is a seller with an “s”. There’s no geographical proximity to the origin. The definition of a cellar door with a “c” is that manufacturers and producers offer alcohol for sale from their premises. The clue is there: “manufacturers and producers”. That’s why there’s the “c” in cellar, not simply the “s”, not simply someone who sells alcohol.

This bill does not address that sufficiently, and there’s been much talk from the other side of the House about the size of the glass, but there hasn’t been much talk about the number of glasses. So does the bill explicitly prevent an operator, a seller with an “s”, putting a bottle on the table, setting out some 35 millilitre glasses and advising people that they can taste the wine? It doesn’t sound much like a cellar door experience to me.

So, because of those reasons and because I don’t think that we should take it as lightly as some other members of the House are this evening, I don’t think we should take our responsibility lightly around minimising alcohol harm and taking very seriously anything we do to roll back legislation that is put there to protect communities and to manage the responsible consumption of alcohol—I think we need to be far more cautious, and we need to have much better legislation than this before we move forward with it. So that’s why I’m voting no, why I’m voting against cellar with a “c” when it should be seller with an “s”.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): The wine industry is, in export, over $2 billion of earnings to our New Zealand economy. In the local market, it is in excess of $1 billion already. It’s all about the experience. What this—what Mr—what our author—

Hon Members: Saint Stuart!

PAULO GARCIA: —MP Stuart Smith. Ha, ha!—

Hon Member: The honourable member for Kaikōura.

PAULO GARCIA: —yes, the honourable member from Kaikōura has brought to us is the opportunity to view the wine industry with a better understanding of the innovation and how it operates and why it is at the level that it is as a large driver of income for the country. Not only that, the experience of the cellar door is already a large tourism pull. What the bill seeks to be able to address is to make it easier for cellar door operators to get through what used to be quite a hurdle of red tape in terms of licensing their cellar door and their cellar restaurants.

So, essentially, because of this bill, what will happen is that cellar door operators can offer wine tasting at their cellar door and charge a price for the samples that they are providing. Again, it’s all about the experience. It’s a big, big piece of the puzzle that New Zealand is, and it is an attraction to overseas nationals. I myself have brought family and friends and visitors and clients through wine-tasting tours to experience the cellar door. It is indeed uniquely an amazing experience. It extends a part of what New Zealand is to a visitor or someone who has not experienced a wine tour going through, say, for example, in Marlborough, where the wineries are so close together.

Catherine Wedd: And Hawke’s Bay

PAULO GARCIA: And Hawke’s Bay of course, and Wairarapa as well, and Gisborne. So the experience of going from cellar door to cellar door will be facilitated. What that does is open up more awareness about the products of the wine that is offered by these wineries. It opens up the opportunity for people to be able to taste and choose with greater ease the types of wines that they would like to purchase. So we’re all very intent on facilitating an increased revenue in this industry and allowing for cellar door and the wineries that operate them to be able to expand their market and attract more people who come through and taste their wines.

It has been mentioned that the pour is important—it’s 35 millilitres. It is important because it offers a taste, with the object of possibly offering many different products to people. I know that the people that I’ve brought through wine-tasting tours have been appreciative of the fact that they could go through tasting before they actually purchased the bottles that they enjoyed the most—the products that they enjoyed the most.

It is a worthwhile bill. The honourable member from Kaikōura has done well, and he knows the industry well, and we commend this bill to the House.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s a real privilege to rise on behalf of my colleague Stuart Smith and speak on his bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. Look, what a great guy “Stewie” Smith is. What’s the point of coming to Parliament if you don’t come here to work hard on behalf of your electorate?

There will be no surprise that “Stewie” Smith has won his seat in four general elections now, because the people he knows, the people that he represents know that when he comes to Wellington, he brings their voice to this Parliament and he makes a difference. I’ve got no doubt that when Stuart Smith goes back to the electorate this Friday, there will be a public holiday in Marlborough because of this bill. The shops will close, he will be feted as he will be carried down the main road of Blenheim. He’ll be given the key for every cellar door in the district. There’s no surprise why Mr Smith is actually a fellow of the wine industry in New Zealand. That’s because Mr Smith was actually the chair of the board of New Zealand Wine Growers for over six years before he came into politics, and he was responsible for taking New Zealand wine sales offshore to over the $1 billion export mark.

That’s why Mr Smith is very smart with this bill today, because he knows New Zealand’s in a very difficult situation. Because of the economic vandalism of the last Government, we saw public expenditure go up by 80 percent. The economy is in a recession, we have a budget deficit of over $9.4 billion, and we know we’re going to be in deficit until 2027. Because of people like Willie Jackson, our grandkids are going to inherit debt that has ballooned over $100 billion. As we know on this side of the House, the way you grow the economy, New Zealand is a small nation at the bottom of the world, we need to sell with other countries, we need to trade with the rest of the world. The reason I bring that point up is because, on this side of the House, we know tourism and hospitality is our second-biggest export earner in this country—tourism is the second-biggest export earner in this country. So whatever we can do to support tourism and hospitality in this country is going to bring people jobs; it’s going to bring them better incomes.

I’ve got no doubt when those cruise ships dock at the port not far from here, they’ll be jumping straight on the bus to Martinborough and spending their day up there. Thanks to Stuart Smith, those vineyards now will have a more sustainable business model and they’ll be able to sell more of their products to those high-yielding tourists that this coalition Government will bring in. We also know, in a place like Timaru, they’re bringing cruise ships in as well—I’m just not sure about the vineyards, but I’m sure Mr Meager can correct me on this as well.

So that’s what we know on this side of the House: it is about growing the economy in a bill like this, a very significant bill—I must say, though, when I think back on members’ bills that I have had that were actually voted down in this House, it’s quite disappointing. The prohibition of synthetic urine bill that I brought to this House that was voted down—a very important bill that I wasn’t taking the piss on, but I wasn’t able to get it through. But “Stewie” Smith brings this bill to the House that’s, hopefully, going to be passed tonight.

I stand here tonight as also the Minister for hospitality—New Zealand’s first Minister for hospitality. When I first got that job, I rang up my mum and said, “All that time you gave me gyp for spending my life as a younger person in the vineyards of Marlborough or the pubs in Blenheim and said it wouldn’t get me anywhere—look where it’s got me today: New Zealand’s first Minister for hospitality.”

What I want to do in New Zealand is bring hospitality and tourism together. What about hospitality tourism? Hospitality tourism where international and domestic visitors go around different regions for the providence, the wine, the food. That’s what this bill will support: the ability for those vineyards to have a more sustainable business model. They’ll be able to attract more domestic and international visitors to the region.

Let’s not forget when we talk of a sector like tourism and hospitality, that’s a sector where people can go to the smaller regions of New Zealand, the smaller rural towns—only places Labour MPs have seen on a map—they’re the places that we represent on the side of the House, because we represent hard-working New Zealanders on the side of the House. That’s why it’s important that we want domestic and international visitors to go into the smaller towns. We want them to go into the vineyards and spend their hard-earned dollars on these samples, to employ locals—maybe stay the night, maybe end up working behind the bar, but that’s the beauty of hospitality and tourism.

So we want to share the love of hospitality and tourism so regional and rural New Zealand can enjoy the economic opportunities that the metropolitan cities will have. What’s really exciting, I was down at the biggest tourism conference in New Zealand, which kicked off tonight, Trenz, down at the Michael Fowler Centre. It was great to see the Prime Minister there launching that event, and I think we should pat every hospitality and every tourist operator on the back, and thank them for everything they’ve done. They had a hell of a time during COVID. The tap was turned off, but now they’ve reclaimed their mantle as the second-biggest export earner to New Zealand—in a time of economic recession because of the vandalism of this last Government.

That’s why we need bills like this to grow the value of tourism and hospitality. On this side of the House, we know that we don’t deserve a paycheque in a place called New Zealand just because we are New Zealand; we need to get out there and fight hard. We need to trade with other countries. With hospitality and tourism being our second-biggest export earner, we need to make sure we support that.

Then the final point I’d make is that on this side of the House—[Member drinks from glass] Tell you what: I’ll just make clear that’s a water; I haven’t been brought any of “Stewie’s” sauvignon blanc from Marlborough. But that might happen after the House rises tonight in toast to this fantastic bill. But my final point is that, on the side of the House, we know business is about private capital. Private capital has options: private capital can go overseas; it can invest in other areas. Our tourism and hospitality owners, they’re the ones that lie awake every night thinking about how they’re going to pay for their staff. On this side of the House, we know that businesses employ people—unlike that side, who think Government employs people. But we know that businesses employ people. If we can give some of these businesses a sustainable business model where they’ll go on and employ more people in their communities—that’s our families, that’s our friends, that’s our neighbours that they will go on and employ.

That’s why we need to make sure we give these business operators certainty and confidence, and that’s what they have in this coalition Government. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I appreciate the enthusiasm. It’s like the cellar doors are open already.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s my absolute pleasure—[Member coughs] It’s my absolute pleasure to stand here as the final speaker for this evening with my husky throat voice. But, anyway, after the Hon Matt Doocey, I mean, what can we add?

Katie Nimon: A bit of red wine might help.

RIMA NAKHLE: Kate Nimon is such a great local MP, encouraging red wine from her area, Hawke’s Bay! Not “the Hawke’s Bay”, but “Hawke’s Bay”. That’s right.

I stand in support of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. The principal Act is the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. In essence, in a nutshell, what does this amendment seek to do? It allows cellar door wineries to charge people for tasting their wine, for tasting 35 millilitres of their wine at a time. That’s part of what’s going to be added in the bill as well—that a sample size is 35 millilitres. What this will also do is these cellar doors that have a dining component can hold both an on-licence and off-licence simultaneously. Also, in a nutshell, this bill seeks to define intentionally and more clearly what a “winery” is and what a “winery cellar door” is.

Now, I’d like to canvass why we support these changes. Now, we’ve heard a number of reasons, but I’m going to share with the House my perspective. I think a major part of why we support these changes is we want to cut red tape. Now, I know that we hear in the House about our values a lot, and in the National Party, one of our values is limited government. Limited government is a core National Party value. It’s about stripping back unnecessary regulation as much as possible so businesses can just do what they love doing, work the mahi they enjoy to do. And, of course, we want to ensure this happens while still maintaining that standards are met. So we support initiatives and implementations like this in the amendment bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill, that make it easier for hard-working businesses, hard-working Kiwis to operate and, indeed, grow our economy.

As we heard so valiantly by the Hon Matt Doocey, we do need to grow our economy. It’s a serious situation that we’re in, and any way we can help facilitate that—for example, here with this amendment bill—we will be growing the economy. By allowing flexibility with licensing, where cellar door wineries can hold both an on-licence and an off-licence under the same legal entity, this bill will reduce unnecessary costs on the businesses, therefore, once again, cutting red tape and pulling back regulations. We heard about how beneficial this would be by a number of submitters that submitted on this bill, which, if I have the chance—because I only have 6½ minutes left—I’ll read some quotes later.

Stuart Smith: It’s a great speech so far.

RIMA NAKHLE: Oh, wow, thank you. Another reason why we support this bill is that it promotes responsible wine consumption. I hear the concerns by some people across the House; I really do. But I was surprised that the concerns were so strong when, in fact, this amendment bill, as I said, promotes responsible alcohol consumption, and it does this, as I mentioned earlier, by stipulating the sample size. The sample size will be no more than 35 millilitres of wine. Also, what it means is that by charging for these samples of wine, we’re also giving that message to the public that “Hey, we encourage responsible drinking.” So these two points indicate the Government’s commitment to responsible alcohol consumption. These changes, we truly believe, will enhance local businesses, communities, and New Zealand’s tourism. As we’ve mentioned, areas like the Marlborough region produce over 80 percent of New Zealand’s wine, and, over there, tourism accounts for 6 percent of the gross domestic product.

So imagine, Mr Speaker—and I encourage my colleagues in the House to imagine as well—how helpful these amendments will be for the cellar doors that create so many opportunities for locals and Kiwis all over the motu.

Here I’d like to just mention, if I may, I’m sure many in the House know by now that my whakapapa is Lebanese, and I’d like to mention what the Lebanese in New Zealand have contributed to the wine industry in New Zealand and acknowledge it, if I may, with your allowance, Mr Speaker. The Lebanese community established the second winery in New Zealand. That was Corban wine, yes. Someone earlier was talking about no wines in Auckland, well, Corban wines—West Auckland. I’m not a Westie, but we have Westies in the House. The word Corban is the Arabic word “qurbān”, which means “Eucharist”. So the Corban family, they established the second winery in New Zealand, and I’m proud of the fact that Lebanese have contributed to this extremely important commodity for New Zealand.

I’d also like to mention, Mr Speaker, if I may, there’s a gentleman by the name of Terry Dunleavy. Terry Dunleavy—many of the National Party folk would know him. He was a staunch National Party supporter and he was a lovely and fair guy. He passed away in March 2022. But, as Tom would know, Terry Dunleavy made a massive contribution not only to our National Party remits but did you know—did you know, James Meager?—that Mr Dunleavy was made a Member of the Order of the British Empire for his services to the wine industry. He was also the founding editor of the New Zealand Winegrower Magazine, amongst many others. May his soul rest in peace and may we remember him.

Hon Member: Aw, very nice.

RIMA NAKHLE: Yes. Absolutely, very nice. Another point I’d like to mention, if I may, is there was some kōrero in the Justice Committee about whether we can expand the bill to distilleries like gin distilleries, whiskey makers, craft beer brewers. I thought it’s important to bring attention to this kōrero that we had.

The majority of the committee decided to stick to the intention of the bill, with our wonderful member here the honourable Stuart Smith, member for Kaikōura, saying that we stick to it being about wine. But there’s another reason why I personally felt the need to stick to it just being about wine, and this is because, with those other industries, we don’t have the definitions for, for example, “craft beer” that we do for “wine”, and this was found even when we were speaking. We were hearing a submission by the New Zealand Craft Brewers—please forgive me; I’ve forgotten the name exactly right now. I specifically asked him: “Is there a definition for ‘craft beer’?”, and he said, “No.” And I think in the absence of established definitions for these other alcohols—for example, craft beer, gin, etc.—and what component of alcohol is acceptable, what would make a sample at this stage? And we said this in our report—the majority of the committee said this—that, at this stage, we just want to stick to just wine. But you never know what can happen in the future. I’m personally open in the future. Do we extend this bill for other craft breweries and distilleries as well?

This bill will make it easier for our wineries, our family owned cellar door wineries to operate and to also get back a return. I know that many of us, not all of us but many of us, have enjoyed the beautiful, quaint moments where we might go with—for example, my husband, Roger, for my birthday, Central Otago wine tours. But, specifically, I look for those family owned cellar door - only wineries, not because I’m a snob, as was referred to by a previous speaker in the last time we were speaking about this bill, not because we’re snobbish, but because there’s something beautiful about it. Also, I love to support our local businesses—in particular, our smaller businesses. With the changes we’re making in this bill, it will help so many businesses and add to growing the economy of New Zealand.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I have determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue. In this case, I know there are members who want a personal vote and I am prepared to accept one. This is the process we are going to follow: I am going to put the question, and I’m going to announce the result. At that stage, any member can ask for a personal vote.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 101

Noes 21

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House is adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 10.06 p.m.