Wednesday, 21 August 2024

WEDNESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2024

WEDNESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Ke tau lotu. ‘E ‘Otua Mafimafi, kuo mau taa’i mālie ‘i ho’o ‘ofá mo e ngaahi tāpuaki hono kotoa. ‘Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke malu’i ange mu’a ‘a e Tu’i, mo tataki ‘emau fua fatongia ‘i he Fale Aleá ‘aki ‘a e poto Faka-‘Otua, ‘ofa pea mo e ‘ulungaanga malū, ko e ‘uhí ko e mo’ui mo e melino ‘a e fonuá. ‘Oku mau kole atu ‘a e ngaahi me’á ni hono kotoa ‘i he huafa ho ‘alo ka ko homau fakamo’uí, ‘Emeni.

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

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

SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered for presentation, no papers have been delivered for presentation, no select committee reports have been presented, and no bills have been introduced.

Appointments

Assistant Speakers

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave that the House appoint the Hon Jenny Salesa as Assistant Speaker—

SPEAKER: Yeah, that comes shortly.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Can I just do it now?

SPEAKER: Yeah, it’s all right—yeah.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I seek leave that the House appoint the Hon Jenny Salesa as Assistant Speaker until the end of Thursday, 22 August 2024, despite Standing Order 29.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. Thank you. [Members applaud] That’s very nice—that’s a whole day’s worth. Incredible!

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: You can have the rest of the day off.

SPEAKER: Thanks very much, yeah.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, particularly continuing Labour’s work which began in September 2021 on AUKUS Pillar Two, with the help of the honest Hon Andrew Little’s endorsement.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who is correct: Mark Mitchell, who said on Newstalk ZB this morning that the Government would keep the firearms registry as it is, or Nicole McKee, who said, “The full category A licensing regime is not going to be effective, it’s going to be too costly, and it’s going to make people fearful of their safety.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that the final product has yet to be produced, and Ministers and the Cabinet are working on those. When that’s complete, we’ll be delighted to answer you in full.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So was Mark Mitchell incorrect when he said that the Government would be keeping the firearms registry as it is?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: One more time: the Cabinet, alongside the Ministers in charge of this legislation, is working on it at this point in time. We’re hearing submissions. We’re taking as wide as possible a look at this in the interests of New Zealand’s long-term safety, and not trying to make cheap political points out of it on the way through.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Leader of the Opposition is going to come to the House and quote members, then he has to have an accurate quote. He can’t make things up, and his last question—

SPEAKER: No, no, sorry—that’s enough.

Hon Mark Mitchell: —was made up. Quite simply, I didn’t say that.

SPEAKER: I think that the point has always been with supplementary questions that there might be—if he said it was a quote, he simply asked if someone was right. The assertion is enough in a supplementary question. So we’ll ask it again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh, I think we’ve already moved on from that question, Mr Speaker. I was up to my next one—

SPEAKER: Oh, have we? I wasn’t aware there was an answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —but I’m happy to go back and repeat it again, if you would like, but—

SPEAKER: No, no, no. I thought—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: OK. Why won’t he say that the Government won’t be changing the firearms register, given every party in Parliament except the ACT Party voted in favour of it, and his party, the National Party—to the Prime Minister—indicated before the election it would keep the firearms register?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: One more time: it’s been a longstanding habit of members of this side of the House to, as Phil Collins said, hear both sides of the story. We are finding out what that is, and when we know what both sides of the story are, in the interests of New Zealand’s long-term safety, we seek to make the right decision and not to cheaply politicise what was a disastrous event.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with his soon to be Deputy Prime Minister’s refusal to rule out leaving the coalition over the so-called Treaty principles bill, and, if so, what measures will he take to avoid the coalition collapsing?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It would be not respectful or democratic of me to seek to answer on behalf of the person—the Minister—he’s talking about.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. He is answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. He can’t say that it wouldn’t be respectful for him to answer on behalf of the Prime Minister when that is his job.

SPEAKER: Well, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to think carefully about his question, because what the Prime Minister just responded was that he wouldn’t speak for the other party to the question—I’m sorry to be sort of slightly obtuse, but I don’t want to go into the details of your question. Why don’t you have another crack at it?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m being pretty generous.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh, so you’re happy for me to have another go without a penalty on supplementaries?

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s right.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh, in that case, excellent. Does he agree with the soon to be Deputy Prime Minister’s refusal to rule out leaving the coalition over the so-called Treaty principles bill; if so, what will he, as Prime Minister, do to avoid that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As I said before, it would not be respectful or democratic for me to seek to answer on behalf of another party’s leader. But I can say, in comparison with a previous coalition I was in in 2017 to 2020, at this present time, what you see over this side of the House is the epitome of harmony.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Just another day in paradise, is it? Supplementary, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just a minute—a little bit of order would be good.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he support a second reading of the Treaty principles bill immediately following the first, given he has already said that he won’t support the second reading—meaning the select committee hearing would be a waste of time and money and, in his own words, be divisive?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say, on behalf of the Prime Minister, this is in a document called the coalition document of the last election’s decision, which has been out now for over seven months. I’d invite him and his ministerial colleagues babbling away now, because they know he’s in difficulty—he can’t even ask questions properly—and I’d invite the people in the gallery up there to go and read the coalition agreement and stop wasting Parliament’s time. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: When you’re ready.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Shane Jones, who said, “the Treaty of Waitangi Principles Bill will not be voted for by New Zealand First [after its] introduction [to] Parliament”; Christopher Luxon, who said National will pursue a Treaty principles bill to select committee and “that’s as far as it will go”; or David Seymour, who said he won’t believe the Prime Minister won’t “change his mind if the public really wants it”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s clearly in the coalition agreement, but I think one is entitled to believe that despite all of the previous statements, if there was prevailing compelling evidence to change one’s mind, as a famous economist once said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?” However, in this case, we take the view of the most learned Māori or, dare I say it, lawyer to come to this Parliament, who got a degree in two years flat, and in 1922, 102 years ago, he set out what Māori then believed and which we believe today, unlike these new people who decide in their woke manner, like Willie Jackson—all over the place. He doesn’t even stand up for the greatest leader Ngati Porou ever had, and decides he knows better. No, sir. We’re going to stick with a man called Ngata, Pōmare, Buck, and a famous guy who was Deputy Prime Minister in my position all those years ago—there’s only two of us, mind you—and he said the same. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough. Hang on—just a minute. If we’re going to have that sort of barrage when a question is being answered to a question that was asked, then we’ll revert to silence very, very quickly.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So is the Prime Minister indicating—as he seems to have in his last answer—that he’s open to changing his mind on the second reading of the Treaty principles bill?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What I was enunciating was what the Prime Minister said in the coalition agreement, as did we. But I did offer the opinion that sometimes—and I don’t think it will happen in this case, of course, obviously—you do have a faint hope that others might have it right. But in the examples that I’ve given, that will not happen at this point in time. Do you know why? Because the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, according to Peter Buck and Pōmare, and, dare I say it, Carroll and, dare I say it, the genius Ngata, who got a law degree in two years flat, a record for any student in this country in law—there are no principles to the Treaty of Waitangi. In 1987, five judges wrestling over the Lands case—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Ha ha!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know why that member is laughing—because she knows nothing about the law. But in 1987, the basis on which this is given—the Lands case—those five judges couldn’t agree, either. So stop coming here with your unlearned humbug.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware of the Deputy Prime—

SPEAKER: Mr Seymour, you might like to address your lapel.

Hon David Seymour: Oh, my apologies, Mr Speaker. I’ll now address you. Is the Prime Minister aware of the Deputy Prime Minister’s favourite legal scholar in the Māori world?

SPEAKER: Well, it’s a long way wide of the wicket, so I could probably answer it for you, but—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, can I say I know what the member expects as an answer, but, no, it’s not me in this case. It’s a famous man—who I would have thought that side there would admire—called Ngata, who gained a presence around all of Māoridom for his legal esteem and his knowledge about the history of this country.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: To the Prime Minister, if David Seymour won’t take him at his word that he won’t support the second reading of the Treaty principles bill and the acting Prime Minister has indicated that he—the Prime Minister—is open to changing his mind on it, why should New Zealanders believe what he’s saying on the Treaty principles bill?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I can’t answer that question other than say—and now I’m probably speaking for Mr Seymour—it’s in the Good Book: hope springs eternal.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The acting Prime Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister cannot stand up and say that he cannot speak on behalf of the Prime Minister. It is his job—that is why he is here.

SPEAKER: No, he didn’t say that. He said he can’t answer the question, which is a reasonable response, and then offered the hopeful position that hope springs eternal. So work out from that what you want.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on interest rates?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): As I said yesterday, the Reserve Bank’s monetary policy committee last week cut the official cash rate (OCR) by 25 basis points to 5.25 percent. Reductions in the official cash rate and expectations about its future path affect both short-term and longer-term market interest rates. These include mortgage and business lending rates, which have a direct impact on New Zealand families and businesses, and through interest rates, the exchange rate, and a number of other channels. A reduction in the OCR provides a boost to the economy, which is positive for all New Zealanders. That’s why last week’s cut was a significant turning point for the economy.

Tim van de Molen: What is the expectation for future OCR cuts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In last week’s Monetary Policy Statement, the Reserve Bank issued its own forecast for the future path of the official cash rate. This shows steady reductions from the current rate of 5.25 percent to a 3 percent OCR by mid-2027. The financial markets are more forward-leaning than this. Currently, the market is pricing in a faster pace of interest rate cuts and expecting that the OCR will reach 3 percent in February 2026.

Tim van de Molen: How have banks responded to the OCR cut?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m advised that all major banks have cut their mortgage rates following last week’s Monetary Policy Statement. In some cases, that will take time to flow through to people’s mortgage payments, depending on whether and for how long they have fixed their mortgages. In other cases, it will flow through straight away. In any event, Kiwis can look forward to paying less interest on their mortgages and on their personal loans, and together with tax relief, which came in on 31 July, this will be a big help with the cost of living for New Zealand families.

Tim van de Molen: How do lower interest rates affect people’s mortgage repayments?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Individual circumstances vary a lot, and if people are interested in how things could change for them, I’d recommend they look at a reputable mortgage calculator, like that on the Sorted.org.nz website. But to give one example, a drop from a 7 percent mortgage rate to 6 percent for a family with a 25-year, $500,000 mortgage means their repayments would reduce by $145 a fortnight, and they, of course, could use that money elsewhere in the family budget or simply pay their mortgage down faster. Either way, they are significantly better off.

Question No. 3—Health

3. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his description of Commissioner Lester Levy’s view of Health New Zealand’s financial situation, “it’s not underfunding, it’s overspending”, and does he agree with that analysis?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes, we are a Government that’s committed to delivering better public health services. Vote Health will receive nearly $30 billion in funding this year, with Budget 2024 also seeing the largest ever commitment to funding for the sector, with a boost of $16.68 billion across three Budgets. However, we know that funding alone will not fix the issues that we inherited. We must get better at delivering health outcomes against the funding we put in. That is why one tool we have brought back is health targets to drive timely access to quality healthcare. If the only target in health is spending money, then the system will never genuinely improve. That is why we have focused our targets on patient outcomes. New Zealanders require a health system that works when they need it, and we’re committed to delivering that.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is Masterton hospital’s shortage of 40 nurses, leaving staff burnt out, demoralised, and unable to adequately supervise the care of dementia patients, a result of overspending or underfunding?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I’m aware of the shortage of staff at Wairarapa Hospital, and Health New Zealand is working actively to redress that. I am encouraged by the hundreds of new people who have come into the health sector, including nurses and doctors, every month under Health New Zealand recently.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the repeated closure of understaffed Buller hospital, where a dying man sought medical attention, the result of overspending or underfunding?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Oh, I presume she’s not meaning the same Buller hospital that several months after she opened it in May last year was temporarily closed. I presume it’s that same hospital. If that’s the case, then I won’t be pre-empting the serious incident review that’s taking place with that, but I do indeed extend sympathy to the families. It’s a sad situation.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Are the doctors at Hutt Hospital being told to make beds and clean medical equipment a result of overspending or underfunding?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: That’s a policy issue for Health New Zealand, and we have a different understanding of what’s been happening there. In fact, what we’re understanding is that that policy continued under that member’s watch, as well.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the instruction to doctors at Rotorua’s emergency department to also work at Taupō’s emergency department—a two-hour return trip away—the result of overspending or underfunding?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: That’s an example of regionalisation, when you get to distribute resources so that you get maximum benefit for patient outcomes across an area—an attempt that that member tried to make in the previous Government, but couldn’t get regionalisation over the line.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Are doctorless hospitals in Dargaville, Porirua, and Taupō a result of overspending or underfunding?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: They’re a consequence of health workforce shortages that Health New Zealand is seeking to rapidly address.

SPEAKER: Question No. 4, Catherine—[Interruption] No, hang on a minute. The member’s own side will quieten down, please.

Question No. 4—Immigration

4. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has she made about supporting businesses to access critical seasonal workforces?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): Last week, I was proud to announce more support for Kiwi businesses by revitalising the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme and increasing the cap for the coming season to 20,750 workers—increasing by 1,250. I also announced that we’ve created a new subcategory of the specific purpose work visa to respond to the upcoming seasonal peaks. This will provide a streamlined path for businesses who need to bring in temporary seasonal workers. These changes will help rebuild our economy, grow our exports, support our key growth sectors and primary sectors, and provide important opportunities for work and skills development for our Pacific neighbours.

Catherine Wedd: Why did she make these changes?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It’s clear to me that many of our immigration settings are not fit for purpose. While we have made some important changes earlier this year to the accredited employer work visa, further changes were necessary, particularly for those businesses that need access to temporary seasonal workers to grow productivity and increase our exports. My vision is to have immigration settings which strike the balance between providing businesses access to the workforce that they need to thrive and grow our economy, while ensuring that we are giving Kiwis every opportunity to be in work. Getting our immigration settings right is critical to this Government’s plan to rebuild the economy to get New Zealand back on track, and these changes are just the start.

Catherine Wedd: What feedback has she received about the changes to the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have received overwhelmingly positive feedback, as I know that member has as well. The New Zealand Apples & Pears chief executive, Karen Morrish, has welcomed the changes and said that they will go a long way to easing pressures on apple and pear growers. Cameron Taylor from Taylor Corp, an orchard in the Hawke’s Bay, said, “We’re really pleased with the announcement of policy changes to the RSE scheme. They may seem small, but they will make a big difference, especially when the industry in Hawke’s Bay has some cyclone recovery ahead.” These changes are just the start. The next phase of our work programme will consider substantive longer-term options to further improve the wider RSE scheme.

Catherine Wedd: What feedback has she received about a seasonal subcategory of the specific purpose work visa?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Over the last few months, I’ve had the opportunity to talk to representatives of viticulture, horticulture, agriculture, rural contractors, and many more, who have spoken of the need for a streamlined visa pathway for seasonal workers. All have been overwhelmingly positive about the changes. For example, Philip Gregan from New Zealand Winegrowers said that “This was a good idea. It solves a problem that we’ve had.” and that “We’re very pleased with the outcome. We couldn’t have asked for more.” I want an immigration system that protects the integrity of our borders and creates opportunities for people to come here and make a meaningful contribution but also prioritises New Zealanders’ opportunities to work and thrive.

Question No. 5—Justice

5. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice: Why is this Government rewriting the Arms Act 1983?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): The Arms Act is over 40 years old and it does need modernising. In 2019 and 2020, rushed changes were made to the Arms Act. Despite two law changes and two expensive firearms confiscations, New Zealanders are no safer, despite promises that they would be. More people were convicted of a firearm-related offence in 2023 than in 2019; it is up 18 percent. From 2019 to 2023, almost 2,000 gang members were charged with unlawful possession of firearms. This Government is committed to rewriting the Arms Act to target the real problem and increase public safety.

Mark Cameron: What feedback has she received on why change is needed?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I regularly receive correspondence from former and current police officers. A recent email reads, “As a front-line officer and association member, I can confidently say that the changes to the Arms Act have not improved public safety or prevented criminals from accessing firearms. Instead, they seem to target law-abiding citizens.” The numbers show that that officer is correct.

Mark Cameron: What measures is the coalition Government taking to crack down on illegal firearms?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The previous Government spent more than $150 million on two firearms confiscations, promising to get illegal firearms off the streets once and for all. Since then, police have come across and seized more than 8,500 firearms in the line of duty—firearms that criminals never intended to hand in in 2019. The coalition Government knows that targeting law-abiding licensed firearm owners will not reduce the gun crime. That is why we are strengthening firearms prohibition orders to give police greater powers to search gang members and violent offenders for illegally held firearms.

Mark Cameron: Is the Government undertaking consultation as part of its Arms Act rewrite?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Yes. In 2019, the previous Government allowed only three days for select committee submissions and changed the Arms Act in just 10 days. This undemocratic process marginalised and disrespected those who deserved a say on the laws that are impacting them. The coalition Government has done initial, focused consultation with several stakeholder groups representing a cross-section of New Zealand society, including both firearm-owning and non - firearm-owning groups. This consultation is in addition to the select committee processes, which will allow every New Zealander the chance to have their say.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she maintain that A category firearms should be excluded from the firearms registry, and, if so, why, given that Alfa Carbines are incredibly popular with the criminal underworld and that 71 percent of police seizures of weapons are from the A category classification, which includes Alfa Carbines?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: As I’ve previously mentioned, of those 70 percent of A category firearms that have been found by New Zealand Police, 65 percent of them don’t actually have a serial number on them. I am committed to ensuring that the review of the registry will give us data and evidence as to how it can be effective, if, indeed, it needs to stay.

Question No. 6 to Minister

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): A point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. This question was originally submitted to the Associate Minister of Housing (Social Housing) and was transferred to the Minister of Housing. Now, we absolutely accept that that is the right of the Government to do so, but when looking at Speakers’ Rulings, it’s our position that in this instance it should not have been allowed to be. The question as originally submitted was “Does he stand by his statement”—

SPEAKER: No, no. Look, you’ve set it up. I think—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, sir, I have Speakers’ rulings—

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know. You’re trying to make a case that’s already been made in the Clerk’s Office, and I have agreed that the transfer is quite reasonable.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Well, speaking to that, sir, you have asked us on a couple of occasions now to come to you with points of orders quoting Speakers’ Rulings. I’d like the opportunity to do that.

SPEAKER: Well, you’re welcome, but it won’t be now; you can come and see me later. Just go ahead with the question.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): We’re not asking.

SPEAKER: Not asking the question? Fair enough. Question No. 7, in the name of Suze Redmayne.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to read out the question from the Hon Kieran McAnulty to myself so I can answer this very important question about the Government’s outstanding record of getting a thousand kids out of emergency housing, motels, and into homes.

SPEAKER: Just a minute—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that point of order, sir—

SPEAKER: It doesn’t particularly help order—well, he’s sought leave, actually, so I’ve got to put leave. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I respect that. I do feel, though, that—

Hon Nicola Willis: What a wimp.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —by not having—and I’ve just been called a wimp. Now, I do—

SPEAKER: Well, OK, that sort of across-the-House stuff has got to stop. It’s no good people coming moaning to me about the way people are being spoken to if they are then adding to it during the proceedings.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Sir, I do believe, with respect, that if I was given the opportunity to point out Speakers’ rulings and why in this instance I believe an error has been made, then disorderly conduct like that would have been avoided.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know. But you could also argue that given that there is a process before a question ever gets here and there is a decision made about the validity of the transfer, you were actually questioning a decision made by the Chair through the Clerk’s Office earlier.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I accept that, and so I thought about this carefully and I’d like to think that in my interactions with you, you’d consider that we do so in a respectful manner. But, in this instance, there are two Speakers’ rulings which give clear criteria on which a question that has been transferred could be disallowed, and it is our genuine position that in this instance that criteria has been met. Having had the opportunity to put that to you for your consideration, given that it is the House that, as a result of this decision, has not got the opportunity to ask the Minister who made the statement whether he stands by that, I’m simply requesting that I be able to make that case.

SPEAKER: Well, I tell you what, we’d save a whole lot of mucking around and rumptying—and if you can do it relatively quickly, that would be helpful.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Certainly, and I’ll do my best, sir. Thank you for the opportunity. Speakers’ ruling 171/5(1) makes it clear—and this is not in dispute—that a “Government has the right to transfer a question,”; however, not in any way that it “obstructs the answer.” When the question intended to ask a Minister to stand by a statement that he had made, and then that be transferred, there is no possible way that another Minister can answer that question. I accept, however, that the second leg does ask around the issue of funding for houses. However, the answer to that is contingent on the answer to the first part of the question. It says “[and,] if so,” then carries on. Now, Speakers’ ruling 172/1(1) again makes it clear that it is the Government’s right, and that is not in dispute. However, it does say that if the Minister being questioned “could be the only person who had particular information and the question was transferred to make it not possible to obtain that information, then I would have real concerns.” There’s no possible way that another Minister could answer the question that was posed.

It does go on to the second point: “(2) Opinions about whether people stand by certain statements are hardly matters that reach” the disallowing of the transfer—and I accept that. But the question was not asking the opinion of a certain statement; it was asking the Minister to stand by his own statement, and, in fact, by the Clerk’s Office rewriting it so that it became relevant to the transferred Minister, it is now asking for the opinion of that Minister on a certain statement. So there’s a contradiction there, and that’s why, on that basis, I believe the wrong judgment has been made here.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for letting me know that the wrong judgment has been made—

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Yes, just a minute, and I’ll come to you—yeah, the Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Well, the Government has the right to transfer questions to whoever they see fit. We have done that.

SPEAKER: That’s not being disputed.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The reason we have done this—as Mr McAnulty even pointed out in his point of order—is that the second part of the question is what I am responsible for, as the Minister of Housing. So that is why we have chosen to transfer it. If the member had asked the Hon Tama Potaka, as Associate Minister, “Does he stand by his statement that he made as the Associate Minister”—that’s not in dispute—and left it there, well, that’s fine; it wouldn’t have been transferred, highly likely. But that’s not what he asked. He asked two completely separate—related but separate—issues in the one question. The Government felt it best that I answered that question. Therefore, we’ve transferred it. I’m very happy to answer the question and account for it.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Speaking to that point of order—

SPEAKER: OK, this is going on a bit, but this is the last comment I’ll take on it.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: That, again, was acknowledged, but the point is that the way the question was asked, in the middle, it says, “[and,] if so,”. If the second part of the question was asked at the start, I would not have any case. But the second part of the question cannot be answered unless the first part of the question is answered first. It is: “If the Minister agrees or stands by that statement, then what does he think about this?” He can’t answer the second part without giving a response to the first, and there’s no possible way that Minister Bishop can answer that question when it’s asking Minister Potaka if he stands by a statement that Minister Potaka made himself.

SPEAKER: Well, only in so much as an Associate Minister speaks for the Minister, in fact. Look, the general principle here is that if the House is unimpeded in getting an answer, then the transfer should be allowed. It would only be if there was very specific knowledge—and that’s the case you’re making—but the Clerk’s Office, before they come to talk to me about these things, do have to assess also what is the substance of the question. The substance of the question is clearly the second part, so that’s why the transfer was allowed. But I’ll tell you what, I’m very keen on there being some degree of harmony around all these things, so rather than you going ahead today, why don’t you keep this question up your sleeve and have an extra one tomorrow.

Hon Chris Bishop: No, sorry—point of order.

SPEAKER: No, there’s no point of order here—that’s a ruling. That’s right.

Hon Chris Bishop: But because he can’t be bothered asking me the question—

SPEAKER: No, Mr Bishop—Mr Bishop.

Hon Chris Bishop: —you’re going to give him a freebie tomorrow.

SPEAKER: Mr Bishop, this is a point of disorder, if you want my view on it.

Hon Chris Bishop: Well, why do they get a freebie because he can’t be bothered asking a question?

SPEAKER: Mr Bishop, I’ve made a ruling and I’m not changing it. We’ll come now to question No. 7—Suze Redmayne.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a separate point of order. I just simply wish to withdraw—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, points of order are heard in silence.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I simply wish to withdraw and apologise for my earlier interjection.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Question No. 7—Agriculture

7. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Agriculture: What is the Government doing to support the rural economy?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): This week, the coalition Government outlined 20 actions we are taking to free up the rural economy. Our ambitious target of doubling exports by value over 10 years is an opportunity to work with the primary sector and to grow the economy, delivering greater returns at the farm gate. This Government has huge respect for our farmers and foresters. We continue to partner with them to drive down costs, improve profitability, simplify regulations, and build trust and confidence as we get Wellington out of farming.

Suze Redmayne: What actions has the Government taken to improve productivity and profitability?

Hon TODD McCLAY: In just nine months, this Government has begun reforming rules around biotech so that farmers can lead the world in innovation, restore the export of logs to India, increase funding for East Coast debris clean-up, provide a significant investment into animal facial eczema research, and increase the number of Recognised Seasonal Employer places to allow horticultural production to grow. By improving primary sector profitability, we can boost our largest export sector and deliver for all New Zealanders.

Suze Redmayne: What actions has the Government taken to reduce the regulatory burden on the primary sector?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Ministers Grigg, Hoggard, Patterson, and I have, along with our colleagues, taken the following actions: restore common sense to intensive winter grazing and stock exclusion rules, introduce pragmatic rules on on-farm water storage, and introduce legislation to cease the implementation of new significant natural areas. We’ve also repealed the burdensome log traders legislation and started the reform of farm plans and the replacement of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

Suze Redmayne: What actions has the Government taken to support farmer confidence by reducing cost and complexity for rural New Zealand?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Again, in just nine months, the Government has disbanded He Waka Eke Noa and we’ve removed agriculture from the emissions trading scheme, commenced a review of biogenic methane, established a methane group to focus on reducing emissions, launched a select committee inquiry into banking, and invested more in catchment groups and rural support trusts to support our farmers through harder times. Eighty percent of our exports of goods and more than 350,000 jobs come from the rural sector. There is more to do, but the coalition Government has taken the first steps to walk with our farmers, and we thank farmers, foresters, horticulture, and other workers for their significant contribution to the New Zealand economy.

Question No. 8—Housing

8. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Associate Minister of Housing: Why has the Government restricted eligibility for emergency housing despite the Ministry of Social Development’s advice that “Making these changes now creates a risk of increased levels of homelessness”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): This Government is very clear that households who have a genuine need for a short-term stay in temporary accommodation in emergency housing will be supported, and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has raised concerns early on in the process around the potential for homelessness. However, I’m not advised of any substantiated reports of increased homelessness. What I am advised on, however, is that, as a result of the decisions that this Government has made around prioritising children to go into emergency housing, 1,110 kids have moved from emergency housing into warm, safe, dry homes between April and the end of July. Kia ora koutou.

Tamatha Paul: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the House to resume silence. [Interruption] Sorry, just a bit of order, for goodness’ sake! Far too much noise coming from the Government side. Tamatha Paul.

Tamatha Paul: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by his statement relating to the drop in children living in emergency accommodation that “I’m not worried that some are now homeless.”, and, if so, is that why funding for community housing providers has reduced to only 750 new places a year under his Government?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: In the context in which the question was asked, and in relation to Priority One, I am absolutely confident that those 1,110 children have been placed out of emergency housing and into a warm, safe, dry home between April and July. I am confident and very aware that they are no longer homeless because the decisions that this Government has made has ensured that they go into warm, safe, dry homes.

Tamatha Paul: Where does he expect people to go if they are denied or kicked out of emergency accommodation?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you for that question. Those whānau, those households, with genuine need for a short-term stay in emergency housing will be supported into housing. Those whānau who leave emergency housing are either supported into social housing, or accommodation supplement for private housing, or other areas of housing. Now, when we arrived in Government, we found that the data did not show where over 50 percent of people exiting emergency housing had gone to, but, as a result of the hard-working members of our team, we now know where nearly 80 percent of all those that exit emergency housing go to, including the 1,110 children who have gone from emergency housing into warm, safe, dry homes.

Tamatha Paul: Why does the Government think it’s fine for whānau to be left sleeping on the streets or in cars because they had “contributed to their homelessness”, and how is leaving someone on the street or in their car ever a just or acceptable response from an agency who should be there to help?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are a lot of whānau across Aotearoa New Zealand that are doing it very tough. Last week, I was up in Tauranga and I met a young lady who had spent six years in emergency housing, had four children while she was in emergency housing, and, as a result of the Priority One decision that has been made by this Government, got a call in May to say that she had a home available. She moved into that home and was shocked to get the call, but is very happy, very warm, and very safe in that home.

Tamatha Paul: Why has he removed the requirement for MSD to grant emergency accommodation if declining would increase any risk to life or welfare of the applicant, and is he comfortable with the consequences this will have for homeless people, their wellbeing, and their lives?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Can I repeat, for the fourth time today: those people who have a genuine need for a short-term stay in emergency housing will be supported, and there is capacity in all the major centres such as Wellington for those people who have that genuine need. Kia ora tātou.

Tamatha Paul: Will his new responsibility framework for emergency accommodation include the Government taking responsibility for fuelling a homelessness crisis when they have stopped building thousands of new public homes and are celebrating evicting more people from public housing and private rental housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Again, can I repeat that when we arrived in Government, we did not know where over 50 percent of people leaving emergency housing were going to. Now, we know for around 80 percent where they’re leaving to go to. We are very proud of the efforts that we have undertaken to get emergency housing back on track. Kia ora tātou.

Question No. 9—Housing

9. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Associate Minister of Housing: What impact is the Priority One category having on supporting families out of emergency housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): Very positive. Since April 2024, 540 households with children have been supported out of emergency housing into secure, safe, warm, dry social housing tenancies. Blue shoots, but over 1,100 children—in fact, 1,110 children to the end of July—no longer have to grow up in an unsuitable motel, which is an outcome that I and my erudite colleagues on this side of the House are very happy with.

Paulo Garcia: Minister, can you explain why the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is unable to track housing outcomes for all households who exit emergency housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: When we arrived in Government, we did not know where over 50 percent of households living in emergency housing were going to, but because of the hard-working people in our teams, we now know where nearly 80 percent of people leaving emergency housing are going to. Officials are working very hard to develop official reporting on all exits, but that will take time as it requires linking information from multiple systems, agencies, and other organisations. Our understanding is improving daily, but it’s unlikely we will have a complete view because people are not required to let MSD know where they live once they stop receiving assistance. We need to balance the requirement to monitor the effectiveness of our interventions with people’s right to privacy.

Paulo Garcia: What other steps has the Government taken to support people out of emergency housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We recognise that those who stay longest in emergency housing have the most complex needs, which is why we’ve committed a further $84 million through the support of the Minister of Finance—the “Manu Pūtea”—to extend emergency housing support services for a further two years. That funding provides people in emergency housing with the dedicated tautoko that they need. We’ve also expanded the range of housing support products that MSD offers to cover a wide range of living situations, including flatting and boarding. Kia ora.

Question No. 10—Education

10. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Mālō e lelei, Mr Speaker. Does she agree with President of the New Zealand Principals’ Federation Leanne Otene’s statement that “The draft curriculum is still being written and no child tested on it had ever been taught it. The basis for the maths achievement ‘crisis’ was disinformation”; if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Do I agree that the draft curriculum is still being written? No, I’m proud to confirm that in the last nine months under this Government, we have rewritten and completed the draft maths curriculum, which was sent out for consultation last week and has had overwhelmingly positive feedback. Do I agree that no child tested has ever been taught it? Well, given that 22 percent of students met the curriculum benchmark, clearly some of them had been taught it, but herein lies the problem: with a high-level, vague curriculum and multi-year bands, there was too much variation and inconsistency, and the result was that 78 percent of kids weren’t where they needed to be to experience success at high school. Do I agree that the basis for maths achievement is a crisis and disinformation? Either 42 percent or 22 percent—both of these numbers are equally terrible, and I am not interested in quibbling over how bad the crisis is. I’m focused on delivering change because I want parents to know that their kids are succeeding because it’s a priority for this Government.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does the figure that says only 22 percent of year 8 students were reaching acceptable standards in maths come from testing year 8 students against the curriculum they haven’t been taught yet?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I answered that exact question in my primary, if the member was listening. But the fact that the member has even asked this question indicates exactly why her Government struggled to make any progress. They missed all of the warning signs, they failed to address any of the problems, and they utterly let down a generation of Kiwi kids and they deprioritised maths from the regionally allocated professional learning and development (PLD) fund. If that member wants to know why she’s sitting on that side of the House, this is a perfect example.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Why does she expect year 8 students to be able to pass tests based on a curriculum that they haven’t been taught yet?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I said in my answer to the first question, clearly some kids had been taught the curriculum material, but a vast majority of them—

Hon Jan Tinetti: But they haven’t.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: —needed to know that curriculum material in order to experience success at high school. But the—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute—just a minute. Calm it down. Ask a question and listen to the answer, rather than giving it yourself.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The vague, high-level, multi-year curriculum meant that the material that our year 8s needed to know to experience success at high school, they didn’t have. We expected them to have it, but that curriculum meant that they weren’t reaching that level that they needed to be at to experience success at high school. There was no consistency across the board, which is why we have moved to implement this curriculum at pace next year.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Is it the Minister’s position that by year 8, students should be capable of knowing content they haven’t been taught yet?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The Minister continues to ask these ridiculous questions. The real question is: how do we move forward with a plan to make sure that our kids experience success at high school? We have implemented $20 million worth of PLD—all of the resources, teacher guides, and workbooks that our kids are going to need to succeed. We’ve made sure that our teachers are going to be having level 2 maths by the time they enter initial teacher education. It is a full plan that we are bringing forward to make sure that our kids are experiencing success at high school.

Katie Nimon: What feedback has the Minister received from principals and teachers about the Make It Count action plan?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, I don’t actually know where to start; there’s so much of it. Let me quote from a principal who said, “I applaud your attention to the dire level of mathematics knowledge and achievement in primary schools. As a once mathematics teacher, I now spend a lot of time coaching my grandchildren.” From another principal: “This is a great step forward in maths education in New Zealand. Thank you for ignoring the unions and thank you for being brave and getting stuff done.” From a principal: “Thank you, Erica, for your vision and leadership. Be encouraged to dismiss the naysayers and press on.”

Hon Jan Tinetti: Is the Minister concerned that zero percent of year 8 students are at a passable level for postgraduate biomechanical engineering studies because it’s a curriculum that they haven’t been taught yet?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Once again, at least 22 percent of our year 8s had been taught the curriculum. But—

Hon Jan Tinetti: And that’s exactly the ridiculousness of what you are doing.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: —we expected—

SPEAKER: No, just—once again, if someone asks a question, at least be polite enough to listen to the answer, even if you don’t like it. Start again.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The member asks the same question over and over again. The point is that if our children are to experience success at high school, we expected that they were being taught the content that they needed. Some of them were—22 percent—but a vast majority were not because of our vague, high-level, broad, multi-year curriculum. Next year, the public of this country can expect a year-by-year, structured curriculum that will implement structured maths so that all children will experience success at high school. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Yeah, it’s good—nothing you haven’t heard before. Question 11, Scott Willis. [Interruption] No, hang on—just wait until the House is polite enough to listen to your question.

Question No. 11—Energy

11. SCOTT WILLIS (Green) to the Minister for Energy: Does he consider the electricity market is broken, in light of the current electricity crisis and significant increase in gentailer profits?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): I’m advised that the electricity market is facing extreme stress due to a significant shortage of energy. This shortage is leading to extremely high wholesale spot prices and is due to hydro storage, which is currently among the lowest since 1992; natural gas production, which has dropped 27.8 percent in production in the first three months of this year; and wind generation, which has also been below average since April this year, meaning 250 gigawatts less energy has been produced than was expected. In the short term, some immediate actions have been taken. Methanex has closed down production to provide that gas into the electricity market, Tīwai has reduced demand, and Transpower is consulting on bringing forward contingent supply. However, shortage and extreme prices are having a significant impact on businesses. The Government is considering a range of options, including the importation of liquefied natural gas.

Scott Willis: Does he agree with statements from his Associate Minister that there are “significant deficiencies” in the market and that gentailers are “profiteering” from New Zealanders?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: This Government is taking this issue incredibly seriously. We are receiving a range of advice on options that could be taken. What I would say is that we have an energy shortage, and much of that is due to the significant downgrade in our gas production this year, and we have to remember that for the last six years, the last Government demonised gas production in New Zealand and it has left us with a shortage in the energy needed. So when the wind isn’t blowing, the sun’s not shining, and we have a dry hydrological year, we don’t have the backup, and the only project they had on the table was a phantom project for 2038. They thought that was the answer. They have left New Zealand with an insecure energy sector, and they should take responsibility.

Scott Willis: Is he comfortable with gentailers raking in $512 million in profit over the last six weeks as electricity prices tripled, with more than 110,000 Kiwi households that can’t afford to keep their homes warm this winter, and, if not, what is he going to do about it?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, households don’t pay the wholesale spot prices, but we are concerned in particular around this issue, and that is why this Government has asked the Electricity Authority to publish data on the margins which have been made by generators over the last little while. They’re doing so on a weekly basis because we need to have that data to give confidence that price gouging is not happening, but I would make this point again: the reason we are having such significant and extreme prices is because we have an energy shortage in New Zealand. We have a dry hydrological year, wind generation has been below average, and—importantly—the downgrade in gas reserves and production has been because the last six years—

SPEAKER: Yep, very good.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —demonised gas production in this country.

SPEAKER: The point’s made.

Scott Willis: Can he explain exactly how the reversal of the oil and gas ban will fix the current crisis, considering that a new gasfield could take a decade or longer to develop and bring online and that we have more than 10 consented renewable energy projects ready to go now?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we need more wind, we need more gas, we need more hydro—we need more energy in this country. And the last Government’s decisions—the reckless policies of the last Government—have meant that this country’s energy has been put at risk.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I probably don’t need to say it, but that’s the third occasion on which he has called the last Government reckless; he mentioned demonising gas twice, and phantom projects. They’re all entirely inappropriate.

SPEAKER: And we’re going to have that heard again, because there was talking all the way through it. So, Dr Duncan Webb, make your point of order one more time.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: The Minister, in his answers, has on three occasions attacked the former Government, using inflammatory language.

SPEAKER: Yes, that’s true, and I had noted that. But I think there was an equally inflammatory sort of aspect to the questions that were being asked, and I think it’s not unreasonable to refer to policies from a previous Government—we’ve been through this before. I think the last statement was something that I was about to stand on, and had started to, when you took to your feet. So we’ll just have a bit of a calm down on all of this. The next supplementary goes to Simon Court.

Simon Court: Does the Minister agree that fixing the electricity crisis requires a stable investment environment, and how important is a cross-party agreement on the use of natural gas to restoring confidence and stability for investors?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I completely agree with that statement by the member, and, in fact, I invite the Opposition to support this Government when we bring legislation to the House later this year to reverse the ban on oil and gas so that we can have the sovereign security of investment in this country once again in our energy security.

Scott Willis: Will he use his power to direct the Electricity Authority to enforce its code to create a fair market while people around the country are struggling to make ends meet in a cost of living crisis, and, if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The market relies on supply and demand, and the issue here is that we don’t have enough supply in New Zealand. As I’ve already said, we have the driest hydrological year since 1992, we have wind generation which has been below average, we have had a significant downgrade in our gas production, and the reality is we need more production. We need more wind, we need more solar, we need more geothermal, we need more hydro, and we need more gas so we can have the market security of supply that New Zealand businesses and wholesalers have. The last Government’s policies have put that at risk, and we are having to clean it up.

Scott Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Point of order, Scott Willis—make sure it is a point of order.

Scott Willis: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe the Minister addressed my question at all. I simply asked whether he would use his power to direct the Electricity Authority to enforce its code; I did not ask about other forms of generation.

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, I think that was an address to the question. [Interruption] Well, maybe not—perhaps you couldn’t get it, but I did. We’re moving on to question No. 12.

Question No. 12—Regional Development

12. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Development: What reports has he seen regarding regional development in New Zealand?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): Recently, I visited Nelson and was hosted by a range of economic stakeholders, including the civic leaders. During the time that I spent there, the Hon Nick Smith made the point that Nelson has been through something of the winter of despair and was hoping that the efforts of our Government would spur on that spring of hope—hardly language I associated with that former parliamentarian. But I assured Nelson that if a project of significance was embraced by the broad leadership, civic-speaking, of that area, we would engage and agree to co-investment models; never co-governance. I can assure you I will be drinking the proverbial before I tolerate co-governance.

Jenny Marcroft: What announcements has he made regarding regional investment in infrastructure?

Hon SHANE JONES: Sadly, in more recent times, climate change rhetoric has been all heat and no substance. This Government is directing resources and attention to adaptation—things that will improve the daily lives of communities—and nowhere is that more important than coping with volatile weather associated with floods. To that end, $101 million has been allocated to 42 consented priority flood resilience schemes. I have had in the past a role to play in this regard. We will see more of this because the key point of the fund is that we are willing to contribute up to 60 percent of the cost with relevant authorities, who must ensure they have resource consents—no more promises while the treacle in local government prevents progress from being made because they can’t get out of their own way.

Jenny Marcroft: What reports has he seen on the effect of energy prices on regional businesses?

Hon SHANE JONES: I’m sure I express the concerns of the majority of the House that it is heartbreaking to see the hollowing out of regional New Zealand—in particular, the effect of Fred Flintstone economics now being brought home to bear—when former decision makers, former Ministers, did nothing to increase the resilience and the security of energy supply.

SPEAKER: And to the question.

Hon SHANE JONES: This has had the effect of worsening the capacity of manufacturers and industry to remain competitive in New Zealand. We have a crisis. We do not have internationally competitive energy prices, and it’s being driven by short-term, green-riddled thinking.

Jenny Marcroft: What are the causes of the energy crisis affecting regional industry?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, my colleague has indicated that we are facing a shortage of not only water; far be it from me to say wind and gas, but we will be introducing interventions to expedite the delivery of gas. But I say this to the House: I’m advised that for every $4 that the gentailers have paid out in dividends, only $1 has actually gone back into the productive capacity—i.e., invested in generative capacity. The capacity of these large organisations to improve our quality of life lies in front of them. Sadly, they seem to be favouring short-term profit over the need of New Zealanders for energy security.

SPEAKER: That brings to the end oral questions, and we’ll take 30 seconds while people who have to leave the House do so quietly, without discussion and without conferences in the walkways.

General Debate

General Debate

STEVE ABEL (Green): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Thank you, Mr Speaker. We had the extraordinary privilege just recently—in fact, on Sunday and Monday—to drive down to the Waikato from Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland. A group of us from the Greens were going down there for the koroneihana. On the way, we visited Waikeria Prison. As you drive through the landscape of our nation with some idea of the blanket of history across that nation, you cannot help but get a sense of each turn, of each hill, of each river, and of each place name as having some sort of reference to, or echo of, the history of this nation: Redoubt Road, Ōrākau, the Great South Road, Cameron Road. These places, down as you enter the Waikato, when you know something of the history of the land confiscation there, can’t help but make us think of what went on and the means by which we ended up in this country.

I, as a Pākehā New Zealander, have a great sense of being blessed to have been born in this country. That blessing stems not from the benefits and the privilege I enjoy in our society, which are real. There is a sense that those benefits are achieved by two means in this country, either by the means of the founding agreement on which our country was built, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, or by the means of that other thing that also happened here, which was the raupatu, the confiscation. By hook or by crook or by deceit, by the bayonet, and by the musket, that land was taken from those who currently resided there at the time, tangata whenua Māori.

My journey to recognising the great value and privilege I enjoy having been born in this country and the appreciation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi comes from knowing that every time we lean into Te Tiriti, we actually assert a principle of nationhood that is based on legitimacy. And every time we choose to not lean into that Treaty, we choose a version of nationhood that is based on the spoils of war in a sense.

When we do not know the history of our own country, it is a terrible barrier to being a New Zealander in the deepest sense. It is not only a fault of any of us, but it is kind of a responsibility of us as parliamentarians to make sure we correct that failing. But ignorance of our history is a threat to us not repeating the errors of that history, the era of taking from, of diminishing, of fearing, of denying, and of undermining Māori.

I want to say that, right now, we have a poignant conversation going on, and that conversation rests on the idea that, somehow, those people who my ancestors first encountered in 1769—or earlier, if you were of Dutch ancestry—that somehow the sovereignty of those people who were here was ceded. It is somewhat nonsensical to consider that that is a possibility. Many who have considered this at length recognise that those words in that founding document uphold tino rangatiratanga, the highest chieftainship, of the hapū of Māori, at which point it is clear that the 500 rangatira who signed our founding agreement understood they were certainly not giving up their sovereignty. When we lean into that idea of Māori self-determination, it gives us, as tangata Tiriti, those who are the true beneficiaries of the Treaty, a sense of nationhood and a sense that we can potentially lie contentedly in our bed in the land we call home.

I want to end with the great words of Moana Jackson: “I actually have a sense that there are enough Pākehā people in this country … who see in the Treaty the aspiration for something better than one party perpetually dominating another, that promises made in a document signed by their ancestors must have … [been somewhat credible], and that credibility must rely, in a sense of what I call rightness. The Treaty to me has never been about Treaty rights; it’s always been about the rightness that comes from people accepting their obligations to each other. And that … [is] a profound and … visionary base upon which to build a country.” Toitū Te Tiriti.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): This past week there have been green shoots across this country, because we have a Government that is on the side of everyday working New Zealanders, that’s on the side of taxpayers, of ratepayers, of mortgage holders, and on the side of every New Zealander who uses a bank each week. What we’ve seen in these past few days are things that make a meaningful difference for everyday people. A reduction in the official cash rate, a reduction in interest rates that, actually, many forecasted wouldn’t happen for months ahead. I well remember those on the opposite side of the House saying, “Oh no, you’ll never get inflation under control. Interest rates will never come down.” In fact, they said they’d rise again. “Tax relief can never be delivered while interest rates are coming down.” In fact, this is the case.

We have a responsible economic management team back in charge, and here’s what’s happening. Inflation is under control, interest rates are coming down, tax relief is sitting in people’s bank accounts, and now I have a message for the banks: we’re putting an end to your cozy pillow fight too, because we won’t stand by while New Zealanders have to pay fees that are higher than they should be. We won’t stand by while New Zealanders watch their interest rates not being passed on as quickly when they are paying the debt as when they’ve got the deposit. We won’t stand by while our Australian cousins get innovative services, new technology, and us here in New Zealand get left behind even while the banks extract their profits.

We on this side of the House are on the side of markets that work. We are on the side of competition. We are on that side because we think it is fair that everyday people can know that they are operating in a market where banks are incentivised to give them the best deal possible. So it should be of concern to us all that the Commerce Commission has conclusively proven that, in fact, our banks are some of not only the most profitable in the world, but there is very good evidence that they are not competing hard for New Zealand consumers. What does that mean? That means that instead of going after those consumers with better prices, better services, showing them a good deal, they’re sitting back, content with how things are. Well, we’re not content for New Zealanders to get a raw deal. We want them to get a fair deal. We want them to pay less for all of those fees. We want them to have better services, and we are going to take the action required to make that happen.

When I talk about these things, I reflect on what it’s been like for a typical family in this country these past three years, because, boy oh boy, it’s been a tough slog, hasn’t it? We had a Government that thought it would spend its way to economic nirvana. It spent and it spent and it spent recklessly, and the result was sky-high inflation. This time a year ago that inflation rate was 6 percent, the year before that, 7.3 percent. Three years where prices rose and rose—an era of extreme price increases. Every time mums and dads were at the supermarket checkout aisle, that price was more expensive still. Whatever it was, people were paying more. Then, if that wasn’t bad enough, they watched while the Government leaned back and the Reserve Bank leaned in and whipped those interest rates higher and higher to try and get a hold on inflation. People with a mortgage, they’ve paid more, they’ve struggled, and the shopkeepers have noticed fewer people coming through their doors with less money to spend, and it has been tough.

So we should all, if we are on the side of New Zealanders, celebrate the progress that we have seen these past few weeks. That progress is pretty clear. The Reserve Bank is forecasting inflation to come back in to target this year. With the confidence of that occurring with a responsible Government that’s putting fiscal discipline back, they’ve made the decision to reduce interest rates earlier than they ever forecast they could. I have already had the emails and the phone calls from the parents, from the families saying, “This has made the difference for me.” What’s more, they’ve got tax relief in those bank accounts, a Government driving better results, a Government on their side; us, the Government of working people.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): I’d like to take this opportunity to talk about the Government’s programme on firearms reforms. This is a Government who has appointed a gun lobbyist who was elected on a platform of gun reform. That’s not being hidden at all.

Let’s just take a look at the consultation process to date. Part 6 of the Arms Act has already been changed by Order in Council, with not so much as even a press release being issued. What those changes have already done is they have changed the regulations and safety requirements for the sales of ammunition and firearms to be recorded on ranges in New Zealand. Do New Zealanders know about these changes? Have they been informed about this? Has there even been a public statement from the Minister on these changes? The answer is no. They were done by Order in Council at the end of June, without anybody in New Zealand being informed. These changes have removed police’s oversight and created loopholes for gangs, criminals, and extremists to exploit on shooting ranges in New Zealand—the very place where the March 15 terrorist practised his shooting skills in New Zealand. This Government has now relaxed the restrictions on shooting ranges, without publicly informing New Zealanders about it.

Let’s talk about police safety, because police have been talking a lot about their safety, particularly the Police Association, but they have been called “paranoid” by this Minister—paranoid because they fear the introduction of dangerous weapons once again in New Zealand society.

The registry itself: it’s unclear what is actually happening with the registry. This morning on Newstalk ZB, Mark Mitchell did say, “I can assure you, as the police Minister, the gun registry is going nowhere.” Well, as Nicole McKee, the Associate Minister of Justice responsible for firearms has stated, her intention is for those A category weapons to be outside of the Firearms Registry because it would be too expensive and dangerous to have them included in there. When we look at what information is being provided to her, as the Minister responsible for firearms, we can see that 71 percent of standard A-Cat firearms which are seized by police are from A category.

Hon Nicole McKee: How many have serial numbers on them, Ginny?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Interestingly, when I was the Minister of Police and I asked about whether a serial number could be read, the advice I received back is that ESR can determine the serial numbers of just about every single weapon that’s had their serial numbers filed off.

The Minister needs to explain why 50 percent of police investigations, in terms of diverted firearms, revolve around licensed firearm holders. That is because we have an issue with licensed firearm owners either selling or enabling criminals to access those weapons once they have been licensed. The Firearms Registry is the best place for that to be making sure that we check them. Where is the police Minister on this? We have got a police Minister who is asleep at the wheel in terms of protecting the safety of front-line police officers.

When we were in Government, we introduced the Tactical Response Model and invested in front-line safety. This was a direct result of the murder of Matthew Hunt, and the dangers that our front-line police officers now face. The Police Association have every right to be fearful that Nicole McKee is now holding the pen and rewriting the Arms Act and endangering the front line of New Zealanders, because her interests lie with a select group of firearms owners, and not with the safety of our front-line police or with our communities. They are a small select group that are being catered to at the absolute detriment of New Zealand’s safety.

What is the point of a firearms prohibition order, what is the point of having all of this investment in front-line safety if we are not strengthening the registry? What is the point if military-style semi-automatic weapons are going to be reintroduced into New Zealand? That is the underlying agenda of the ACT Party. They have made a promise to their voters who increased their numbers in this House from one to 10, from voting against the 2019 changes to our firearms law. They grew their party and they owe it back to those voters. They will be doing everything they can to reintroduce dangerous weapons back into New Zealand, to take apart the regulations that control our shooting ranges, and to make our front line at risk of dangerous weapons in the hands of criminals.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and to speak in this general debate and to speak on behalf of this Government which has been relentlessly focused on everyday Kiwis. This Government came into office promising to focus on fixing the economy, on getting inflation under control, and to delivering tax relief. I’m very pleased that the Government has been doing exactly that, and we have seen the real-life results of that play out. The Government has delivered tax relief, getting money in the back pockets of everyday Kiwis across the country. The Government has got inflation under control, and now we’re very pleased the Reserve Bank has dropped the official cash rate to 5.25 percent.

The Government is very focused on getting this economy back on track. It has been incredibly challenging times over the last couple of years. Certainly, one of the refrains I’ve been hearing is “survive to ‘25”. Well, now we’re seeing inflation get under control, with the official cash rate coming down.

Dan Bidois: “Thrive in ‘25”.

JOSEPH MOONEY: We are now “thrive in ‘25”, as my great colleague Dan Bidois says—“thrive in ‘25”.

On that, I just have to make a shout-out to my region. Despite these incredibly challenging times, ASB’s economic regional scorecard for the first quarter of 2024 showed that Southland knocked Auckland off the top spot. So, as the member of Parliament for Southland, I can’t claim credit for that but I can certainly make a shout-out to all of those people in Southland doing that hard work. Otago came in second place—

Hon Member: Oh, have you got part of Otago?

JOSEPH MOONEY: —and that’s the sixth consecutive quarter that it’s been in the top three. Well, Otago is a big chunk of mine. I also have my colleague besides me, he represents a good chunk of Otago, Miles Anderson. So, look, just a shout-out to all of the hard-working businesses, hard-working farmers, hard-working construction companies, workers, everyone who’s been working incredibly hard in tourism, right across those sectors. This is the story of the country.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: And a shocker.

JOSEPH MOONEY: Everyone’s—yes, Dr Duncan Webb. All of the retail outlets—they’ve been doing incredibly tough times, actually; it’s been very, very tough times for them—but they have been doing well to trade through this. I take my hat off to everyone who’s been pulling their bit. The Government has its role to play, but all of these other players are critical for making this economy work.

This Government is also focused on the banking sector, and I’m very pleased, as a member of Parliament who represents a rural area, that there’s a particular focus on rural banking. I see my great colleague Stuart Smith and my great colleague from Northland, who have been leading the charge on this with their respective select committees.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What’s his name?

JOSEPH MOONEY: Mark Cameron—leading the charge on this select committee inquiry into banking competition, which affects rural banking. This is certainly something that I have been hearing, as I’m sure my colleagues have been hearing a lot: the rural banking has been affecting our farming sector in particular a lot. It’s been very, very challenging for them. The farming sector, or the primary sector, underpins the New Zealand economy. It’s absolutely critical for the New Zealand economy. At a time of challenge economically, both domestically and internationally, I can’t say enough, and I have said this many times over the roughly four years that I’ve been in this Parliament, the primary sector is critical for New Zealand and we need to do everything we can to support them. So I’m very, very pleased that we are doing this inquiry into rural banking.

It’s not just rural banking—we’ve also had the report of the Commerce Commission into banking competition. It’s highlighted something that has been quietly spoken about for a number of years in New Zealand—not as much as in Australia—the banking competition isn’t strong enough, frankly. Competition is good for the economy. We need these banks competing hard with each other for New Zealanders’ services. We need more competition, so we need more innovation in that sector. I’m very pleased that his Government has picked up those recommendations and is going with all of them and is sending a very clear signal to the banking sector: we want you to compete harder, we want you to do better, we want you to provide more innovation and more services, and we want more players in the market. This is going to deliver.

Just in the time that I have available, I need to take the opportunity just to congratulate all of those who took part in the Olympics. With my parochial hat on, I just have to make a shout-out to the two from Dunstan High School: Nicole Shields, born in Invercargill but moved to Clyde when she was young, went to Dunstan High School, and got a silver medal in the pursuit; and Finn Butcher, who got a gold in kayak cross. Congratulations to them.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll go quick because I’ve got a lot to say. What I want to talk about is the numerous ways, the myriad of ways in which this Government has left Christchurch and the South Island behind. Front page of the Press today: that Government showing the hand to the Christ Church Cathedral and the community of Christchurch.

Now, what we need is some leadership and governments are supposed to lead. The last Government, with Megan Woods—and the Government before that, under Nicky Wagner who was a Christchurch Central MP—did a great job in bringing parties together to get that reinstatement project under way. Now, it’s hit some problems, don’t get me wrong, but what did we get from that Government? Not even a conversation; we get the hand—go away, not interested. It’s time for some leadership; it’s time for you to go and work out where Christchurch is and do something.

What else is happening in Christchurch? The Brougham St overpass, the busiest thoroughfare in Christchurch where there are accidents—about 47 accidents a year—because of the traffic congestion on that road. What’s happened to the safety project there? Canned. Megan Woods is doing a great job working with the community to get that project back under way again, and the Government should be listening because it’s a shocker.

What about the Pages Rd bridge—the lifeline bridge from New Brighton away from the tsunami risk zone; a bridge that was damaged in the 2011 earthquake that desperately needs repairing? Rueben Davidson’s working on that—the local MP; a great new MP. What’s that Government doing? Abandoning it, ignoring it. How many social houses are going to be built in Christchurch? How much funding is going to Christchurch from the housing fund?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: None.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: None, that’s right, Kieran McAnulty, absolutely none. What’s happened to the Youth Hub, the transitional housing that’s being built there? It’s being unfunded—$4 million in dedicated funding taken away; so there will be 20-plus beds for young people in transitional housing lying empty because that Government has taken funding away. Te Tahi Youth, Sue Bradshaw’s baby, what’s happened to that? Social workers defunded by Oranga Tamariki—two social workers and community workers taken away. What’s happening at Rangiora, Matt Doocey’s electorate where he promised 24/7 medical care? I’ll tell you what’s happening there: nothing. What’s Matt Doocey saying? Nothing; he’s gone strangely quiet, not making promises any more. What’s happening in the other electorates? Burnside High, the Ilam electorate: school rebuild on hold. What’s that local MP Hamish Campbell saying? Nothing. What about the Rolleston School rebuild, Nicola Grigg’s electorate: scaled back, on hold, in portacoms. What’s that MP saying? Nothing. It’s an absolute shocker.

What else? The rest of the South Island; what’s happening in Nelson? The Hope Bypass pushed out till 2030 and beyond and, what’s more, a toll road. This is an arterial; this is a major arterial between Nelson and Richmond. Now Rachel Boyack is speaking out on that, another great Labour MP, but that can’s being kicked down the road and the people of Nelson are crying out. Women’s Support Motueka: funding cut with three days’ notice. Family Start, Nelson: funding cut; 40 percent of their staff are going to go. This is a shocking Government. It’s left Christchurch behind, left the South Island behind. Sometimes you wonder if they know where it is on the map. As for the abandoning of the mosque response, and the doing away with the eight outstanding matters from the royal commission—another shocking decision by this Government.

Of course, the worst of all has got to be the connection between the two islands. That project was under way. We had a great deal on those ships, which were going to be built for a song, and what does this Government do? We don’t even know how much that’s going to cost this Government, who breached the contract and said we’re not taking them. That project is a lifeline project between the islands. That Government has run aground. That Government is now adrift; it doesn’t know what it’s doing, and as far as the South Island—and I see Dr Vanessa Weenink, one of the MPs for the South Island, for Christchurch has walked in, and what do we hear about her? What do we hear about the road between Akaroa and Christchurch? She’s gone strangely silent on that one as well. That Government and those MPs need to start advocating for electorates like we do on this side of the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two stories from the past couple of days show how the energy shortage is starting to bite. Together, they paint a picture of a colder, darker, poorer future for New Zealand, unless we take urgent steps to restore confidence in the exploration and development of our natural gas resources.

Winstone Pulp has responded to the unsustainable high prices—they claim that they pay, potentially, five or six times more for electricity compared to their competitors overseas—by shutting down mills and putting hundreds of workers on notice this week. That is an outcome that, if they proceed, would devastate another regional community in New Zealand because of high energy prices. Jude Sinai, a worker at Karioi Pulpmill and a FIRST Union delegate, said that mill workers were already talking about emigrating to Australia, given the lack of comparable manufacturing jobs in the region. Jude said, “This is horrendous not just for us but for all Ruapehu locals—the teachers, schools, doctors, supermarkets, and everyone else in the region who has relied on these mill jobs to support our local economy.” Labour and the Greens should listen to Jude.

Down south, Tīwai Point has extended the shutdown in production in a deal to give energy back to the gentailers so that they can supply New Zealand homes. It mirrors a similar deal Methanex struck recently to free up natural gas to allow electricity generators to run at higher loads. In a First World country, we shouldn’t have to shut down productive industries just to keep the lights on in our towns and cities, but that’s where we’re at right now.

We can’t go on this way. We’re in an energy crisis. If it becomes an annual event, then we will see the hollowing out, the de-industrialisation, and the loss of wealth in our regional communities and provinces.

On cold mornings, we’re coming close to blackouts—New Zealand is coming close to blackouts. We can’t rely on hydro alone, although it’s a great, great renewable. Usually in an energy crunch, we’d dip into our vast supply of natural gas, but the previous Government quashed that by insisting on a poorly thought-out ban on gas and oil exploration. They’ve wrecked investor confidence to explore and develop new resources and to invest in businesses, including electricity generation, which requires gas.

New Zealand has been here before. This should not be a surprise to us. In the 1990s, a succession of dry years, combined with increased demand for electricity and energy, led to an energy shortage and blackouts, but do you know what? New Zealand responded in a sensible and logical way. There was opposition then to using natural gas because of the effect of greenhouse gases on the climate, but two combined-cycle gas turbines were built: one at Stratford in Taranaki, of about 400 megawatts, and another in Auckland, at Southdown, of about 200 megawatts. Well, the Southdown plant has just been demolished—it had reached the end of its 30-year life—and the 1996 Taranaki plant can’t have too many more years left in it. That’s around 600 megawatts of electricity firming, or baseload, that even our renewable development is absolutely dependent on.

Natural gas must be a part of New Zealand’s energy future. This Government has committed to reversing the ban on oil and gas exploration, but the sector still looks at New Zealand—both here, domestically, and internationally—and thinks that the New Zealand Government is a risk to future development. A future Government could shut them down, just on a whim—maybe in an announcement at a university, like the former Prime Minister Ardern and the energy Minister Megan Woods did.

I’ve written to party leaders from across the House, asking for a cross-party agreement on the future of natural gas. If the likes of Chris Hipkins and Chlöe Swarbrick can meet in the middle and agree that natural gas companies will be allowed to operate and that we can develop our natural gas resources, then we’ll see more investment and, ultimately, restoration of affordability and resilience. The ACT Party looks forward to their reply. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Minister for manufacturing, I would dearly love to continue to talk about the impact of high electricity crop prices on manufacturing, but what I’d like to talk about today is that yesterday the Commerce Commission released its final report on personal banking. First of all, I’d just like to acknowledge the hard work of the Commerce Commission. It’s one of the four studies that they’ve undertaken, and they came up with some very valuable insights. I think the first thing I should say is that the ComCom, or Commerce Commission, has confirmed what many people know, that simply we are not getting a good enough service and pricing in New Zealand from our banks and for our banking services.

Of course, many of us will know that the banking sector is dominated by four large banks that have just over 90 percent of the market. The key purpose of the report by the Commerce Commission was to look at whether that structure was working well, and particularly from the perspective of whether it was promoting competition. To put it simply, the Commerce Commission found that it’s not. That is the issue that the Government has now got to grapple with. I think one of the key messages that Dr John Small and his team identified is that there is price matching going on in the banking sector, not price competition. That is a significant issue, and that is a result of insignificant, or far from substantial, competition factors coming into play.

Now, the Government—just to put it on the record—is intending to implement all 14 recommendations. I just wanted to go through what the component parts are, and they fall into seven different parts of recommendations. The first one is that the Commerce Commission recommended to the Minister of Finance that we look at the prudential arrangements for banks, and specifically enabling fintechs to get access and to get established more quickly. There’s a high requirement for capital, at the moment it’s minimum $30 million, and there is a recommendation about reducing that quantum to make it much easier for fintechs to be able to do that.

There’s also the issue of making sure that when it comes to the productive sector—and particularly areas like agriculture, which I know member Miles Anderson will be talking about soon—it is important that they are not disadvantaged. That’s the first thing.

The second thing, again to the Minister of Finance, was about making changes to the Kiwibank arrangements to make sure that it’s a much more competitive organisation and, in essence, to be a disruptor to the industry. The third one was about removing the impediments to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act or CCCFA—the infamous CCCFA Act—and I’ll talk about that briefly. Fourth, about bringing into play open banking at pace, dealing with anti - money-laundering, which Minister McKee—and I see her here—is dealing with in the third quarter priority for the Government.

The sixth one is addressing issues relating to mortgage advisers, and that was one of the revelations out of this final report. And seventh was about improving access to better banking services—particularly for Māori, but also for people who are very vulnerable: those who’ve come out of prison, those who are not financially aware. That was a very important part of the recommendations which has seen to have just been slightly lost in the telling. So I do acknowledge that there is a banking inquiry under way in conjunction between the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the Primary Production Committee, but it is an important piece of work.

I just want to talk about a couple of things. The mortgage advisers—one of the revelations that I said is that many mortgage advisers are tied to specific banks. They do not actually go and get the best deal for everyone; they get the best deal of who they have a relationship with. There’s a very distinct commission structure, and I am in the process of writing to the FMA, Financial Markets Authority, to make sure that there should be transparency around the commission arrangements as part of the CoFI, or conduct of financial institutions bill that we’re progressing and putting in place more arrangements.

The big area is open banking. This is my prime, absolute focus. We’ve introduced the Customer and Product Data Bill, but what we need to do is put in place all the institutional arrangements as quickly as possible.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Migrant exploitation has no place in Aotearoa, and certainly no one in this place should be enabling it to happen. Migrant workers are an integral part of our communities, and successive Governments have treated migrant workers as expendable cogs in a broken immigration system that fails to treat workers with respect and dignity.

A few years ago, during the pandemic—well, during the peak of the pandemic—everyone talked about how migrant workers were essential to our economy and how we should retain them. But as the pandemic moved on and the borders reopened, even parties who I got the chance to work with last term, such as the National Party, started treating migrants once again as expendable. The truth is that Government parties turn their backs on migrants when it is politically expedient.

Last term, National was crying out for more workers and for greater pathways to residency. Now that they’re in power, they’re basically turning their backs on those in communities and talking about how the previous Government opened the floodgates—language that only inflames anti-migrant sentiment in our communities. [Interruption] Those Government members who are scoffing at my comments should reflect on their own colleagues’ comments in relation to migrant communities in this House and reflect on how those comments reflect in broader society. Migrant workers deserve more than red and blue teams taking turns saying things like “Chinese sounding names” when it comes to the housing crisis or talking about so-called floodgates. We deserve an immigration system that’s actually committed to tackling the issues that migrant workers face, particularly when it comes to exploitation.

One of the practices that we still have is the practice of tying work visas to single employers, a practice that creates coercive control, that enables practices such as modern slavery and human trafficking—something that has been well reported. If your whole ability to remain in the country depends on a single employer, you will go to great lengths to ensure that you can stay in the country even when it means going through exploitation.

The safety nets available to support those exploited workers are not good enough. We know this not just because of my own work with migrant communities; unions and the Migrant Workers Association of Aotearoa alongside other groups have long called for changes. Just this weekend the Human Rights Commission put in a report highlighting how the current system enables things like human trafficking and systemic exploitation, including highlighting the modern-day slavery practices. It is time that those champions at the front lines are listened to by this Government and that we decouple work visas from single employers and end this modern-day slavery practice.

This Government is actually making changes that will make life harder for migrant workers who members of this Government previously called essential and important for our communities. For example, in the Accredited Employer Work Visa system, the Government has now created a stand-down period that forces migrants to actually leave for a year and then come back after a period of time. Members of the ACT Party have actually called on their own immigration Minister around addressing those changes. We know that it is not just us on the left who see that this is problematic. Yet the immigration Minister sits with crossed arms while knowing that her own policies will inflict more harm, more hardship, and create more precarious conditions for workers.

As the Government cuts jobs and creates conditions for a huge slowdown in the construction industry, it is migrant workers who are facing the brunt. We’re seeing companies, and labour hire companies in particular, such as Extrastaff, Adecco, ACE Global, and Buildhub all closing and leaving over a thousand migrant workers without jobs. Many of those migrant workers faced exploitation, were promised full-time hours and, effectively, full-time pay only to come here to Aotearoa with no jobs to actually allow them to survive.

We know that the migrant exploitation visa is not sufficient to support those workers. Many of them are now relying on grants and charity services just to make ends meet, and the Minister told them that if their time is up, they’re not going to receive any support and they’re going to be sent back. This is no way to treat migrant workers, who many of us have acknowledged are essential to our economy and to our communities.

Finally, the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) changes. The Government announced an increase to the cap on RSE workers but has actually lowered their wages and accommodation conditions. The Government is simply happy to bring in workers while literally lowering the standards of that work. That is no way to treat our Pacific neighbours and our migrants. But migrant workers are fighting back. A shout out to the Loasi Latu family, who fought back against policies that criminalised overstayers. A shout out to Noland Kinney, a Waikato farmer who fought for residency pathways, to Juliana Carvalho, Stephanie Adams, and many others who formed part of the Migrants Against Acceptable Standard of Health Aotearoa.

The Green Party’s got our migrant communities’ back. We will keep fighting to stamp out migrant exploitation no matter where it is happening and we will fight to ensure the next Government will end the practice of tying work visas to single employers.

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister for Energy): Exhibit one: the unilateral cancellation of the oil and gas industry by Megan Woods and the former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. Not just ruining our sovereign risk profile, but two politicians who chilled and undermined the confidence and certainty in the investment community. Thus, today, we have shrinking supplies of a key indigenous resource, the oil and gas industry. Look no further, New Zealanders, to the long-term consequences of that decision which was celebrated as a nuclear-free moment. Sadly, it’s fact free. We are now living with the consequences.

Exhibit two: an unwillingness, a level of animus, from the Green Party to the coal resources of New Zealand. We can power up New Zealand by using our domestic coal resources, but that party would rather see New Zealanders thrown on the unemployment scrap heap, as we’ve witnessed this week. They would rather see people cold. They would rather see people in their retirement years too afraid to put the jug on—or the sleeping blanket—just so they can cover themselves in an ideological blanket of piety and self-righteousness.

Exhibit three: look at the attitude and the behaviour of the cartel otherwise known as the gentailers. They have no accent, emphasis, or responsibility to care for the overarching energy interests of our entire nation. Sadly, they are responding to the incentives that they are legally entitled to enjoy—i.e., short-term profit, 150 percent rise in profit with one of those companies; if I’m not mistaken, it’s Mercury; yet a 3 percent reduction in the amount of energy they produce. If that’s not evidence that “Something”, as Shakespeare says, “is rotten in the [heart] of Denmark.”, there’s something rotten at the heart of the rules and regulations where households are going to suffer energy hardship and where firms are being driven to the wall.

But, no, extraordinarily high dividends are being celebrated in those boardrooms today. That is not paving the way for a prosperous or internationally competitive New Zealand. That is why we need to delve deeply and robustly and to change the rules and regulations and not rely on these phantom organisations, such as the Electricity Authority, to regulate on behalf of New Zealanders. If they were ever going to do that, that vanilla popsicle, why have they not delivered the results today?

I recall when Helen Clark broke Telecom in half because there was no trust between where the true costs and true profit centres were in respect of the wholesale and the retail market. We’ve reached a point in time where we need to be absolutely sure that the people who own the customers and the power industry in New Zealand—i.e., the gentailers—are not profiting at a rude level from those such as industry, those such as enterprises, sadly, that we’ve seen go to the wall today.

Beyond this power debate, we’ve got a deeper problem in New Zealand—i.e., the divorcing of climate rhetoric, climate shrillness, from facts. I belong to New Zealand First, not climate first. We have many challenges in New Zealand, not just climate. We have challenges of defence; we have challenges of security; we have challenges of equity. None of that can be paid for unless we generate consistently an economic dividend—something that that side of the House is incapable of getting around or incapable of supporting us to achieve. In the absence of clear pragmatic trade-off politics, we are going to condemn ourselves to a downward trajectory. Whether it’s the ranting from the Māori Party trying to mythologise the quality of life prior to the Treaty. No, we need a pragmatic, forceful quality of leadership, and I look forward to providing that example over the next few weeks in terms of turning around the gruesome ways of these gentailers profiting at the expense of ordinary Kiwis.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare; pai te kite anō i a koe.

Heoi anō rā, koutou mā, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Nāku te hōnore ki te kawe i ngā reo o Ikaroa-Rāwhiti ki waenganui i a tātou i tēnei rā.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker; it is good to see you again.

Anyway, to everyone, this is my greeting to you all. It is my honour to bring the voices of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti among us all today.]

It’s my privilege to bring with me today the voices of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. What you hear today comes from the people I’ve recently visited on an electoral visit, not just from myself. So it’s my pleasure to be here today.

Throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti there are many diverse communities. There are communities like the beautiful Rangitukia, where I come from—population approximately 150. I note a whanaunga up in the gallery today, and there are bigger regional towns. Every day, as I said in my maiden speech, we bring light to Aotearoa. We are the rāwhiti. However, today, the people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti feel like they are in the shade. I’m bringing their light today, in spite of the shadow being cast by that side of the House.

Today we’ve heard speeches about the value of farmers, and I should be excited; however, clearly that does not include the farmers who currently live at Aropaoanui in Tāngoio, Hawke’s Bay. The farmers who, while they have cleared their logs, have not received a visit from anyone on that side of the House. No one from that side of the House has gone down their unfinished driveway to see how they are recovering. You don’t have to look far in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti to see that we have not recovered. I do acknowledge te Wairoa, who once again have been hit. But we can’t go past the people like Aropaoanui, who seem to be invisible under this Government.

But, while not recovered, they will recover. Ikaroa-Rāwhiti will recover, and we will thrive, and it will be in spite of this Government, not because of this Government. I want to assure people in places like Tāngoio that Labour get it. Labour get it, and that’s why we invested $1 billion in cyclone recovery, to enable people like the whānau at Aropaoanui to stay on their whenua and to thrive. Right now, what they’re left with is piles of contaminated chip and land that will not be productive for approximately another five years. I’d like this Government to prove me wrong: get out to farms like Aropaoanui and help them thrive as well.

Housing has been alluded to. We heard about emergency housing. I want to address the rangatahi. Currently in Maraenui, Heretaunga alone, there are 60 homeless rangatahi. We all know the $20 million that was previously budgeted to youth transitional housing is gone. I want to mihi to all the people in Heretaunga supporting our rangatahi, and a special shout-out to Te Hiwa a Māhaki, who are doing it off their own backs. Why? Because they love their community, they’re connected to the whenua, they’re connected by whakapapa. And once again they are doing it in spite of this Government, not with this Government. You will recover and you will thrive.

We’ve heard employment being talked about. Well, in all the things that we’re hearing about what this Government want, another thing that’s been taken away: progressive procurement. Soon I will be going to attend the investiture of Kat—I was going to say “hubba”—Kaiwai KSM, who employed many, many people throughout the Tai Rāwhiti. That side is right, employment does change lives, it impacts whakapapa for generations to come.

That said, I also want to make a shout-out to the Tolaga Bay innovation hub. It was great to be there with my opposite member Dana Kirkpatrick, the Mayor Rehette Stoltz, and the chair of Te Runanganui o Ngati Porou. However, what support will this Government provide? Ūawa, you will recover, you will thrive, and it will be in spite of this Government, not because of them. Please prove me wrong, e hoa mā. Tautoko. Get out there. Listen to Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and support them.

Finally, a big mihi to all the councils throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti who have already supported Māori wards. Nothing to be afraid of. Kia mahi tahi tātou. Tēnā koe. [Let us work together. Thank you.]

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are many sayings when it comes to money: “Money makes the world go around.”, “Cash is king.”, “Money is power.” There are others that have a rural flavour: “The cash cow”, “Bring home the bacon.”, “Bet on the farm.” Then there is one saying that no one wants to hear, and that is “Break the bank.” The question before us is: are the banks already broken?

I want to share something with you today. Farmers, like so many others, are doing it tough, but the war on farming has ended. The war on farming ended on 14 October last year, when the people of New Zealand decided that enough was enough and voted to get this country back on track.

Well, the hangover of bad fiscal decisions and unwarranted, unworkable regulations from the previous Government is still being felt, but this Government is listening—listening and working hard to ensure that our primary producers across rural and provincial New Zealand get a fair go.

In June, the Hon Nicola Willis announced that she had written to the chairs of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and Primary Production Committee, requesting a select committee inquiry into banking competition. This inquiry will be led by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, in conjunction with the Primary Production Committee, which will focus on rural banking. This request reflects the commitment outlined in the coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First. This announcement not only demonstrates this Government’s commitments to ensuring that Kiwis have a transparent and fair banking system that is accessible and allows businesses and individuals the flexibility that is afforded to customers in other countries; it also demonstrates that this Government is doing what it has promised to do. Farmers across the country have been asking for rural banking practices to be investigated for years.

We need to ensure our banking systems are not broken. Earlier this year, my Primary Production Committee colleagues and I were involved in a briefing on rural banking. Many of the submitters raised significant areas of concern. There are so many perceived inequities and practices within our banking system and they need to be looked at.

We heard from a number of submitters. These submitters questioned the Reserve Bank’s capital requirements for rural lending, the higher interest rates charged to farmers to derive better capital ratios, the reduction in headcount of bank staff, reduced access to services with many rural bank branches now closed, the reduction in risk appetite for agricultural loans, and simply a lack of competition. One submitter—New Zealand Agri Brokers—has stated that the net result for farmers is less competition, higher interest rates, decreased viability, and an ability to access the right long-term capital for their businesses.

For many, the banking inquiry cannot come soon enough. Having a rural focus is something that the National Party is committed to. Currently, the rural sector is under extreme duress as international trading conditions have tightened in the past 18 months, various weather events have made production difficult, and inflation and interest rates have eroded profitability.

The crux of the issue is: is it Government policy, is it Reserve Bank policy, or is it financial institutions’ policies and practices that have made rural lending seemingly more expensive than our trading partners? The inquiry will be in depth and will no doubt hear from many individuals, groups, businesses, and financial institutions. It is critical for the people of the Waitaki electorate and for all of New Zealand that concerns are identified and addressed.

It is this Government’s objective to double the value of our exports in the next 10 years. To do this, we are removing red and green tape that is holding the productive sector back, actively engaging across the globe to seek out new trade agreements that remove tariffs or non-tariff barriers and reduce inflation to give businesses the confidence to invest, create jobs, and grow our economy. One piece of the puzzle in achieving this is to ensure that our financial systems are competitive, open, and not an impediment to our economy. The good news is that this Government believes in our farmers and growers, and we are going to back them.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): One of the things that surprised me most when I lived overseas was the lower cost of living that resulted. Whether you were talking about utilities, retail, transportation, grocery, or other services, that was the biggest thing I noticed. I think a big part of that is the lack of dynamism and the lack of competitiveness in New Zealand’s sectors. We know that there is a lack of competition in New Zealand. The evidence is clear. There’s a large amount of sectors with a concentration of a few large players that dominate the market. There’s a large presence of high pricing, a lack of new entrants, low levels of innovation, and also of high profit margins.

By these measures, there’s actually a lot of domestic sectors in New Zealand that meet that definition—the grocery sector, my colleague from the New Zealand First Party was talking before about the electricity sector, the telecommunications sector, the airline and transportation sector, and also construction and building, to name but a few. The impact on Kiwis is very clear: higher cost of living as a result.

Banking is one such sector, and the symptoms are clear for us to see. The banking sector, as my colleague Andrew Bayly mentioned, is dominated by four large players, accounting for 90 percent of the banking market. There’s very little evidence of new entrants, a lack of innovation among the top players, and also high pricing and profitability as a result. The impact on Kiwis is very clear in the way of higher interest rates and short-term fixed periods. I mention that because in the US there are 15- to 30-year mortgage periods that people can fix for. In New Zealand, it’s only up to five, and there are extra charges and hidden rates that are applicable.

It is my support in the Commerce Commission’s recent report on the banking sector—the report made it very clear that New Zealand actually has the second highest return on equity in the countries that were studied in banking, so I think the evidence is clear that actually we can and should be doing better as a country.

Out of the 14 recommendations that have been well traversed here today, I just want to highlight a couple of key areas. The first is around making progress on open banking, and that is, I think, an area where this Government is going to make some real progress in terms of allowing banks and actually requiring banks to share information and data with other banks, but also with other potential entrants or players, for example, in the fintech space.

The second such area is around recommendations to empower consumers, because, ultimately, it is about empowering consumers to make the right decision and to get the best outcome as a result. It’s quite clear from the report that actually the banking sector is very opaque. It’s very hard for consumers to understand if they’re getting the best deal and how to switch it to the best deal available.

A number of the report’s recommendations are designed to empower consumers and provide them with the information that they need in order to get a better deal and shop around and reduce the barriers to actually getting a better deal, so, for example, enabling better switching between banks. Right now, it’s very hard if you’ve got a mortgage to switch from one bank to another, and there’s a lot we can do to make sure that that is efficient and streamlined. Standardising the way home loans are presented to customers is another area, and reducing the cost of switching between lenders and making certain clawbacks restricted. Finally, as my colleague Andrew Bayly mentioned, it’s around making sure mortgage advisers work to promote business competition.

So, in summary, this Government is committed to improving competition. It’s all part of our plan to lower the cost of living and get our country back on track.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 and 2

Suze Redmayne: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’ve just got a little bit to do before we start. I appreciate your keenness, though. Members, the House is in committee on the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill. The bill is drafted in clauses. Members will debate the bill clause by clause, starting with clause 1. Members may wish to consider Speakers’ Rulings 127/2, which indicates that clause by clause debates are generally narrow and should confine themselves to the words of the particular clause and issues contained in them. Members, we come first to clause 1. Clause 1 is the debate on the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National): I move that this question be taken as one part.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Are you seeking leave for that?

SUZE REDMAYNE: I seek leave.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): For that.

SUZE REDMAYNE: For this question to be taken as one part.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The new question is that clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 and 2 stand part.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity. This is non-controversial; it just seems like a common-sense piece of work. I just want to note, as I come to my question to the member in charge of this bill, Dan Bidois, that this has had a life of its own, this piece of legislation. It’s gone from the Hon Jacqui Dean, I think it then moved its way to the Hon Melissa Lee, and now—I’d say “the not so honourable”—the member Dan Bidois is shepherding this through the House. I just want to commend you on taking this.

I think, from our perspective, it is good to see. I know that, for myself—and, I think, if you look at the research, you’ll see that gender norms are one of those challenges—men are terrible at this thing. I did look through my wallet this morning, and I do have two expired cards. Sorry to whoever gave them to me for my birthday three years ago.

Anyway, I just want to reflect and ask the member in terms of looking at new Subpart 3A of Part 4A, inserted by clause 5, which, obviously, is the main body of what this is about: the definition. Also, I guess, in general comment, if I can, and then to go into my substantial question, really, it’s around the definition of, obviously, what a card is. I just want to ensure that the definition—and I know it does talk about things like vouchers. I guess, when we say gift card, when it says it on the tin, it’s actually a plastic card, but the question really is: when it comes to gift cards and vouchers, how do we make sure it’s really clear that this is purely online? For example, an app you might have with Barkers, or the Barkers website, as an example—not that I have any expired ones from those; that’s way too flash for me.

The question is just to clarify around the definition, particularly looking at Subpart 3A, section 36WA(d), “a card or voucher supplied”—it says that several times through, “a card or voucher”. I just want to make sure it’s not—because, obviously, as the world continues to move on, how do we make sure this legislation is enduring, so that, actually, it’s not just a physical card or a physical piece of paper or something you get out of your birthday or Christmas card; it actually is the fact that it’s on your phone or the fact that it’s on a website that you access through your emails.

I guess my question is, just to confirm: can you give us assurance that it really is clear that a card or voucher is something that is electronic, is something that is in the cloud, that is something that’s on an app, rather than just a physical document?

Dan Bidois: Do I need to?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes.

Dan Bidois: OK—Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Dan Bidois.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): OK—sorry. Look, it’s a pleasure—thank you very much to the honourable member for the question. Before I answer it, I’ll just maybe say thank you to Minister Melissa Lee and to the Hon Jacqui Dean, of course, for originally shepherding this bill to this stage—it’s my pleasure to take it on board. Unlike the member, I actually don’t have an issue with spending gift cards. In fact, if you ask my wife, I try and do it as quickly as possible and try and get the full value of such gift cards. So, look, it is a good bill. I just want to also thank the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for their work in shepherding it to this stage.

The aim of the bill really is to make sure that consumers get full realisation out of gift cards, therefore applying a minimum expiry date of three years. To the member’s question, the bill actually is very clear on the definition of what is and isn’t a gift card. The select committee, which I’m actually a member on, spent quite a lot of time discussing the extent of what is and is not a gift card. Allow me to just clarify for the member that any kind of electronic gift voucher or card is included in the bill. If there is a Barkers gift card that you have on your app, then that will, of course, come under the definition of the bill. The key here is that they are gift cards or vouchers redeemable for goods and services. I say “redeemable for goods and services” because there are other such cards that are, of course, redeemable for cash, for example, and that wouldn’t come under the bill. That, I think, answers your question of what the definition is of a gift card.

Also, just to take note that the select committee spent a fair amount of time talking about open loop versus closed loop gift cards. Just for the committee, a closed loop gift card is, essentially, one that you get and it is typically redeemable for one place or one chain in New Zealand. An open loop gift card is, essentially, one that is redeemable for many different types of retailers. The place where the select committee got to is to include open loop gift cards. That covers things like Prezzy Cards, which are actually redeemable for a dollar value at any particular outlet that comes under the Prezzy Card family. That’s what is included in the gift card definition.

There is, of course, a clear set of things that are not included as gift cards. I’m happy to go through that as well while I’ve got the time. Goods supplied, or cards supplied in substitution for return goods—for example, if you take something back in, you get a gift card as a result—is not included in the definition. Prepaid cards for utility services are not included in the definitions. Debit or credit cards—things that you can withdraw cash with; typically supplied by financial institutions—are not included in the definition. Cards supplied as part of a customer loyalty programme are not included in the definition. For example, if you get enough points with Air New Zealand and Air New Zealand gives a New World voucher, then that actual voucher is not required to have a minimum expiry date of three years.

There’s also other areas that the select committee talked about with respect to cards or vouchers at limited events. For example, your Gisborne once-a-year annual events or things like that—you won’t need, actually, a minimum expiry date for.

Finally, second-hand gift cards. If you on-sell a gift card, you won’t need to have a new expiry date. Of course, there could be a private market for gift cards, but part of that is just the practicality nature of as well. Also, cards sold for charitable purposes are also not included in the bill.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, I need to thank you and acknowledge all the members who carried that bill before, including the Hon Melissa Lee, and now we’ve got Dan Bidois carrying the bill as well. I think it’s a very great bill, but I’ve also got a question.

I would like the member to explain to me a little bit, especially on new section 36WA. Just now, the member has mentioned some of the cards being excluded in this bill. But, from my personal experience, when I’ve received some gift cards, I’ve used my own money to buy the gift card, or if I actually use my loyalty programme or bonus points to obtain the card, or even if I just buy for a charitable purpose, I don’t see my gift card as different. For example, if it’s six months later on, I probably can’t tell where I got my gift card from. How can I know whether my gift card is included in this legislation? Do you think that will create some kind of confusion for people as well? When we get the card, we probably don’t know where it’s from or can’t remember where it’s from again.

So it would be great if you can actually give a little bit of explanation as to why the select committee decided to exclude all these gift cards with different resources. I’ll be grateful for some clarification. Thank you.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Thank you very much to the member for the question. With this bill, we heard from a number of submitters in the select committee. Look, the vast majority of gift cards in New Zealand are actually used in a rapid period—so within, really, a six- to 12-month period—but there are, of course, a range of New Zealanders that have unexpired gift cards, like the member had mentioned before. Actually, when you look at the proportion of gift cards that this bill covers or it aims to cover, it’s actually quite a small amount.

The next question that the member may wish to ask from that is around why we excluded things or why we included things in the definition of what a gift card is. A part of it is the practicality of this bill and not wanting to over-engineer it or over-police or over-regulate. A part of it is also, actually, to not penalise people that haven’t actually purchased a gift card. The intent of the bill is, essentially, that for those that purchase a gift card, it is very clear to them the period in which they can use it. If they on-sell it or if they then go and auction that same card for a charitable purpose or if they keep it in their drawer and use it for some other type of activity or gift it along to somebody for free, that is something the bill is not really intended to cover.

So that really is, in a sense, why the bill is quite narrow in its definition of what a gift card is. The select committee dealt with this, and the advisers in the select committee were very clear that the definition of what a gift card is needs to be very, very clear. That’s why there is a section in there, and particularly in the commentary as well, around the definition of a gift card, because otherwise you’ll have instances where businesses may try to actually skirt the law to get around what a gift card is so that they don’t need an expiry. Hopefully that addresses the member’s question around the definition of a gift card.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to congratulate the member Dan Bidois yet again for shepherding the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill through the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee in such a capable way. I’m here really to reflect that this is an inconsequential bill in many respects, but, nevertheless, you’ve given it great care and carried it through, and we are here debating it. I do think we could be talking about things like, you know, de-carbonising our electricity system or having more clean cars, etc. But here we are, and so I am pleased that we are going to get this bill sorted once and for all.

I just wanted to think about Subpart 3A, the gift card expiry dates. It is such a detail, but if we are in such detail, why not go there? I don’t want to deny the member the pleasure of explaining in full this bill. I do think it has been worked through, it has been considered, it has been tossed back and forth. I actually feel as though it is part of my family now—not a friendly part of the family; not a confrontational one, either. So when we look at new section 36WC, “Expiry date must appear prominently on the gift card”, what is that going to look like? I don’t really care. But we do need to know that it’s got to be there somewhere, and, you know, it sort of says it’s got to be there in some way, shape, or form. I do remember this being a part of the conversation that we wanted to make sure, because we’re making a change. People knew what they were buying, they knew when it would end, and they did not—as my mother-in-law will do—forget about it in a drawer as other people would do.

I know that many members here don’t use gift cards; they prefer cash. But, for those people who do, for those people who care about these things—there are some people even in the House who care about these things, clearly—how are we going to know? How are we going to be able to see very clearly what the expiry date is? I’m sure the member will be able to give a really good account of just how we’ll do that and why this is just so important.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, congratulations to the member and to my friend Melissa Lee, who was earlier the one who had this bill drawn.

While I agree that it’s really important we deal with climate change and many very important issues, I know that this is an issue that will impact on people, because it’s hard earned money that’s there.

I also note, after the discussions that were just had in this committee session, that the supermarkets, when we asked them how much money they had, actually—

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Point of order, Madam Chair. Sorry, Madam Chair. The clock wasn’t—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Restarted? Oh, they’ve done it now. Thank you very much.

HELEN WHITE: Thank you. We asked them how much money is actually being lost to consumers through these cards. They actually wouldn’t disclose that information because it was confidential. So we actually don’t know how much slippage there is that goes to our supermarkets, which are making quite big profits at the moment.

One of the stories that was told—I think it was pre this, but it was brought up as part of the prep that we did for this—was Mobil putting an expiry date of one year on a $1,500 petrol voucher that had all that money for a long time. And if somebody loses it overnight—it’s a big deal to a family to lose that.

I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that while this was passed by the majority, which means that it was supported by most parties in this House, it was not supported by ACT. ACT in its statement say that we must leave it to business. I’d like the member in charge of the bill to explain why we might not leave it to business in this case; why this might be a real problem for people.

I’d also like, while I’m here, to ask for a comment on the penalties, because this was a piece of work that, as a select committee, we did make quite a radical change in. We have put in quite a high penalty here for not abiding by this. I would like the member to address that and get a chance to explain that, because that was a situation where it really was discussed and a decision was made to put in quite a high penalty. My understanding of that is we put in a higher penalty because people do calculate—well, we’d like to believe everybody is well meaning. People do calculate sometimes and leave these things out and people do get hurt. I would like to hear the member’s view of why we are doing that.

I’d also like to have a little bit of commentary, if possible, on the transition period, because we did make a decision in the committee that this would be a bill which we would give an 18-month transition period to, after Royal assent. Why does the member believe that that was a good idea? Why did we do it?

Finally, I just want to draw—actually, I think the member has addressed the issue of charitable purpose, so I’ll leave it there, but thank you.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, members, for your questions. To the member from the Green Party’s questions around the expiry date: the bill sets out very clearly in new section 36WC the rules for all issuing of gift cards—essentially, that they must display those expiry dates very clearly. At least one of the following: the expiry date, the month and year of gift card access, the date the gift card is sold, or the words “no expiry date”. It’s quite clear the rules and requirements for businesses and organisations that are selling gift cards and what should be presented. To the member’s question: of course, yes, this isn’t solving climate change or improving the productivity of this country, but it is about fairness and it is about making sure that we are doing everything possible to help Kiwis through a cost of living crisis. It is a small change, it is a good change, and I would certainly encourage all parties in the Chamber to support this bill.

To Helen White’s questions, in terms of the minority report from the ACT Party: if I just go to their key arguments that the minority report, essentially, had, and I’ll address those in turn. One is around the unnecessary burden that it places on businesses. Well, we actually have heard in select committee—and I’ve heard from businesses who actually are really supportive of this change and its going through—that it takes away the ability to manage liabilities and financial sustainability. Well, we’ve actually heard that by putting clear rules around expiry dates that, in fact, businesses will be able to have a clear understanding of their liabilities on their balance sheet because of such an expiry date in the future. With respect to leaving it to businesses to decide this: look, again, it is a simple change that businesses and consumers want. We require all sorts of things from businesses, whether it’s the way they set themselves up, the reporting requirements; this is simply a very small requirement for the number of businesses that are involved in the production and selling of gift cards to the country. That addresses the minority report.

The second thing that the member Helen White mentioned was around the penalties. This was well-traversed in the select committee. The penalty regime puts an up-to limit on it that the Commerce Commission will then be able to determine. The maximum amounts are high, and I’ll just go to the section itself which refers to it. The maximum amounts around the infringements are up to $10,000 for an individual and up to $30,000 for a body corporate. That may sound quite high, but it’ll ultimately be for the regulator to determine the nature and the gravity of such an offence and have an appropriate response and infringement because of that.

The next the member had, just in my remaining minute, was around the transition period. We’ve given a transition period for businesses of 18 months. Now, for most businesses, that was actually about the time that they wanted. There are businesses that would like a little bit more time, but who I am confident will adjust to the change. That’s why we extended it to 18 months to allow for businesses to update their systems, to update their training manuals, and to make sure they get rid of their existing stock of gift cards, because those are the ones that actually will not have expiry dates on them.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. You’ll have to forgive me if I sound a little bit like the MP for Wairarapa at the moment. I don’t have a lot of voice this week. But I do want to speak on this bill. In particular, I want to ask the member about the three-year time frame and how we landed on that number. We’ve heard some examples from the other side of the committee, particularly all of them so far are around large corporates. I’m more thinking about the smaller businesses in the Horowhenua and in Kāpiti that are impacted by this.

I think we’ve all had the experience—I have to confess that, at Christmas last year, when I was eventually persuaded, convinced, told to tidy up the wardrobe, I found a Mitre 10 gift card from the previous Christmas, which had then expired, of course, because it’s from the date of sale, not the actual date of Christmas when I got it. I always love to support Vince and Trish; they do great stuff in the community, from our local Mitre 10. But we’ve all had that experience.

How did we shift to three years and how is it that we landed on exactly three years? I think about the small businesses in Ōtaki that are potentially impacted by this. I’m interested to know the feedback that you had during maybe the select committee process, and, of course, as you’ve traversed this bill through the legislative process with that three years. I was pleased to hear the comment, if not surprised, from the other side of the committee, there was a petrol station example, and, hey, this is Kiwis’ hard-earned money. I commend that view from the other side of the committee. I wish we had it for the last six years when they were spending taxes, to be fair. It is people’s hard-earned money. How did we land on a balance of three years?

I understand the purpose of this bill is, of course, to extend the longevity of these cards, to extend the date range through which they can be used so that Kiwis get a fair shot at using what they have invested—to use that expression—their hard-earned money into, to make sure they can actually redeem it and use it. But, of course, there has to be a balance to this, these gift cards. Although I acknowledge the company has received the money at one point in time, they ultimately become also a liability on the books for businesses. As time goes on—and I think that’s the last six years and rampant inflation that we were suffering, of course—what was paid for for $20 at one point, three years later—

Cameron Brewer: Worth nothing—worth nothing.

TIM COSTLEY: Well, there’s some truth to that, right? Suddenly, the liability level changes. There has to be a balancing of these points, a fairness to Kiwi consumers to be able to go and redeem what they paid for, or their loved one who maybe gave this to them as a gift, but balancing that against a pragmatic approach to the small businesses that are doing their best.

I think of another great local business in Otaihanga that I was speaking with recently. They were saying that the business being sold impacted a number of regulations, but there are a number of our smaller businesses that maybe don’t have the full reckons of exactly what liability they hold in terms of some of these vouchers, and if it’s three years down the track, it sold after two years, how much of a liability is this? That may present some issues.

I’m interested in how it is that we were able to land on that three-year period. It seems to me that that’s a pretty balanced view that you’ve taken, but I’m really interested to know perhaps what feedback you’ve had. Have you heard from small businesses, and not just the big chains that we’ve heard about from the other side of the committee but from the small businesses, the local businesses, mum and dad that have been going out there?

It was a good point that was made about different forms that these cards and vouchers can come on—online, through apps. I think the spirit of the intent of the bill is pretty clear in terms of what you want to capture. For these smaller businesses, what feedback specifically have we heard from them? Was there consideration, for example, given to a two-year or a five-year or not even having a limit? I heard from some people, earlier on in the process, that maybe there shouldn’t be a limit at all, that once there is an exchange of monetary value, should there be that? I think, as I’ve said, we have to balance up the pragmatic approach for these businesses, that there must be a finite point so that that liability can be moved off the books one way or another. There is some fairness that if you’ve got this, albeit it might be lost in my wardrobe, but it needs to be spent at some point. I don’t think we want that to carry on for ever.

I wouldn’t be doing this justice if I didn’t represent the small businesses from places like Foxton and Levin and Ōtaki, from Waikanae, from Paraparaumu, and just making sure that we have heard from those businesses. Have we heard that and did that support us landing on this date of three years in terms of balancing up the consumer and the business needs? I’d be interested in hearing the member’s comments on that.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Madam Chair, thank you. I thank the member from Ōtaki for his question. I know that it comes from a place of strong advocacy for the small-business community in his electorate.

There are a lot of gift cards that currently have around a 12-month expiry date. The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee actually heard a range of submissions around different levels and length of periods for the expiry dates. Actually, in fact, if you look overseas, the US and Ireland have a five-year minimum term for expiry dates. Canada actually doesn’t have an expiry date limit, so it actually requires no expiry date on it at all. So the select committee considered a wide range of recommendations around the level of years for the expiry, and the committee felt that, actually, the three years we landed on was about the right balance, which is what the member wanted to hear about.

Personally, I think there was a sort of strong case to go even further, and we did have submissions that were advocating for such. Where we landed was certainly that three years was about the right balance—the balance between empowering consumers but also making sure that businesses don’t end up with a perpetual liability on their balance sheets.

In terms of the member’s questions around consulting really, really small businesses, we did have submissions from, for example, Booksellers Aotearoa New Zealand that does represent a lot of small, independent booksellers in New Zealand; also, Retail New Zealand, which represents a huge amount of small retail outlets across the country, and they were certainly of the view of, actually, I think, supportive of at least a three-year minimum expiry, or further.

So, again, the member’s questions, I think, really were about balance. I think the select committee got the right balance based on the submissions and the feedback that we heard in the select committee process.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Yeah, I don’t want to prosecute too much more because obviously we’re in almost all agreement across the House. But I have got some amendments on the Table, so I thought I’d just quickly address them just to sort of check in because, you know, I mean we’re probably towards the end of litigating—we’re repeating ourselves a lot.

I just thought what I would—firstly, the member mentioned around the 18-month time frame. I have an amendment to replace 18 months with 12 months just to, like—what I see is most people are ready to go and it’s actually not a lot that needs to be done to change the systems. Why would it be 18 months? Why can’t it just be 12 months? I know you had conversations in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee about this.

Secondly, this is around clause 1, the title. Currently, it’s the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill. I thought we could replace “Gift Card Expiry”, and there’s a few options I’ve put on the Table. “Gift Cards Consumer Protection” is one I thought sort of said more about what this is actually about. The second one I had was “Consumer Rights for Gift Cards” or the “Gift Card Expiry Protection” or “Fair Gift Card Expiry”. The reason I’m using these words is really—and I did hear earlier from across the floor—around fairness. It’s actually around fairness. It’s around the consumer in terms of this is money we’re talking about. We’re actually just talking about cash in different forms. I guess I have those on the Table. I don’t want to go on too much longer because I think we can kind of come to agreement on that.

I sort of think I really want to put on the table to you the 12 months—why not? And then the title, potentially, just so it’s actually, you know, a powerful statement when you talk about fairness, when you talk about protection, and when you talk about consumer rights. So those are my amendments on the Table. I look forward to hearing from the member.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, Glen Bennett’s stolen my thunder because I was going to talk about this exact same amendment. He’s actually cut himself short because there’s 10 full amendments on this paper and he’s only read out a few of them. One of my favourite ones is the “Gift Card Extended Expiry for Forgetful People” title. Now, I thought that’s quite harsh. And I think that’s a direct attack on Cameron Brewer, I think that is.

I wanted to ask some questions around how this particular amendment would actually work. I know in the past when you put a number of amendments up, they can be tested one by one, to a point, to get a sample of whether or not the committee is in favour of the particular amendment or not. I know Mr Bennett has listed 10 amendments here. The question, I think—and this is probably a question for the presiding officer rather than the member in charge—is whether or not we get the opportunity to consider those all one by one or perhaps at the end we’ll take one at a time, or whether this is an entire amendment on one tabled amendment.

If you read this amendment literally, what you’re asking to do is you’re asking to delete the words “Gift Card Expiry” and then replace it with 10 different titles. I’m not quite sure how that works as one amendment on one paper and whether or not we have to put these on 10 different amendments. It’s been a long time since I’ve done one of these, but I wanted to just raise that as a point that the member didn’t actually manage to address and get to. I won’t read through all 10 of his very exceptional amendments that we’ll hopefully get to consider later on, but maybe some other members would like to address them as well.

I just wanted to congratulate the member in charge of the bill. I was speaking to him earlier today and he said that this is—and he literally said this—the third best day of his life. You know, birth of his child, marriage to his wife, committee stage reading of the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill. And, look, I tell you what, what better gift on a wedding day or for the birth of your first-born child than a gift card? I’m not sure—I don’t have any children—where you would go shopping for a delightful cot or a pram or children’s clothing. But what about just the fundamental go-to gift card of a Prezzy Card? You know, the catch-all.

What do you get mum for her birthday when she’s over in Australia on a cruise and when she gets back, you want her to spend her money here in New Zealand. What about a Prezzy Card? Hey, that’s the one thing that people can rely on. Then, lo and behold, you give your mum the Prezzy Card for her birthday on 7 August and then it gets to 8 August 2025. She looks in her wallet, her pocket, and all of a sudden the $150 gift card that I’ve generously given to my mother for her 60th birthday—unable to be used. This is the problem that this bill is trying to solve.

It’s the problem of lost Prezzy Cards, lost Mitre 10 cards, and it’s the problem that the member in charge of the bill has so successfully prosecuted today.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): And does the member have a question?

JAMES MEAGER: Oh, a question to the member. Well, I was getting so carried away. I guess the question to the member is, well, first of all, does the member consider any of Glen Bennett’s amendments as something worth considering by him, by the committee of the whole House? I know he’s the member in charge of the bill, and I think, generally, we should defer to what the member in charge of the bill would like the bill to be called. But, in terms of the amendments put forward by Mr Bennett, I’d be interested to know what the member’s thoughts are on that. Then, of course, we’ve got the second amendment, which was the 18 months or 12 months. I would like to know why we need 18 months to get this in place. I mean, it might have something to do with the fact that most gift cards are expiring at 12 months and so you need that little bit of lead in time afterwards. I’d be interested to know about that.

I actually have something to disagree with the member in charge of the bill. He mentioned a couple of calls ago that, you know, this bill won’t solve climate change. I think that’s selling this bill a little short because can you think of the tens of thousands of plastic petrochemical-derived gift cards that are floating around in the world that have to be renewed year after year, printed and developed year after year after year, filling up our landfills, filling up our waste sites. What this bill may do, surely, it’s going to reduce the number of plastic gift cards by at least two-thirds, if my maths is correct. Actually, I don’t know if the maths is correct there. Let’s not sell this bill short. It may go some way to reducing the impacts of climate change by reducing our reliance on plastic gift cards.

Finally, I’m surprised to hear that Canada has an unlimited gift card expiry in their system. Those crazy Canucks, eh? But I wonder if we were to ever enter into a purely free-trade agreement with Canada, what implications would that have? What if I brought a gift card in New Zealand which could be used over in Canada? What’s the expiry date there? How do these gift card expiry rules transgress international boundaries? If it’s unlimited expiry in Canada, can I send my Prezzy Card over to my brother who’s studying over in Canada, get him to hold on to it and have the expiry be unlimited until I want to spend it on some goods and products to bring back to New Zealand? There’s a number of questions there for the member that I’d be very interested in as we just get started on this debate this afternoon.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Madam Chair, thank you, and thank you to the members for your questions. With respect to the transition time, yes, I think the bill as it was introduced to the House had a 12-month transition time. The feedback from the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—and, in fact, there were several submitters in that select committee process that specifically asked for longer, particularly if Prezzy Cards were going to be included as part of the definition of a “gift card”. That is, in part, because of the volume of gift cards, as member James Meager from Rangitata mentioned, that are in circulation. There’s a lot of gift cards that are actually about the 12-month expiry date, so, in fact, an 18-month deadline gives the chance for businesses to clear the backlog of those that are in circulation and then begin issuing new ones with the expiry date. But it’s also really for making sure that the businesses have the systems in place and that they also have the training in place for staff to be able to actually go ahead and deal with this change.

It was actually on the basis of that that the select committee chose to extend the transition period for this bill from 12 months to 18 months. Believe it or not, there are businesses out there that issue gift cards that would prefer to have slightly longer. I think that this is about the right balance to get this bill right. It is about fairness. It is about striking the right balance between consumers and also businesses. And in a cost of living crisis where everything matters, we want to make sure that consumers have full opportunity to take advantage of those gift cards, and also that businesses can minimise the cost of actually transitioning to such a new arrangement. I think we’ve got the right balance there for that.

In terms of the member Glen Bennett’s proposed changes to the name of the bill, I think the name of the bill is a fair representation of the intent of the bill, which is gift card expiry. Certainly my view is that that is the appropriate name of such a bill.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on this bill. I’ve got a number of questions from a technical perspective on this bill. Hopefully they have been considered through the process. I know that this is a good bill and the sort of thing that we need to have changed. I was looking on my counter this morning at a gift card, and I actually don’t know when it expires. I am worried about that, which leads to my first question, because I know that we need to keep this focused on the bill. But, as I say, I have a number of questions that might take me more than one call to ask them all.

The first is: did the member consider, in this process, having different expiry dates based on the value of a gift card? I’m thinking of the card on my table at home. I think it’s a $20 one I was given. I understand if that needs to be a bit quicker—it could be a year, could be two years, could be three years—but a longer expiry for the larger-value gift card, such as the one mentioned by my learned colleague the member Rangitata.

This leads into my second question and a concern I have around the bill, as a chartered accountant, from a financial perspective, from the perspective of annual financial accounts: how much consideration and testing occurred around the compliance costs that this will add to business? If it’s a year that you have for a gift card being expired or expiring, then there’s an argument to say it’s immaterial if it’s not included in the accounts of a small business at the end of their financial year. But, if it’s three years, how much thought was given?

I’m really asking this question not to challenge the bill and the fairness and the core of the bill, but rather to get guidance from the member to small business owners listening to this inquisitive parliamentary session this afternoon about the implementation of the bill post it being passed by this House—maybe not this evening, but in due course. What testing occurred around the compliance costs that would be added? Did, for example, the Australia New Zealand institute of chartered accountants submit on the bill and the cost that would be incurred around consideration? Was there any thought given to what would have to be provided as evidence to back up the liability that will now sit on the balance sheet of businesses? That really is part of my second question related to new section 36WC, “The expiry date must appear”, and how that relates to liability.

Turning then, as part of that thinking, to the role of startups. I know our Minister of Finance is very keen for us to be encouraging business. We need more business to support the productivity growth we need in this country after six years of challenge. I’m just concerned whether or not any consideration was given to the mental wellbeing of people who are looking to start up businesses and the infringement-offence regime that will be brought in with this and whether there’s an ability to differentiate.

I’d be happy to provide an Amendment Paper, if the member was supportive of this sort of thinking, to allow that start-up, that new business, those people that are taking some money from friends for a voucher for something that they’re looking to get going, to have a little bit more flexibility as to how they go on the journey of starting a business, versus the larger organisations, the corporates, the franchises that have a much more organised system for the management of gift vouchers and cards. I’m thinking about this in the context of when I advised businesses.

I might need to take another call on my other questions. But, in my prior role when I advised businesses, one of the things I always said to them was, “If you can’t get people to buy what you are promising, what you’re looking to do, then maybe it’s not a good idea.” Often a voucher would be a way of doing that, of starting that journey. So I am genuinely concerned about the difference between the start-up businesses and the larger companies.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next call, can I just say this is quite a small piece of legislation and the scenarios are very nice to hear, but I think we’re drifting quite wide of the mark. I’ll just ask members to come back to the specifics in the bill.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the closure motion, I’m just warning members that we need new material. Otherwise, I will take a closure. Carl Bates—if you’ve got further questions.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Madam Chair, I have one last point, and I will make it quick—I will make it quick. In relation to the “gift card” definition—and it’s noted here that it means “means a card or voucher” etc., and I won’t read out the full definition. But I did have three questions related to that around what it excluded or included, because, in my mind, a card is something physical. So I wanted to ask: does the definition of “gift card” include virtual gift cards, or are they excluded? It doesn’t say they’re excluded.

Glen Bennett: Repetition. We’ve asked that.

CARL BATES: This is new. It doesn’t say they’re excluded, but it doesn’t also say they’re included. I did want to clarify, in terms of the intent of the legislation.

The second part of the gift card question relates a little to what the MP for Rangitata said before around the international context. If a voucher is sold in New Zealand, is there a distinction between a domestic gift card—so one for a domestic business—and, for example, if I was to go online and buy an international music voucher for my wonderful wife to say, “I love you”, this evening, would that be included in the definition of “gift card”?

Those were my questions. I don’t have any new material other than those questions, but I would appreciate answers from the honourable member to the questions I have raised this evening. Thank you.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to thank the member from the Whanganui electorate, Carl Bates, for his thoughtful questions; I know this comes from a place of strong advocacy in his local electorate.

The questions that he raised around different expiry dates for different values: we didn’t consider this, and it would actually make the bill very difficult to enforce. For simplicity terms we just want one blanket expiry date that all businesses and that all industries can adhere to when looking after and issuing gift cards.

The second is around testing compliance costs for businesses. The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee didn’t really get specific advice around it, but we did ask submitters around the likely costs. Firstly, most if not all businesses in the select committee process were very, very supportive of having a standardised and consistent process for the expiration of gift cards. When we inquired about what are the types of costs that businesses face, the largest cost was really around the physical gift cards that are already in circulation. That is why the select committee chose to make the transition period long enough so that those organisations that produce and sell gift cards have enough time to clear their backlog—and some companies actually have quite a substantial amount of gift cards in their production facilities—to make sure that they can get rid of those gift cards and prepare the new regime going forward. The other costs that we explored was, certainly, around the training requirements involved, the IT systems as well, and the physical systems around the recording of the expiry date in the gift cards as well.

The member raised points around mental wellbeing of start-ups and whether the infringement fees impinge on that. The infringement fee that was mentioned is an “up to” limit and that accounts for the size and the extent of such an offence in New Zealand. If you were a small business and you were caught selling gift cards, then the authorities and your regulator will be able to take that into account and penalise you in the order of the magnitude of such an offence and the size of the business. Then, on the other hand, if there are, in fact, businesses, for example, large corporates who display a recurring and ongoing flout of the law, then the regulator will be able to take that into account as well. So that is why it is an “up to” figure. Certainly it doesn’t look good when you read the law, but the good news for this House is that most small businesses and start-ups don’t read the laws. They just get out there and they just start up a business and they read the laws retrospectively when they’re required to. That addresses this issue.

The last question the member had was around the inclusion of online gift cards and, as I previously stated with the honourable member Glen Bennett, online gift cards are actually included in the definition of this bill; that is included in the definition because of the nature of more and more gift cards being issued. Thank you.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): 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 56

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11.

Motion not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I call Vanessa Weenink, but just before the member starts, I have been watching this debate about the expiry of the gift cards, and I actually feel like a lot of the points in this debate have expired. I’m really, really looking for new things. Thank you.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Chair. I can see that my colleagues on this side are very enthusiastic and have got more questions to ask, which is great. There’s some—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just make sure they are questions and new ones.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Yep. There are some areas that we haven’t traversed very much at all, and we’d just like a little bit of clarity around them. This is a really important issue for some of us who have those cards sitting in our wallets. Like Catherine Wedd explained really eloquently during the second reading, she told a great story about how her husband had a way of trying to make sure that they actually used those gift cards. He stuck them to the inside of the wardrobe to try and see whether or not they could actually use those gift cards. People are trying all sorts of things. Now, one of these—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Which clause in the bill does that relate to?

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: The clause in the bill that I’m going to ask the question about is about the transport and utilities, and ask why it was that we decided to exclude those ones, because some people like to have pragmatic gifts, and sometimes a pragmatic gift might be to have a Snapper or an AT HOP card. I think, generally, from my perspective anyway, gift cards are a poor choice of gift—the extremely unromantic choice—so that was one where I’d ask why that particular one was excluded.

The other thing that I just wanted to get a bit of a fine point and clarity on from the member was that we were talking before about the infringements. There was a clause inserted—clause 9—and, basically, that makes it an offence under section 40(1B) of the Fair Trading Act and says that there could be infringement notices applied by regulation. You were just talking about this before in your previous answers about the infringement notices being $1,000, and my understanding of that is that each instance of infringement would then incur that amount of money, or a fine not exceeding $10,000 for an individual, or $30,000 for a body corporate.

With some of the ways that infringement notices are applied, how can we actually see that that is enough of a disincentive, because other people have just this afternoon pointed out some really egregious examples that we’ve heard as this was going through the select committee process. One was where a $1,500 gift voucher was allowed to expire, and, actually, the company that it was provided by was asked to back that up and to actually honour that, but it chose not to honour that gift card. It was of quite a high value, and much higher than previous examples, like the member for Rangitata with his $150 gift voucher—

James Meager: Oh, very generous.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: —though it’s still a very significant amount of money. I’m just wondering whether the member thinks that those infringement notices are enough, given that we do have quite big potential fines for people, which do not exceed $10,000, or $30,000 for a body corporate. This is asking around the purpose of that and asking what effect we think that has—whether it’s a big enough effect—for the size of the impact that this has on people’s lives, and also just say a little bit more about the transport and utilities, and we did keep out of that during the select process.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I wish to thank the member for Banks Peninsula for her constructive questions. The first was around why we excluded transport and utility services cards from the definition of a gift card, and, essentially, it goes back to the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is really around gift cards that are purchased normally for the gifting to other individuals, so it was felt that, typically, when you purchase a transport card like an AT HOP card, normally it’s for yourself or an individual in your family, and it’s for your own use. Yes, you can, in fact, gift it on, and many do, but the primary purchase is actually for individual use. That is why we excluded transport and utility gift cards from the definition.

The second area the member asked about was the infringement notices, and, yes, the member is right that there are infringement notices that can be offered and issued to organisations that are found to be in violation of the expiry date law. They are $1,000 for an infringement notice issued, and that gives the authorities the ability to quickly issue notices of an offence. If there are infringement offences under the Fair Trading Act, then there is a process for the Commerce Commission to get involved and for the authorities to issue a fine of up to $10,000 for an individual—which is hefty, but, again, it is “up to”—which will be assessed on the basis of the size and the nature of the offence, and it is $30,000 for a body corporate.

Just going back to the previous question from the member for Whanganui, Carl Bates, who asked the insightful question about the application of this bill to overseas organisations. Of course, this bill only applies to businesses inside New Zealand’s borders—for example, to gift cards sold in New Zealand. That is a clear way for the bill to apply only in New Zealand. If they’re offered to New Zealanders online, then that is part of the legislation, but it does not apply to overseas organisations as a result of this bill.

CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is, now, that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Gift Card Expiry” with “Gift Card Consumer Protection” stand part.

Motion not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Gift Card Expiry” with “Consumer Rights for Gift Cards” stand part.

Motion not agreed to.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Point of order, Madam Chair. My understanding was, at your advice, that they can all be taken as one. Or do they all have to be done separately for clause 1?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I will just check.

GLEN BENNETT: If I may be of assistance, I seek leave to untable my tabled amendments to help everybody.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Given that leave was sought for that and turned down for that purpose, the advice is that I need to go through each of these.

The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Gift Card Expiry” with “Gift Card Expiry Protection” stand part.

Motion not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Gift Card Expiry” with “Fair Gift Card Expiry” stand part.

Motion not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Gift Card Expiry” with “Gift Card Valid Indefinitely” stand part.

Motion not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Gift Card Expiry” with “Gift Card Extended Expiry for Forgetful People” is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill. The question is that Glen Bennett’s—

Hon Member: Glen’s trifling with the Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think we’re all losing objectivity here. The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Gift Card Expiry” with “Extended Gift Card Validity” stand part.

Motion not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Gift Card Expiry” with “Gift Card Expiry Reform” stand part.

Motion not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Gift Card Expiry” with “Extended Gift Card Use” stand part.

Motion not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill” with “Gift Card Validity Fairness Amendment Bill” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

The question is that Glen Bennett’s tabled amendment to clause 2 stand part.

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

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 and 2 stand part.

Clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

LAURA TRASK (ACT): Point of order. Can we party vote that? Sorry, I did say no, but very quietly. You didn’t hear me.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, the result’s been declared, so it’s a little late. Sorry, you’ll have to speak up a little louder.

Tim van de Molen: You can seek leave.

LAURA TRASK: Can I seek leave to have that amended, please?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I can seek leave to take the vote again. Are you seeking leave for that?

LAURA TRASK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection, so the motion stands as it was agreed.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 31 July.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m happy to speak on the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill. This bill is quite significant because it addresses one of the loopholes that has been created. In the words of the Retirement Commissioner, Jane Wrightson, she mentioned that the current state of the Act, when it comes to KiwiSaver and superannuation, goes against the essence of what KiwiSaver is supposed to be. I would like to thank Dr Tracey McLellan for actually bringing this bill to the House.

In the broader context of this bill, the reason that it was introduced is that in the review done by Te Ara Ahunga Ora - Retirement Commission, 45 percent of employers used a total remuneration approach to KiwiSaver for at least some, if not all, of their employees. Also, 21 percent of them admitted that it was because it is cheaper for the business. So, in many ways, that is not done in good faith and in line with what we wanted to see when it comes to KiwiSaver.

This has a lot of implications, both in terms of superannuation but also in terms of KiwiSaver, because the essence of it is that we wanted to see our elderly, when they are at retirement age, being able to benefit from such a scheme not at the cost of their own salary and their own income. In a 2023 review, 20 percent—we’re seeing that now, 20 percent—of our elderly over the age of 65 no longer own their own home. It is projected that in 24 years, 40 percent of them will no longer own their own home. And those are people of my age and generation. This is significant because if we have a system where we allow employers this ability to actually create a system where the KiwiSaver is built into a person’s natural salary, it actually means that not only will they have less to spend later on in life when they’re getting ready to retire, but they also have less to go on now.

When it comes to this particular scheme and when we have employers using a total remuneration approach, if we are looking at the current status of the minimum wage and roughly an annual income of about $48,000, having 3 percent of your income being built into your KiwiSaver amounts to roughly $27 a week. If this bill is introduced and passed in the House and employers are no longer able to exploit this particular element, we will see New Zealanders who are on a low to medium salary actually benefiting more than what this Government has put in in terms of their tax cuts. If the Government is really keen on having people benefiting more and having more income after tax in people’s pockets, they should be able to support this particular bill.

Indeed, in the first reading, the members from the opposite side actually mentioned that they have noticed that there is an issue and that this is a genuine and potential problem, and the National Party in particular did support this bill through the first reading. However, we have seen in the second reading that there is this kind of flippity-flop thing where they then suddenly came back and said, “Oh, this is an ideological bill and it’s a bill that is seeking a problem.” This completely goes against what they said in the first reading. A question there would be: what happened between these two readings? Why, then, did the Government support the first reading but not the second?

This particular bill would be significant, and this particular bill is going to be significant, for those people who are struggling with the cost of living already. I would like to encourage, as we progress this bill, the Government, who claims that their tax cuts benefit low and middle income New Zealanders and that they are doing everything right for low and middle income New Zealanders, to seriously consider supporting this bill through the committee stage and through the third reading, because this would genuinely help those people. Thank you.

LAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of our member Todd Stephenson who sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee through this. ACT does not recommend that this bill be passed, for various reasons. One is because we believe this bill would negatively impact the relationship between the employee and employer. The majority of employers act responsibly when it comes to the employee’s KiwiSaver membership. Flexibility should also be maintained in relation to the total remuneration approach. This is a benefit for both the employer and the employee.

This bill creates uncertainty for employers by creating a new circumstance in which new personal grievances could be made, including when they might alter existing employment relationships. This is something we clearly do not agree with. We do not believe that creating more hoops for businesses to jump through under the Employment Relations Act is productive for employees and employers, and we believe this bill needlessly adds more unnecessary State involvement into the private sector.

We take on board the recommendation of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The majority of the committee ultimately do not agree that the bill should be passed. That is the rest of my speech for tonight. Thank you.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill. Like the previous speaker, Laura Trask, New Zealand First does not support the passage of this bill any further. But it was interesting as a new member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—it was one of the first bills I got to hear submissions on. It was a bill that came from the 53rd Parliament, so New Zealand First didn’t have a vote, obviously, on the first reading of this.

It was interesting that, when submissions were called for this bill, we received only 14 submissions. Of those 14 submissions, we only heard two oral submissions in hearings. One of those submissions that we did hear was from BusinessNZ, and I will come back to the BusinessNZ submission because it actually is quite enlightening, some of the points that they brought up during the oral hearing.

So, firstly, when we actually did hear and read the submissions, it was actually really hard to work out what the problem was. Obviously, the member in charge, Tracey McLellan, had taken the time to put the member’s bill up, but, like many things when these things are explored more, the research that was done in the background actually showed that there isn’t a problem that is really raising its head. It was actually asked of the officials on probably about three occasions, “Please come back and give us some real-life examples of where this is actually happening”, and that wasn’t happening through the select committee process. As I alluded to, we received 14 submissions and, actually, only had two of those submissions turn up and actually speak to the select committee and kind of raise that concern of what is actually the problem here.

There’s no doubt that New Zealand First supports KiwiSaver and the benefits that has given to New Zealanders. Actually, the KiwiSaver is something I think we can all be proud of as New Zealanders. It has got a history, and I think it was around 2007 when the KiwiSaver scheme was introduced—or finally introduced. That took a number of years. I even remember in my teenage years—it was probably the late 1990s or early 2000s—the Rt Hon Winston Peters at the time discussing long-term savings. If I remember right, in my earlier days—before paying too much attention to politics—there was actually a referendum on that. I think that people of the day were not as happy about a compulsory scheme, and that’s where that fell over. But, later on, obviously, where ideas grow and people think a bit more about it, this KiwiSaver scheme was born. Credit to the Hon Michael Cullen, who was the finance Minister of the time who actually introduced this.

Over time, the KiwiSaver scheme, as we know, has grown, and there’s over 3.25 million people in that scheme. As I say, going forward as a country, it is going to be of benefit to all of us because the main intention behind KiwiSaver is to save more for our retirement. That’s a goal for all of us as we grow older—actually having KiwiSaver in our back pocket, as you would like to say. But KiwiSaver’s also given other benefits, obviously, over time, with younger people being able to access their scheme and actually put money towards their first home. Those kinds of incentives, I think, have been really, really good.

As I say, KiwiSaver is an opt-in and an opt-out scheme. Obviously, through the submissions, and through the BusinessNZ submission, that voluntary system that is there at the moment also allows the opportunity for employers and employees to have a discussion when someone is first taken on into a role. There’s an approach, under section 101B, called the total remuneration approach. That total remuneration approach is a discussion that happens at the beginning of your employment. In some cases, employees and employers take that amount—whether it’s $30 an hour or $27 an hour—and, under a total remuneration approach, your full salary, including KiwiSaver, could be included in that amount.

The argument that was put forward in this bill was that someone in the KiwiSaver scheme shouldn’t be discriminated against for being in the KiwiSaver scheme. Basically, they were saying, if you were getting $27 an hour, it should be on top. But the logic here is there’s already that initial discussion around that total remuneration approach, and that actually solves a lot of the issues. As I say, we just did not hear the concerns through the submissions.

The thing I did learn through the BusinessNZ submission, which I did want to allude to, was there is protection already for people on the minimum wage. And, to note, if someone is on the minimum wage, you can’t pay them less than the minimum wage. You can’t take KiwiSaver back and then add it on to get to the minimum wage—it has to be minimum wage plus. For a lot of the things that this was trying to fix, there is already initial protection there. That is also a benefit that is already in the scheme.

So, overall, New Zealand First will not support the passage of this bill. It believes that the mechanisms already in place are enough. This is also a time, at the moment, with obstacles around business, and one has to look at putting more work on to businesses when they’re struggling, and also those relationships. As I say, with the relationship at the moment and the way that total remuneration package is put together, it makes sense to keep that as it is.

The main reason New Zealand First will not support the passage is that there was just a lack of evidence on the ground. We just did not hear, through those submissions, the need to actually support this bill any further. On that, New Zealand First will not support the passage of the bill any further through the House. I do not commend the bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): The Green Party’s really happy to be supporting this bill because, ultimately, this is about protecting our workers, making sure that people have good wages and that there’s just no discrimination in the workplace in relationship to those people that may be on a KiwiSaver scheme or otherwise. This is common sense. Those protections should be in place and should never have been removed. As we have a growing ageing population, it’s critical that we actually bolster the support mechanisms that exist for people to retire with enough savings and the safety net to allow them to lead good lives, because the number of older people who are renting and who are living in poverty is increasing. The last thing we want is people being discriminated against based on whether they are on a KiwiSaver scheme or otherwise.

It’s really interesting how, for the passage of this bill, the rhetoric from the National Party members in particular has changed, because if I look back at the contributions from the first reading—and I’m just going to quote Simon Watts here from the first reading—he basically talked about how this is a good bill. He specifically talked about—he didn’t want to speak long—how they were going to be supporting this bill. Then we also got the first reading speech from Hon Paul Goldsmith, who said that this bill had identified a problem.

But then how quickly we move to, say, other types of rhetoric in the contribution from Louise Upston in the second reading, saying that this was an ideological bill. So what changed? Was it the baubles of office that made them change their position, or was it easier to take a position of supporting this bill when in Opposition? Ultimately, this is at the expense of workers. I guess it should come as no surprise that at the second reading, the National Party MPs are showing their true colours and turning their backs on workers, as they have done, actually, throughout the passage of legislation while they’ve been in Government.

The Green Party will continue supporting our workers to ensure that they can retire with a safety net that allows them to live with dignity. No one in the workplace should face discrimination for the type of retirement scheme that they’re in. To hear the New Zealand First MP Jamie Arbuckle talk about how minimum wage workers will be protected anyway, I guess, just reeks of the kind of low-wage economy that Government members are quite comfortable having, because, ultimately, we want people to earn good wages, not just to be on the minimum wage. Having those protections in place actually guarantees that workers can continue to grow their wages without that discrimination happening. At the end of the day, members can’t have it both ways. They can’t continue the discrimination that workers face when it comes to having a good retirement plan and keep, say, the superannuation below the poverty line for many of our older people who will continue to be renting as they retire.

The Government side of this Parliament is accepting that we’re going to have more people living in poverty as they retire. This bill would have protected some workers by boosting their incomes throughout their lifetime as they work towards retirement. At the end of the day, we should not accept that any older person has to live in poverty, so we commend the member who brought this bill forward, and we do hope that the Government takes the wellbeing of our ageing population seriously. Let’s not mistake the breadcrumbs that they’ve given our communities as genuine safety nets for those people that are doing it tough.

Finally, I just want to say it’s good to have these receipts from the National Party MPs, where they were quite happy to pretend they were supporting this bill at first reading and, then, somehow turned their backs without actually explaining why. I think that part of the problem I have is they haven’t really explained and articulated what exactly changed from their kind of uncritical voices of support at first reading to now calling it an ideological bill, because every bill is ideological, actually. There’s no such thing as lack of ideology in this House when it comes to legislation. You literally can’t take politics away from Parliament—this is a political space. So let’s just make it clear: all the National Party is doing is showing their true colours by, once again, voting against a bill that would have protected workers.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill. I want to congratulate the member who has got the bill to this stage. It was a pleasure to actually have it in front of the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

I want to address a couple of the issues raised by the Green member Ricardo Menéndez March. He asked what had happened between the first reading and the second reading. Well, I don’t know if he’s aware, but it went through a select committee process. Madam Speaker, as I’m sure you are aware, the select committee process is the major part of our legislative process. All of our members in the House are members on select committees, and they put a lot of work into select committees. One major part of that, of course, is scrutinising legislation, calling for submissions, reading submissions very carefully, hearing oral evidence from those submitters, and then going through a process with very hard-working officials and select committee staff to try and improve the bill and to take note of submitters’ issues that they had raised or ways the bill could be improved, and, indeed, in some cases, coming to a different view. That is what has happened for the National Party. I think that shows pragmatism. I think that shows the select committee process actually working as it was supposed to do.

I want to thank all of those people who did submit. There weren’t that many submissions, I have to admit, and we only had two that appeared before the select committee, as my colleague Jamie Arbuckle mentioned in his good speech on this bill. That, as Jamie so eloquently put it, really brought it home for the New Zealand First member on the select committee that this was, essentially, a solution looking for a problem, well-meaning as it is, and that it has a good outcome on the face of it. That’s why, at first reading, we supported the bill. It looked like it was going to really provide something and bring something to the table.

Unfortunately, once we got into it, it actually became quite obvious that there were some issues with it. It was going to add complexity. Really, that solution wasn’t going to be that great. If, as was indicated by the Green member just previously, there was such an issue, if it was such an issue for workers, where were they at the select committee process? Where were they? Why didn’t they submit?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: They were working.

STUART SMITH: Oh, they were working! They were working. OK. Well, people came out in large numbers for a whole lot of things. If it really means anything—nowadays, we do take submissions, particularly on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I think all the committees do, by Zoom. People could come during their lunch hour—usually it’s five minutes for an individual, but maybe it depends on the select committee; it could be more like 10 minutes—for a submission. It’s not asking them to take a day out of their work life and a significant impost on their pay. I really do recognise those people who the previous member was talking about, those people on the lower incomes. Absolutely. There’s no way that we would expect them to sacrifice a day’s work for something like that. If they really did think there was an issue, they would have found a way to appear before the committee. But they didn’t submit, and they didn’t turn up, because there were very few submissions. BusinessNZ’s submission was a good one. I remember that one quite well and their appearance before the committee.

Before I took it back to the caucus and before we deliberated, I did quite a lot of work. I called around a number of other people, doing my own research outside of those submissions to the select committee, trying to find a way to make this work. Unfortunately, it just wasn’t possible. That said, superannuation is a big issue for New Zealand. We do have an ageing population. We have an economy that’s actually only just starting to see some green shoots now that we’ve got in behind the driver’s wheel, if you like, of the economy and are getting things back on track.

Some of the things in this bill we did do to change it. Actually, we changed the name of it. We capitalised the “S” in KiwiSaver. We did very important work in that—small but important. There were so many things that we went through in looking at how this would work in practice. One of the bigger issues that we have was that this was going to be another avenue for personal grievances. Now, that’s fine if the personal grievances are worthy, but sometimes they’re not, and we couldn’t really find a way to make that work. That also was a major red flag for me.

Clause 5 in the bill would insert new section 110C into the Employment Relations Act, and that sets out an adverse effect test that would be used to determine whether a worker is eligible to raise a personal grievance. I’d have to say, at the end of that, I didn’t think that really brought any clarity to the bill, and I was a bit concerned—well, in fact, very concerned—about that. I thought that was going to be quite difficult for us to deal with.

The bill did seek to—in the end, it’s about discrimination between people who have taken a full remuneration approach or have their wage and salary paid to them, and then the employer’s contribution is paid to their KiwiSaver account, versus those who just have that KiwiSaver remuneration, 3 percent, that goes on top of their salary, and they keep the money and choose to do what they want with it. We did find out, actually, that KiwiSaver is not the only way that people save for superannuation; there are many other schemes. This was too narrow, so we sought to expand that because, ultimately, employees should have rights to choose their own path if they wish to. There are plenty of other mechanisms in the law to protect people from not being treated fairly. While this bill was worthy in that sense—in its aim—it really didn’t help make the boat go any faster.

My colleague Jamie Arbuckle—I think it was—mentioned the minimum wage protections, and that’s absolutely the case. I think that is another safety net that we can feel confident that this bill wouldn’t help. I believe, at some point, there will be some piece of legislation that will come through, which will include something on this in the future. But I don’t think the work was able to be done in the back or in the early stages of this bill’s life to get all of those little things ironed out with all the policy work that needed to be done. It’s unfortunate that we’ve got to this stage.

I do, once again, want to thank all of the submitters. Although there were few in number, at least they did submit. I can assure them that their submissions were considered very carefully. I guess, given the small number of them, Madam Speaker, as a select committee member, you do soon find out if people have read their papers or not. On this bill, they had. I can assure you that everyone around the table had read those papers, even whether they liked the bill or not. That’s an important part of our democracy, as I said at the beginning of my speech.

I do want to congratulate the member for getting this far. It’s not easy, as we all know. I also want to thank the other members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the work that they did on it. The National Party won’t be supporting the bill past this point, but we do think that the member did put her best foot forward, and we just, unfortunately, can’t support it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mālō e lelei. I want to begin with just a little bit of history, given something that one of the speakers on the other side has talked about, and that is of the 1997 referendum on the compulsory superannuation scheme proposed by then the Hon Winston Peters, who, at that stage, was Treasurer. So that was a referendum on whether or not we should have a compulsory superannuation scheme.

It was an interesting model. The idea was that each worker—wage and salaried worker—would pay 8 percent of their income to Inland Revenue every year. In return, at age 65, a person would be guaranteed a lifetime annuity equivalent to 33 percent of the average wage. I’m just going to venture to suggest that that doesn’t seem like a particularly good model now. The speaker from New Zealand First, Jamie Arbuckle, was sort of interested as to why people had voted against it. I’m going to suggest that the particular scheme had some rather large complications, but also, because we do politics, I’m going to suggest there might have been political reasons for voting against it based on who it was being sponsored by. That’s just one of those things; it’s the way that politics works.

The history of this particular bill is quite interesting too. I just want to recall why KiwiSaver came into being. It’s a problem that we have acknowledged already in this debate, a problem that, in fact, the superannuation scheme that Mr Peters was sponsoring back in the late 1990s was trying to address, and that is the low retirement savings of New Zealanders.

We knew that New Zealanders needed to be encouraged to save more for their retirement. Of course, we also looked across the Tasman and saw the success of the superannuation scheme there. Thanks to the far-sighted and excellent work of Sir Michael Cullen, we had two major steps taken in terms of New Zealanders’ retirement savings. Now, one was the establishment of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund—known as the Cullen fund—and the other one was KiwiSaver, encouraging New Zealanders to save for their retirement and ensuring that employers contributed as well. Both of these were targeted at ensuring that we could afford to support our senior citizens in their old age and that we could continue to ensure that older New Zealanders had some dignity in their old age.

We were the first country in the world to introduce old retirement incomes, retirement superannuation schemes, a pension for our senior citizens, and we should be very proud of that. One way and another, we’ve kind of more or less solved some of the problems of old-age poverty in New Zealand. It’s not pretty for people who get to retirement age and have only their New Zealand Super, and it works better for people if they have substantial savings in KiwiSaver as they get to retirement age.

Of course, being the generation that we are, KiwiSaver didn’t come along until we were perhaps some way through our working careers. But even if people didn’t join KiwiSaver when they first got a job, the next best time to join it and start saving with KiwiSaver is right now. The best thing that we can do as legislators, as people who are responsible one way or another for the stewardship of KiwiSaver, is to keep on improving it; to keep on making sure that it becomes a better and better scheme. I think one of the steps we need to be taking is making KiwiSaver compulsory for everyone. We should be eliminating some of the things we do at the moment with KiwiSaver like the contributions breaks and so on. We should just be making it compulsory, and we should be supporting people to have decent wages so that they can afford to save for their retirement.

This particular bill, which was brought into the House by Dr Tracey McLellan, had one of those enhancements for KiwiSaver. Now, when KiwiSaver was first introduced way back—when it first became operational—in 2007, this very protection for workers was in the KiwiSaver Act. It was sitting there right from the start. In fact, there was a series of protections for workers in the original KiwiSaver legislation. Then it was taken out by the Employment Relations Amendment Act in 2008. This particular protection was taken away, and it’s an important one.

Now, this particular bill is phrased in terms of discrimination, but what it really prevents is an employer exerting pressure over an employee to ensure that instead of the employer’s KiwiSaver contributions coming out of the employer’s funds, it actually comes out of the employee’s remuneration. Perhaps when there is a shortage of labour in the economy and when workers are able to command better salaries and so on, then it’s not such an issue.

In a time of rising unemployment, in a time when people are kind of getting a bit desperate to get a job, in a time when unemployment is predicted to rise, and in a time where employers—businesses—are not creating extra jobs, then the employer has the advantage, and the employer can discriminate against workers. This is what this piece of legislation seeks to change to ensure that at least in the matter of KiwiSaver, an employer cannot discriminate against a worker.

Now, the reasons given by the members of the Government parties as to why they are not going to support this legislation are listed in the select committee’s report. They say, more or less, that they don’t think that we should have additional hurdles for businesses or additional costs for businesses which would not benefit either employees or employers. But what of the long-term cost of ensuring that all of us support each other and of the long-term cost of supporting New Zealanders when they retire? It is a very short-sighted view that the Government parties are taking here.

It’s a real shame that they are not supporting this bill—this bill that simply puts back in a protection that was there right from the start when the Hon Dr Michael Cullen first devised KiwiSaver. What a shame—what a shame.

Congratulations to Tracey McLellan for all her work on this bill. It’s the sort of thing that when we are back in Government in 2026, we will be promoting—

Camilla Belich: Two years.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Exactly—this kind of protection for workers, as part of our proud history of being the workers’ party in New Zealand. This is a sad day.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House is resumed. We’re on the second reading of the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill. I call the next speaker, which is call No. 9, which is I believe is the National Party.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I rise to oppose this bill, the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill. Having sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee listening to the submissions and the officials—

Hon Member: Hard-working committee.

CATHERINE WEDD: —provide advice on this bill—yes, a very, very hard-working committee—I wondered all along, as I was listening to just a few submissions, actually, what is the point? What is the point of this bill? It is an absolute ideological bill, because there is already sufficient legislation in place which provides protection. On this side of the House, we do believe in KiwiSaver, and we believe in supporting hard-working New Zealanders and enabling them to keep more of what they earn and save for their retirement. That is not the issue. The issue is that this is an ideological bill with not a lot of substance, because there is already legislation in place.

We’re focused on delivery and focused on things that really matter, and what I struggled to understand with this bill, the entire process, is what is the point? We don’t need to create regulations and rules for the sake of it when they already exist. When members’ bills are put forward, they are meant to make a real, real difference, and I certainly do commend all members for putting forward members’ bills, because, you know, they do make a big difference. Actually, I’ve got a member’s bill that has been drawn from the biscuit tin, which I’m really looking forward to navigating through and which will provide more mums and families with more protection after having babies, a post-natal care bill which provides a three-day stay.

Today, we’re focusing on the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill. This bill is really trying to find a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist, and this was the common theme through the select committee process, when we just actually heard a couple of submissions. Many times—many times—to the officials, I said, “Can you please give an exact example of where an employee has been discriminated against on the grounds of having KiwiSaver?” and they could not give one tangible example. There were no examples, because there is already sufficient legislation in place that would deal with this if this situation was to arise.

This bill is, basically, about creating legislation for an example and a situation which hasn’t actually existed and happened yet.

Helen White: Do you understand the bill?

CATHERINE WEDD: In fact, officials advised us that the law in this area is already really robust, and I will point out to that member on the other side of the House that this was asked to officials many times through the submission process, and they said that this situation hasn’t actually arisen. So it’s a typical ideological idea, dreamt up from a member on the other side of the House, that creates more work, more bureaucracy, more time-wasting, and more costs when businesses are already under the pump in a cost of living crisis and in times when it is really tough. They’re already struggling to survive at the moment, and they don’t need another regulatory burden hanging over their heads and creating more stress for everyone when there is actually no problem that currently exists at the moment.

Let me give some examples of the very few submitters that we heard from. From the CEO of Business Canterbury: “I’m not supportive of this bill,” she said. “My first thought is: what is the problem we are trying to solve with this bill? I am not aware of any problem, and I have not heard any concerns in this area.” This is from Business Canterbury. You would think that she would have heard some concerns in this area. She said, “There are many employers that operate on a total remuneration policy which is outlined in their IEAs and explained at the time of appointments being made.”—makes sense—and said that “The changes being suggested would potentially create unintended consequences and potentially increase costs for businesses without providing any certainty.” This is at a time when we do not want to increase costs for businesses, and we want to give more certainty and security to our businesses so that we can power up this economy again and get it back on track.

Business New Zealand submitted that the KiwiSaver Act recognises the reality of the KiwiSaver contribution management, which avoids any pitfalls. They recommended that the bill not proceed. So from the very, very few submissions that we heard, they recommended that the bill not proceed, because there is already legislation in place if—if—this particular situation was to arise.

If we look across New Zealand at the moment, businesses are really struggling. Times are tough because of the wasteful spending that we saw by the previous Government driving us into more and more debt, driving up inflation and interest rates. The last thing businesses need at the moment is another bill with more regulation and more cost for businesses.

Just in the 10 months that we’ve been in Government on this side of the House, we’ve been working incredibly, incredibly hard, and finally there is confidence and optimism across business again. We are starting to hear that we have got green shoots. There is optimism again. Inflation is coming down for the first time in years. Interest rates are coming down, and New Zealanders are starting to see the light. Last week, we saw the Reserve Bank lower the official cash rate. Spring is nearly here, and things are looking brighter, because on this side of the House, we are respecting hard-working New Zealanders, providing tax relief after 14 years, enabling hard-working New Zealanders to keep more of what they earn and save and put those earnings, perhaps, into a retirement fund. In fact, an average household will get up to $102 a fortnight. That is going to make a huge difference for the grocery bills, the fuel bills, the electricity bills—everything that has been going up. This is really, really important when we are trying to get this economy back on track.

Another action that we have also taken as a Government to support businesses is our banking inquiry. Our New Zealand banking sector is one of the most non-competitive in the world.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It’s our banking inquiry. I signed off that inquiry—my banking inquiry.

CATHERINE WEDD: Our banks are making the biggest profits in the world, and there is so much evidence which shows they are not competing for the good of our New Zealanders. We are not content for New Zealanders to get a raw deal. We want New Zealanders to get a good deal, and there needs to be more competition. Our Australian neighbours are getting all the benefits of innovation and technology. That member that is talking about that is involved in the banking inquiry, actually, which we are all supportive of because we want New Zealanders to get a good deal.

That is why we are actioning the recommendations this week of the Commerce Commission’s banking report and we have launched the banking inquiry also. All of this is going to help get our economy back on track and help businesses. Just in the past week, we have had a recess week, and—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Back to the bill—the bill. Talk about the bill.

CATHERINE WEDD: Yeah, no, I am getting back to the bill, because I’m talking about the hard-working businesses that this bill would impact. Just last week, I was out visiting many, many businesses across the Tukituki electorate, and I must say—I’ll just give a shout-out to Hawk Packaging. Hawk Packaging is this incredible business that is taking 13,000 tonnes of roadside recycling waste, and they are making apple trays—apple trays—to send our apples all around the world. It’s quite incredible, actually, because this is a sustainable, innovative business that is employing dozens and dozens of people. They are hard-working people—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): And if you could come back to the bill, that would be helpful.

CATHERINE WEDD: —of New Zealand who are getting our economy back on track. They’re driving more productivity, but they also have a very, very large team of employees, and they do not want to be inflicted with more red tape, regulation, and unnecessary bills that would inflict more compliance and cost and bureaucracy. That is not what we need right now. The adoption of this proposed bill would limit the ability for employers to opt for a remuneration approach that is most suited to their business. On this side of the House, we’re all about choice. We believe in personal choice and in making your own decisions, not having this centralised bureaucracy thrust upon you—all these regulations and rules. This bill limits employees’ ability to choose the saving approach that best suits them. On this side of the House, we are all about practical solutions and creating legislation where it’s needed, and this is not needed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member’s time has expired. The next call is a split call between Labour and National.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): I guess I’ll take the call. I’m not sure what’s going on in the electorate of Tukituki, but I think someone had one too many Berocca this morning. There was some enthusiasm going on over there. I’m a little bit shocked and dismayed, and where the member addressed the bill, I’m unsure, but it was a wonderful party-political advertorial for the last 10 minutes. It was magic, and I’m hopeful that the little gold stars that they get in the caucus room for every time they get the talking point right—I hope that she’s top of the leader board for that.

As people have reflected on during the first reading and now the second reading, there’s been real reflection on the history and on, I guess, the bigger question of retirement and of having money tucked away to ensure that people actually do well. The Hon Dr Deborah Russell spoke earlier and gave a bit of a history lesson about the 1990s. I was looking back to the 1970s and Norm Kirk’s superannuation bill—

Rachel Boyack: Didn’t National trash that too?

GLEN BENNETT: —which got trashed, but that’s another point. The reality is that this is around the protection for KiwiSaver members. When KiwiSaver was first brought about and when the Hon Sir Michael Cullen established it back in 2007, I was in a position where I wasn’t actually able to sign up. I was in a different position in our household. We didn’t have a lot.

At that time, our choice was not to sign up for it, but I’ve been a part of it for a long time now, and so, as I look at this, it’s very much—as other members have said and as our member Tracey McLellan, who has presented this bill, has said—about protections for people. It’s actually about protecting people from discrimination, and the previous member had talked about a member’s bill that they have in the ballot around young mums, and I’m sure it sounds wonderful, but this very often is about women who are discriminated against, because they leave the workforce to go and look after their children. The officials said there wasn’t a problem to solve—that there’s nothing there—but the fact is we don’t actually have the data or the information on this to know exactly what is going on there.

This is fixing something, as well, that had been taken out in 2008. This is ensuring that we protect people and ensuring that we don’t discriminate. I commend this bill to the House.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great privilege to speak on this, and I commend the member for getting a member’s bill drawn out of the biscuit tin. I look forward to that day as well, but, unfortunately, as has been said, we can’t support this tonight. As the great chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee said earlier in the evening, does this make the boat go faster? What is the problem that we’re actually trying to solve?

I read through the bill notes and the purpose of the bill, but I still struggle to actually see how this is moving the needle and how is this going to help employers or employees. In fact, it says here, “the difference is that there is a perception that the employer is not when a total remuneration package is utilised.” It is a perception. There are no actual facts here.

What is the percentage of employers that are abusing or discriminating? Do we have that information? No, there are no examples. It’s yet another compliance burden. While, on one end of the House, we’ve got one of the leaders of the ACT Party Brooke van Velden working on streamlining things for employers around payroll, around software, around the Holidays Act, and all that complexity, here we are trying to add another level of complexity for employers.

Who are the employers? Well, 95 percent of New Zealand is made up of small businesses that employ, that take risk, and that pay and look after their staff well. Why are we trying to penalise employers again and again and again? This is one of the great challenges between left and right politics. The left think they’re doing the right thing by looking after the employees and lifting the minimum wage and lifting all these things, but what they fail to understand is all that means is more cost and more compliance for business, and they’ve got to lift their prices up and provide goods and services at a higher price. And who’s going to pay for those higher prices? The very employees and all of the people that they’re trying to help. It’s a complete false economy.

Both sides of the House actually talk about the benefits of a more productive economy, more productivity, and how we do less with more. Whether it’s a tech company, whether it’s agriscience or the agricultural industry or the horticultural industry or improving the apple supply out of Tukituki or the farmers around the great Waikato or the beautiful restaurants in Hamilton East, how do we increase productivity? Well, I’ll tell you how we don’t increase productivity: by putting more complexity and compliance costs on employers.

In fact, one of the things that the bill proposes to do is make it easier to take out a personal grievance. Well, that’s the way to build the economy—more personal grievances! Let’s penalise employers with more personal grievances, because that’s a win-win! The personal grievance industry has only grown under the last Government. Let’s give an example: if an employee complains and they have to go to mediation, there’s no win for the employer. They’re generally going to have to write a cheque for $5,000, for what? Just to make the problem go away. More cost to employers. What does that do? It makes them less likely to want to employ new employees. It makes their business stay small and makes them risk averse. Thank goodness we got rid of 90-day trials for big business as well, because it opens up the ability for people to take risk and take on new employees, and it’s such a key thing.

The previous Government was really keen to reduce productivity, to stymie it, to make it more stodgy, to slow it down, to dampen it. Let’s look at the relativity element, which hasn’t really been discussed in this bill. What if someone has got existing employees and they take on a new employee and they say, “OK, we won’t discriminate. We won’t use your added advantage of the employee compensation scheme, so we’ll build it into your package.”, and they talk to the colleague beside them that says, “Well, how come you’ve got that? You’re $3,000 better off than me. Mr employer, he’s $3,000 better off. I want a pay raise—I want a lift.”? So what does the employer have to do? He’s got to adjust all the pay rates across all his organisation so everyone feels better. And what’s that done? It’s just lifted the costs for all the employers, and those costs get put on to the end user—and round and round we go. It’s a really important thing, but it’s a red herring.

On this side of the House, we’ve actually got these things called values. And one of them is less government, personal choice and responsibility, competitive enterprise, and reward for achievement. Here’s a thing that works really well if you want to better your employee wages and things: turn up early, stay late, work hard, and get paid more. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Mr Speaker, thank you. I’m a little bit disturbed at the lack of understanding that I am seeing on the other side of the House about what this bill is about, but I’m also quite concerned at the confidence that people rely on anecdotes that are actually just inaccurate, and we have a problem in this country because we simply do not gather the data that is really pertinent to understanding what the problems are in issues like employment.

I worked as an employment lawyer for 25 years, and in that time, I saw a lot of problems, but there were a lot of problems I never saw which existed and which never got anywhere near an official at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment who might have been advising on this, because they weren’t a problem at law. They were a blind spot, and that’s because we don’t actually keep any record of individual agreements. So when the members on the other side are talking about these things, they talk through a hole in their head, and when the officials are talking about these things, they do the same, because they simply do not have the information before them about what the problems are in this country. We like to talk about productivity, and we like to make up stories about these things, but we will never get to the heart of the problem until we have really good data.

Now, the reason that I support this bill is because we have a real problem with saving in this country. What this bill was was originally a part of the law around KiwiSaver, and it made sure that people didn’t discriminate against somebody and make terms and conditions better if people weren’t in the scheme. It was there, and it got taken out, and Tracey McLellan has looked at the situation, and she’s putting it back in. Now, I don’t know if she has experienced this problem, but I suspect that she’s seen it happen, and the reason that we will have seen it happen is because we’ve seen one or three or a dozen situations, but what we won’t know is the quantum of the situation. When I hear the Government members talk about how there’s no problem, how could they possibly know? How could they possibly know?

When I hear the lack of understanding of the pressure that is in the beginning of an employment relationship, I worry too, because it may be that those members have been privileged enough that they have never been in a situation where they have wanted a job and signed on the dotted line. But I have seen that thousands of times, where people have signed on the dotted line because they need the work, and those are our hard-working New Zealanders. Those are the people we need to help, and do you know what? Something like this, and leaving this gap, just makes it that little bit harder. It makes it harder for people who haven’t got enough savings, and guess who ends up paying for that?

First of all, it’s the individual. It’s demoralising. I heard the gentleman on the other side talk about how we work hard and we stay longer, and it all comes right—well, it doesn’t. If you’re actually not watching and being careful about terms and conditions, it doesn’t. People actually fall into the hole, and who has to pick them up at 65 or 70, when they stop working in their job as a cleaner? The taxpayer does. The businesses will not pick up these people, because, tonight, the Government members will vote against this bill, but, actually, the taxpayer will end up paying for these people because they will have to top that up, and that’s in the society that I hope we have, one where we have a safety net. If you get rid of the safety net—as some of the parties in this House want to do—then we won’t have that, either. People will fall through the cracks, and they will end up sleeping in their cars.

We already have a whole lot of old people who cannot afford to buy a house. Most people in this House actually do own a house. We’re in a privileged position. We have made it that little bit harder for hard-working New Zealanders tonight if we vote against this bill, and what Dr McLellan was doing was trying to plug a small gap in the system. She was trying to address discrimination that is out there—and, yes, we don’t know how many people. But we don’t know it, because of our own failure—our own failure to gather the information that we sorely need if we are going to make evidential decisions in this House. If I hear one more banal anecdote about how you can just work hard in this country and it will be just fine, I would ask you, please, to question those anecdotes.

We have the privilege of being in a House where we get to make decisions for other people whose experiences we do not share, and, at the very least, we should be keeping our eyes and ears open. At least we should be moving beyond our own prejudice, and the first thing we need to do is actually consider the reality of people in those situations. Instead of imagining that you’re the employer in that situation, try imagining that you are the employee—not the winners and the losers, and you happen to be the winners in this situation. But try thinking about what happens, because it’s going to happen around you. The people in this House will have their children affected, and they will also have their parents affected. We will end up with parents who have got no savings, and we’ve got to help them through, and we will end up with our cousins and our kids in a situation where we have not put in place the right mechanisms for them to be able to save.

Now, you’ve heard the very good history of this bill from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell. The House heard tonight about the actual realities of putting that legislation in place, which is what Dr Cullen did. That is something that this country has never regretted. That is something that, now, we all in this House pretty much agree, I think, was the right thing to do. But it cannot be eroded, and it needs to be improved, because we still aren’t saving enough, and, actually, we should take account when we look at little bills like this.

We should be thinking about things that the Retirement Commissioner says we’re a long way behind in. I mean, I wonder how many people in this country understand that when it comes to superannuation, really, in their KiwiSaver, they need a million dollars. How many people understand that in this country, and how much harder have we made it tonight for people who need that kind of cushioning, when we take away just that little thing which says that, actually, you shouldn’t be treated worse because you’ve joined this scheme—you shouldn’t get less. There shouldn’t be workarounds, but that’s what we’ll be doing tonight when we vote down this bill. We’re making it that little bit harder.

If this House thinks that it is about looking after working people—and I think that we do all probably share that—then we really need to get a grip on what our reality is and what the reality of people is. One thing is a power dynamic. Another thing is that it will come back and haunt us as taxpayers, it will come back and haunt us as relatives, and it may even come back and haunt us because we’re the unlucky ones who haven’t got the savings when it comes to retirement, because things go down.

That’s my plea to this House. I urge members in this House to consider the reality of bills like this and to not talk about things as solutions looking for problems, or whatever it is—some banal comment—to cover up the fact that they haven’t read the bill and they don’t know what it’s about. That is not good enough.

We have got a standard we have to reach here, which is that we need to understand the evidence, and if we don’t understand the evidence, we need to understand where the gaps in our understanding come from. One of the things that I think is a lesson out of bills like this and out of the advice given is that we need much better data than we’ve got. We need to start to gather individual agreements so that we can see what people are putting in contracts. We need to start to audit things like this and see where the problems are, and, actually, we will just not do that by way of anecdotes which always play out to our own preconceptions and prejudices.

That’s what I would urge this House to do tonight—to really consider it. I’m sorry, but it seems that Dr McLellan’s bill will not pass. I congratulate her on putting it in and thinking about people who are on the edge there, who need to be helped and need to be supported when they’re discriminated against in their employment because they’ve joined a KiwiSaver system.

NANCY LU (National): I am standing before you today to voice my opposition and say that I do not support the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill. Now, while part of this bill may sound like it has good intentions, as mentioned by several previous members across the House, this legislation in my opinion—when I read through it, when I listened in to the submissions, when I heard actually directly from the member who proposed the bill, Dr Tracey McLellan—is actually trying to solve a problem by looking for a problem to try to solve. Now, that already got me lost. When I was looking at it—what is the problem that we are trying to solve here, and where is the data and the evidence that can be put before us?

For example, sitting in the Finance and Expenditure Committee with my good colleagues, the MP for Tukituki, Catherine Wedd, asked that question: show us some examples—show us some examples. “What do you mean?”—you know, “Remove those personal names and give us some concrete examples so that we can understand; we actually want to understand the problem so that we understand what it is that we are trying to do. Where is the evidence for it? Where’s the data for it, and then what is the possible solution that we can actually align on and eventually vote on?” And the answer was silence. There isn’t really something evident for us to look into.

But, OK, let’s go back to this bill that we have debated for quite some time now. It is seeking to prevent discrimination against workers who are KiwiSaver members by allowing them to raise personal grievance if they believe their employment has been adversely affected due to their KiwiSaver membership. Now, that very, very long, wordy sentence tells me it’s very subjective. Yes, I agree. Employment agreements between employers and employees are subjective, but they are also very confidential. What we are talking about here is actually asking employers who have the expertise with HR departments, HR expertise, or have the money to hire HR experts or human resource lawyers to be able to look into these employment agreements.

What we do have in New Zealand—and, actually, this brings me back to my prior life before coming into this House. I was once a finance manager and an HR manager for a company with about 30 full-time employees, and what we found is that the New Zealand Government and our official websites already provide very comprehensive, helpful, straightforward documents and processes that help many, many of our businesses in New Zealand to draft good, proper, law-abiding employment agreements. What the employers—and that is the 95 percent of businesses in New Zealand, the small, medium enterprises who actually hire less than five full-time employees in New Zealand, don’t have the time to hire, or the chance or the money to hire, an HR manager. They don’t really have the time or the money, their hard-earned money, to hire an HR lawyer to help them to go through the employment contracts. That’s why, actually, on many of our Government websites, there are templates and good processes to help them make those employment contracts.

However, when I looked at this bill, this very bill in front of us, which I was reading through—and I put on my former HR and finance manager hat—I thought this was creating so much uncertainty for me. If I wanted to hire someone or if I had the opportunity to in this very dire and challenging economic environment in New Zealand, when I put on my HR manager hat, I’d actually be hesitant because I wouldn’t know what I was getting myself into. By this, I mean I don’t know what I’d be getting myself into by signing this employment contract for a potential new employee for this company. But, then, what are the finance costs related to it? What are the potential personal grievances? What do you mean “personal grievance”? It’s so subjective.

That is very discouraging for our companies in New Zealand, and again, I have to remind everyone in this House—but also the people who are listening in and watching us on TV—that 95 percent of businesses in New Zealand have less than five full-time employees. So, for these companies and for these employers to have to feel those uncertainties, sometimes it might be actually easier if the employer just does a little bit more. When I was reading through the bill and listening to submissions, I was thinking a lot about the people and families that I know around me, and that includes a lot of the small and medium businesses that we have in the Chinese community in New Zealand. This includes my parents, who once owned a small business.

Often what happens is that instead of putting all the extra time into managing people and doing all that, they prefer to hire less people and then just pile more work on themselves. For example, I remember my dad would go out. He would leave home at about 5 a.m. in the morning so he could go out and get ready for business. But he would always be the last one to shut the doors, to turn off the lights, to come home. And he would do that, and then I asked him many times, as a younger person in the family, “ Why can’t you get more help?” Well, the problem is for him, he thought, if he can do it and there will be less trouble between the different kinds of employees, the different kinds of training, and then the different discussions and debates.

Also, coming down to, for example, when personal grievance happens, what happens to the employers of these small enterprises? Often when employers feel extremely helpless, they don’t know who to go to. The first piece of advice they probably will get is to go to speak to a lawyer. But how much would a lawyer charge? And so it is very, very discouraging. When I read through the bill and when I listen through to the submissions and when I see there is so little evidence about the actual problem that we are trying to solve, I come back to my very first question when I began my speech: what is the bill trying to address?

The other thing that I noticed when I read through this bill was that the bill also failed to consider and account for—there is more than just KiwiSaver in New Zealand. People actually have a choice about what they do for their savings, but this bill fails to account for the diverse retirement saving preferences for workers, and workers deserve to choose how they want to save and how they want to invest—such as, for example, property or personal investment portfolios or other retirement schemes. By legislating to mandate equal treatment of KiwiSaver members, we are actually inadvertently disadvantaging those who have made different financial choices, and this is something that I don’t believe some of our Kiwi workers out there would agree to.

Another unintended consequence that I noticed when I was reading through the bill was this potential of racing to the bottom in our employment terms in the negotiations. Rather than risk offering better conditions to some employees because I really see the potential in you or because I really see the capabilities and experiences that you bring in, instead of having a mindset with the employers of “I will risk offering you better conditions for this employee because I really want you to join me and help me to grow my business and help me to expand my business,” some employers, because they have been mandated to go through more red tape and because there is so much more that they need to do, might have to opt out and just make it easy, because it’s easier to follow the law, to standardise all the packages, and therefore everybody’s the same, and therefore there is no competitiveness between what we want to do.

This, overall, could result in a worse outcome and worse mindset, not only for the employees, but also for employers. In New Zealand, many, many of our businesses—and, again, coming back to what I said a bit earlier, how 95 percent of the small and medium enterprises hire less than five people in New Zealand—don’t need the extra layers of red tape, and this is why when people have the choice, they would vote for choice and vote for a Government that will cut all the red tape. We’ve also said many times now to cut all the green tape so we can unleash some potential and actually allow people to be a little bit more flexible and to allow people to take on some more risks and be OK to take on risk, to take on opportunities to grow their businesses, to grow the local economy, for example, in the beautiful areas like Tukituki and Hamilton, and to actually grow our economy overall as a whole for New Zealand.

So I really don’t commend this bill to the House, because I don’t see the problem it is trying to address and we’re just going around and around trying to identify a problem. So with that, I don’t commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): There is a spare five-minute call. I call Dr Vanessa Weenink.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill. This bill is in the name of Dr Tracey McLellan, who was the previous member for Banks Peninsula, so it gives me a little bit of pleasure to oppose this bill.

This bill provides yet another ground for personal grievance claims. Personal grievance claims have become a little bit of an industry. For some businesses, it’s actually been a form of—businesses are being conned. There was an example in Dunedin a couple of years ago where a chef would sign up at one restaurant, turn up for one shift, then claim to be not particularly well—sick, couldn’t be bothered turning up, whatever. The company would then tell him, “Well, basically, we haven’t really got an arrangement here.” Then he would say to them immediately, “Well, I’m going to take you for a personal grievance.” Then he would write a formal letter. His whole tactic was to get them to pay up $10,000, because they had to weigh up if it would be more expensive to fight the personal grievance or—

Hon Member: Pay the “Go away” money.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: —to just pay the guy to go away. All this bill will be doing is creating yet another grounds for personal grievance cases. It’s an absolute disgrace.

This is a bill that had previously—there’d been previous changes to legislation back in 2006, which got reversed in 2008, under the last National Government. We made it possible so that there’s a lot more transparency so that employers and employees can actually have the conversation themselves to decide how they want to have that. This bill would then reverse that and make it compulsory. It is yet another example of typical Labour woolly thinking, of not understanding the consequences to businesses, and of creating yet another cost to businesses when we’re in a cost of living crisis. As one of my colleagues explained, adding costs to businesses is, ultimately, adding costs on the employees themselves, so this is just not a very sensible amendment to the Act. Some of the ideas behind it—of protecting people and wanting to make it more enticing for people to be on KiwiSaver—sound like a good idea. We don’t disagree with that, but we don’t think that this is the mechanism to do that.

Part of one of the consequences that this bill might have is disincentivising the use of total remuneration packages, which actually can be quite a useful way of discussing an employment arrangement. There is an element of perception that some people have that if there’s a total remuneration package that’s offered, somehow KiwiSaver employment contributions from the employer don’t really count, and that it’s not actually part of that. But, actually, it is still part of the total remuneration, and it is saving towards people’s retirement. It’s encouraging people to contribute towards the total amount that they have saved by the time they retire. Total remuneration packages, potentially, are a very useful mechanism.

This is just another example of impractical ideas that have been brought before this House, backed by an ideology that there is central control, that, really—

Hon Member: Command and control.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Command and control from above. You know, there’s no real examples of any problems that actually exist for it. It is a piece of legislation looking for a problem to solve. There isn’t one to solve. There were no examples that were able to be brought. The Finance and Expenditure Committee heard excellent submissions, but very few submissions, and the only one really in support that I could see from the papers was from the unions.

This is a bill that is really counter to everything that National believes in. We believe in free choice, and this bill will not do anything to improve that. I do not commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Noes 68

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

Motion not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 49, Noes 65.

Bills

Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I move, That the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill with many contributors, many people who have helped to bring it into being. I’m going to name four and work a little bit through the contributions that they made to this bill: Charlotte Abrial, who brought a petition to the House; Ashley Jones, who brought another petition to the House and was supported in doing so by Christopher Bishop, now the Hon Christopher Bishop; and, of course, Angie Warren-Clark, who put this bill into the ballot during the last Parliament, and it was drawn from the ballot and had its first reading on the very last member’s day of the last Parliament. Those four people have all had a hand in this bill.

In 2022, the Petitions Committee heard a petition from Charlotte Abrial, which was entitled: “Shorten separation time for divorce in domestic violence Cases”. Charlotte Abrial petitioned the House, saying that “the House of Representatives pass legislation that would shorten the time required for separation before divorce to 6 months in domestic violence cases.” Looking at the report of this petition, we have from the committee saying that “The petitioner told us”—that is the committee—“how difficult the emotional toll can be for victims of violence who want to get out of a marriage, but have to wait for two years. She said that not being divorced means the victim still has a tie to their abuser, and the parties can feel that the victim ‘still belongs to’ the abuser. She said abusers can use this against their spouse, and it affects their mental health.”

Going on from there, the committee was told that “on average, women go back to an abusive spouse approximately seven times before they finally leave. Ms Abrial said that the two-year stand-down period makes leaving an abusive spouse even more difficult because victims feel an obligation to go back and try to work things out. She said that, in many cases, each time the victim returns is worse, as the abuser’s control increases. She also commented that some women are not able to leave again because they may not survive the abuse. This is some of the story that came from Charlotte Abrial, who said that because of this, we ought to have a shorter time to enable divorce in cases of domestic abuse, instead of the current two years that people must wait. That was Charlotte Abrial’s contribution.

Then in 2021, a brave woman, Ashley Jones, started a petition. She started this with the help of Chris Bishop. Her petition was submitted—it was very similar: “Change our archaic divorce laws so abuse victims can be free of their abuser”. Ashley started this petition, but when it actually got to the submission stage of the petition, she felt unable to speak to it, because she had reached a very low point in her journey. She was in a pretty bad space. She just couldn’t do it, so she withdrew her petition. But, then, this bill came into the House, and Ashley was able to put in a submission on the bill.

I’d like to read some of Ashley’s submission into the Hansard, and the reason is that she didn’t get her petition there. So this comes from something the committee heard during the progress of this bill. Ashley says, “Here in New Zealand, we recognise many forms of family violence: physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, spiritual, and financial. Yet I was up against a system that allowed so much of this to continue. There is currently no justice or accountability for those that wish to break the cycle of abuse. I strongly believe if victims were able to file for a divorce, it would remove a lot of the further abuse that continues throughout the two-year stand-down period. Abuse is about power and control, and this current system allows many occasions for the abuser to still maintain that power and control, even in cases where a protection order is in place.”

Something that people who’ve worked in the sector will know well, something she carries on to say, “But when are victims at most risk of their abusers? The National Library of Medicine”—I think this is Australian; no, in New Zealand—“published a 2022 study that cited “Hospital data showed that the time of the greatest risk (for victims to experience further abuse) was from 6 to 12 months before divorce, when divorce is … filed for.” The highest risk period for a victim of abuse is during that two-year stand-down—the two-year stand-down from when a couple separate to when a divorce can proceed. She goes on to say that “Any woman (or man) that has reached the painstaking decision to leave their marriage, has already reached the realisation that there is no reconciliation possible, especially not in cases where abuse is prevalent. But the reality is, for abuse victims the current divorce process is not as simple as a 2 year stand down.” The victim is bound to the abuser.

As I said, I do want to put very much on record that Ashley Jones was supported in her petition, in forming it, by Christopher Bishop. Then Angie Warren-Clark, in her first speech to this House, talked about the process by which she brought the bill here and the difficulties that women can experience. She says, “The thing about this bill”—this bill which would shorten the divorce period in cases of abuse—“is that when you explain to people the origins of it, they say, ‘but I thought that was the law already.’.” Our law was behind the times.

What this bill will do is enable victims of abuse to leave their marriage behind before the two years is up. Now, under existing law, under our no-fault divorce law, when couples have separated for two years, then a divorce is granted. That’s all it takes is the two years. In the 1980s when this became our law, it was radical law. It marked a huge change from the previous law, which revolved around finding fault. They said, “Actually, let’s get away from this finding fault, with the tawdry divorce cases reported in the Truth and so on. Let’s just go to a straight no-fault basis.” But, since then, our understanding of how domestic violence operates has changed. Since then, we’ve become much more aware of the issues, and, actually, since then, I think our attitudes around divorce and the way that we form and dissolve and reform families has changed quite significantly.

There were many people who submitted to this bill, but, universally, they almost said, “Actually, we need to reform our divorce law overall.” Now, that is beyond the scope of a member’s bill, but what this member’s bill will do, if it goes through, is enable—in cases where domestic violence is proved and proven by the granting of a final protection order, then a person can file for a divorce straight away without waiting for the six years to be up. There was strong support for the bill, although in almost all cases—in almost all cases—the submitters felt it should go further. Women’s Refuge supported the bill. The Backbone Collective supported the bill. The New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services supported the bill. Business and Professional Women New Zealand supported the bill. Ruth Money, victim advocate, supported the bill. Many other people supported the bill, and I’ve continued to get emails from women saying, “I need to get out of my relationship now.” If this bill goes through, we will have made a small change that makes a difference.

I wish to thank the members of the Justice Committee, led by James Meager, for the way they examined this bill and the official advisers on the bill. I’d like to thank the people who submitted on it—especially Charlotte, Ashley, the Hon Chris Bishop, and very especially my dear friend Angie Warren-Clark. Angie, who I know is watching, thank you for giving me the honour of seeing this bill through this far on your behalf.

I’m going to end with the words from the commentary to the bill as it was submitted for the first reading. These are Angie’s words, and I think they’re quite powerful. She says, “Everyone deserves to live a life free of violence and all people should have the right to feel safe in a relationship and to leave that relationship if they experience family violence.” I urge this House to support this bill.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Before we move on to the next speaker, I just need to correct the last vote—it won’t change the outcome. The Ayes were 49 and the Noes were 68. I misread it—can’t blame the glasses, they’re new. It was just my misreading.

Bills

Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

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

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to speak in this debate, on behalf of the National Party, in support of the second reading of the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. I want to congratulate the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for shepherding this member’s bill through the House.

I do want to also place on record my acknowledgments to Angie Warren-Clark, who introduced this bill in the first place, on the very lucky last day of the last Parliament. I was fortunate to work with Angie Warren-Clark for several years on the Social Services and Community Committee, and I know how tirelessly she worked in the area of family violence, and how pleased she would be to know that this bill is progressing.

There are many origins of members’ bills. As the member before me, who is in charge of this bill, said, sometimes it comes through a petition. In this instance, there were two petitions. I want to acknowledge Ashley Jones for taking this issue to her local member of Parliament, to my colleague the Hon Chris Bishop. I had the opportunity to meet with Ashley when I was the Opposition spokesperson for family and sexual violence, and it was a pretty harrowing discussion when she was talking about her experience and why she felt it was so important to get a change.

I do feel really fortunate to be able to now contribute to this debate that started with an issue that someone who was so deeply affected by family violence and was frustrated by her inability to not just escape the relationship but actually legally escape her marriage, that she brought the issue to her member of Parliament, took the time and effort to bring a petition to Parliament, and then to contribute to this member’s bill process. I want to acknowledge her for that.

I think the reality is that we only get a law change when, in this case, strong women are able to stand up and talk about what they have gone through. It’s bad enough that a woman has to endure family violence, but then to feel that the very legal system entraps them further and doesn’t enable them to complete that process to free themselves of what is just an incredibly awful situation. As my parliamentary colleague Dr Deborah Russell, who spoke before me, said, it is such a significant point for someone—and it is predominantly women, so I will use “woman”—when a woman makes the decision to leave that abusive relationship to then find that there are significant legal barriers, and, actually, that is when the risk is high.

I think it is incumbent on us as parliamentarians to do everything we can to make that journey faster, to ensure that there are sufficient legal protections, and although one could say the divorce legislation is completely outdated in the scheme of how bad we are in terms of family violence in this country and , you know, does it really make a difference? Well, it will for the women who see that the very reality of having to wait for two whole years—that’s a very, very, very long time to continue to be controlled in a relationship that you wish to exit and are powerless to do so. I think this is a really sensible bill and a really important one.

I do think the area of family violence is an area where there are greater opportunities for our Parliament to work across the House, across Government, across party to actually take sensible, practical steps that improve the lives of family violence victims, and to take steps and measures that make it easier for someone to stand up to choose to end the relationship and to give them every single support to do that, because, too often, whether it is Women’s Refuge or the Backbone Collective, organisations like that, who give example after example of a system that seems to do everything against a woman’s ability to leave. I do think this is a sensible, practical step that we can do to protect those who are our most vulnerable and to ensure that, actually, our legal system serves them as it should. The reality for many victims is that the prospect of having to navigate a complex and often intimidating legal system to dissolve their marriage or partnership just adds another whole layer of stress and trauma at the very time that they’re perhaps least able to take on an additional burden.

Family violence is incredibly harmful to the person experiencing that violence, but we also need to acknowledge that, too often, there are children involved in the family who witness it as well. We do know that when children see violence at home, it can have implications across their entire life course, so we must do everything possible to break that intergenerational cycle. I think if you think about that additional challenge for a woman who’s trying to free herself from a relationship where violence is used, then in terms of that process to separate and dissolve marriage, where children are involved is that much more challenging. We cannot, in good conscience, allow our legal system to add to the suffering of those who have already endured so much.

Looking at addressing some of the barriers that are in place, I think, is important so we don’t put additional hurdles in place. This is a very sensible one. It’s quite often that people will say, “Why isn’t this already the law? Like, why doesn’t this already happen?”, because it seems such common sense. But this process and members’ bills, I think, are a really good opportunity to solve some of those problems that everybody thinks are already done, and is a common-sense thing to do. You see that with support across the House today.

The proposed changes to the Family Proceedings Act will obviously be a practical step, but we do know, in the area of family violence, that there is so much work to do. This is a simple step but actually a very, very important step for the victims of family violence that will find life that little bit easier in terms of breaking the shackles of a violent relationship.

My colleague Chris Bishop spoke in the first reading of this bill. We all know that legislative change is only one small step in the battle that we must make, which really is about a significant cultural change. That is made more possible when we make law change, when we highlight issues, and we demonstrate some of the practical steps that we can make as well. We know that, in New Zealand, we can and must do better to reduce family violence, where everybody has the opportunity and freedom to lead happy, healthy, and fulfilling lives, and everyone should have a life and a home that is free from violence. With this very simple step of simplifying the divorce process for victims of family violence, we can ensure that they are not burdened further and that we can help break the cycle of intergenerational family violence and abuse.

With that, I fully commend this bill to the House. I acknowledge any work that our Parliament can do to make women safer and fewer victims of family violence. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā anō tātou katoa i tēnei pō. E mihi atu ana ki a tātou ki runga i tēnei kiri pae āhua me tēnei ture, ki mua i te Whare.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker, and greetings again to us all here this evening. Acknowledgments to us all here and this bill present in the House.]

On behalf of Te Rōpū Kakariki, I stand and I wish to extend my thanks and gratitude that we are all united on the importance of this legislation. I have a speech prepared and it’s got all of the main key points, but I just want to recognise Auntie Angie and Auntie Debbie for leadership on this matter. Angie Warren-Clark worked with my mum many years ago and my mum is a refuge worker. We have been raised, as wāhine Māori, picking up the pieces of broken families for far too long. As a young woman, my mum would take us to help get mothers and children. It impacts you because you know that woman is stuck.

This legislation is about time. It’s probably 20 years late, but we’re here now and it’s awesome that we are united in moving forward on this to allow women—and other spouses; you know, tāne mai, wāhine mai—the ability to leave according to their own tikanga so that they can escape family violence in the home and that our babies can be raised in loving whānau where they will not fear violence tomorrow.

I recognise Ronnie Albert. Te Whakaruruhau—biggest women’s refuge in the country—all the women’s refuges across the country who help whānau gather back up the pieces and try to get them to make good decisions. The decision to leave is so hard, and when they do make that decision to leave, they’re stuck because they cannot divorce. That is used as a tool for power and control over the woman for two years, so this legislation is about time.

I think of Waitomo Papakāinga in Kaitāia. Katie Murray, she’s hard out and she’ll tell you a few straight facts. She is on the front line. She is the chair of Te Rarawa and she is committed to the elimination of family violence and sexual violence in Kaitāia. Our whānau need this legislation now and into the future, and I’m so grateful that we’re here standing together to move this forward at pace.

Te Whare Ruruhau o Meri. Another social service in South Auckland, but also they have branches in different parts of the country, Front-line services who have done so much to awhi whānau; to support wāhine and tāne to escape the clutches of family violence in the hope that they may make the decision to break free. But, when they have to go back, those services are still there and they don’t cut the connection to that whānau. As you know, that wrapping around the whānau of this nature is required until such time as we can support the wahine or the tane to make that courageous decision to break the chains of a relationship of power and control.

This legislation here was well supported, as we’ve heard from members in the House. Multiple agencies, community groups, everyone is committed and supports this through the select committee process, and many submitters shared how they are front-line and how they are seeing the impact of family violence day after day.

The issue with having to wait for two years and the ability for a woman to divorce her husband is a noose. It’s a noose around the neck of the woman who tries to break free when you’re stuck with Family Court processes; when you’re stuck with protection orders; and you’re trying to manage and keep your kids stable, in school, while dealing with a man who could be stalking you. I raise this because this is the reality of many women today and it was in the experience of many yesterday too. This legislation helps them escape and it helps them break those shackles and that noose that ties them to a spouse who exercises power and control over the wahine and the fear of the tamariki.

When we come together in this House—and we are discussing and I’m so grateful for the kōrero that we’re hearing and the sincerity of the way that we are putting the whānau in the middle of this decision and thinking about ways with which, through this legislation, we can empower wāhine mai and tāne mai to make the decision; that the legislation will be there ready for them. That they don’t need to keep emailing Debbie asking when is this going to happen. That they don’t need to have their family lawyer there trying to navigate and move around a system whereby they are still stuck legally in a situation that is not healthy for them or their whānau.

This bill is essential and it is great to see we all support it. By and large, our families will benefit from this legislation now and into the future. Our efforts—our collective efforts—to stand together in unity tonight on the issue of family violence and sexual violence is something; let’s take a step back and say, “Can we do this more? Can we do this more and look for a unity on things that are important for our communities?” I ask that because we’re having challenges, but when we put the whānau at the centre of our thinking and we look at the impact of family violence or whatever the issue might be, surely we can find a way that we can awhi and work together to find common ground of our “how?” How do we provide support? How do we provide legislation that can help uplift family and also, like this legislation, break the shackles of marriage?

Timing is important because, as we’ve heard in this House, for a woman or a man who is in a family violence situation, they may not have a tomorrow. When you’re a victim of family violence, you live in fear all the time. I texted my mother and I said, “Oh, I’m going to be speaking about family violence and this new legislation that’s coming through.”, and she was like, “Yes, awesome. About time.” For far too long we have seen wāhine stuck and they don’t know how to get out.

Thinking also about those in the system and those who are the perpetrators, with us a couple of weeks ago receiving the report into State abuse and faith-based care abuse. Many who have been impacted in those systems often either become victims in relationships or they become the perpetrators. We have broken families that are at a point where they go like this [Brings two fists together], and I think that that’s something that we can—we need to have that wānanga as a House in terms of how do we grow the whānau, how do we rebuild the connection so that legislation such as this and others are not required into the future.

I stand today on behalf of the Green Party to say we absolutely tautoko. Marama Davidson isn’t here, but Marama Davidson in her capacity and thinking about the advisory group that she put together as the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence would definitely be saying “Awesome! We’re there.” I’ve texted Katie Murray to say, “It’s happening and it’s going through the House.”, and I’m sure tomorrow she will give me a text and say, “About blinging time.”

On behalf of my whānau—because my whānau have been impacted by family violence for a long time—I say thank you, and I say, “Let’s do this again.” Let’s look for common ground where we can work together on matters that impact our whānau and our tamariki mokopuna.

So, on behalf of the Green Party, we support this legislation. I give thanks to the select committee who held the hui; listened deeply to those who gave submissions, the sincerity of community, of whānau, and those who are working on the front line who said, “Yes, please move forward.”, and then now we’re here at this point. It’s a wonderful thing. Kia ora tātou.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real privilege to be standing here today on behalf of the ACT Party to support this bill, and also in my role as the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence. I really do think that this bill will make a big difference in a lot of lives, so I really, once again—and this is important to repeat—want to thank all of those who have been involved to get this bill to where it is today. That would be Charlotte Abrial, Ashley Jones, the Hon Chris Bishop, Angie Warren-Clark, and now the Hon Dr Deborah Russell.

It just goes to show the power of one person’s voice, the power of a strong woman that’s willing to stand up and fight for what she believes in and fight to make change within the community, coming with a petition—two petitions, from memory—to say that enough is enough and we need to make some changes in this space. That’s why this place is so special: where one or two voices can put together a petition like that, and be so strong and powerful in the message that they’re bringing here, that they can bring the whole of Parliament together and united to make a real change within this country. I’m really proud of that, that we have come together across Parliament to support such an important piece of work. I just felt that had to be said again. It really needs to be emphasised that your voice is powerful, and we’re here to listen to the voices of people who come here and want to make some real change in this country.

I was listening to the Hon Dr Deborah Russell speak, and I think there were a few really important points that were made, and those were going back to how hard it is to leave a relationship where you do feel isolated, where you do feel controlled, and where you are being hurt and harmed on a daily basis. Not only that, you’re also struggling with trying to hide that because you’re full of shame that this is actually happening. There shouldn’t be shame in that; it’s not your fault and it should not be happening. I think the key message is that women and people who suffer from this often leave up to seven times and go back—seven times—and then they keep going back. Now, we also know that the greatest risk of death from being killed by a partner is when you leave, so if you’re leaving seven times, imagine the fear each and every time you walk out the door, wondering if this will be the day.

Then we have a situation where the courts become another barrier to leaving, because you are tied to a person that has already isolated you, controlled you, and made you fear for your life each and every day. We really should take a long, hard think about how our courts are working and whether, actually, some of the legislation—and this one in particular—is causing more harm than good in the way that it works. I’m really, really honoured to be part of this today, because this has taken far too long, and it seems so obvious. It seems so obvious. Why are we making victims be tied to somebody who has hurt and harmed them for two years? Two extra years of having to tolerate that. Two extra years of having the person that you have finally, finally managed to free yourself from, and now you’ve got the court saying, “Sorry, you have to wait two years to cut that tie.” That’s not OK. I can’t wait for the final reading of this legislation, when we table this completely, and we can actually stand up and celebrate that that will no longer happen to any other victim of domestic violence.

The next point I would like to make is around the children. No one wants to have a child be in a home where they are either witnessing or experiencing family violence or harm—because it doesn’t just affect the children that day; it affects them tomorrow, it affects them next week, it affects them next year, it affects them for a lifetime, and it can often interfere with their own relationships when they grow up, later in life. Knowing what a healthy, happy relationship should be is important for our next generation to break that cycle of family violence and harm. And I do believe that this bill will go a long way to contributing to breaking that cycle of harm, by allowing a woman or a man to make a choice to leave a relationship and not have a court make them stay when they shouldn’t.

This bill also, I think we should add, doesn’t just cover marriages; it covers civil unions as well. I think that’s important to point out because civil unions have a similar tie, when it comes to being able to leave, as well. So both marriage and civil. What I would say is, when you get married, it’s meant to be the happiest day of your life. Marriage is a positive thing. Marriage should be the happiest time of your life. It shouldn’t be made to be the most torturous time of your life, trying to leave.

I really hope that those who contributed to this bill, across the House and the names that I have mentioned, really do applaud themselves and pat themselves on the back for having the courage to come forward, to speak up about things that must have been very traumatic for these ladies—facing demons not only for themselves but for the whole country, when they were standing up and speaking before the Justice Committee. So thank you. We appreciate you, and we hope that you can see we all in this House support what you brought to us and hope it makes a real difference to many more in this country, in the future.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. I thank the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for bringing this bill to the House. I also would commend Hūhana Lyndon for her commentary, and I will make sure that I tell Mum that we did agree in the House, and she will stop yelling at me for not being nice to you—she gave me very strict instructions that we had to find reasons to agree.

Hūhana Lyndon: Thanks, Auntie Maryann.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: New Zealand First stands firm on principles of fairness and justice and the protection of all New Zealanders. We are deeply committed to addressing family violence and supporting victims. We also want to prioritise ensuring that our legal processes are fair, balanced, and do not erode the rights of any party involved.

I’ve spoken in this House previously about my experience in the Police. I was in the front line in the 1980s, dealing with a process of change as we went through the family proceedings legislation and the continuing tweaking and adjusting of orders as we started to better and more clearly confront what violence was to our communities.

Unfortunately, the reality is the dissolution of a marriage does not always end the control. The protection order will remain in place; the level of control will exist. I recall, we realised that one of the changes in the reality of women was that occupation orders and trespass orders weren’t enough, because a woman that I dealt with—after we got her out of the house, the husband went in and set fire to all her clothes and all her personal belongings, and we could not prosecute him for anything because it was marital property. We have to then keep adjusting and modifying the way we respond to domestic violence.

Over last week, I had the pleasure of travelling around the country and meeting with front-line social services, front-line workers, that were doing their bit to try and address family violence in a practical way. We know we need to put protections in place, but we also know we need to fix broken people—that there are men who have no concept of what a loving relationship looks like. They don’t know anything but violence, and therefore create violence. When we deal with these issues, I think we have to have a balanced conversation and give an opportunity to be able to rebuild relationships. We have to fix broken people, protect our whānau, and protect vulnerable children, and maybe sometimes we have a chance of rebuilding a family.

When New Zealand First looked at this legislation, although we support it wholeheartedly and recognise the importance of putting these protections in place, we still think we need to address some concerns around the unintended consequences that might occur. That’s why we look to the committee of the whole House to really have those discussions and make sure we are considering where there may be unintended consequences. From my perception, the risk is that when you make the protection order a permanent protection order and that is the opportunity to dissolve a relationship, then we’re moving the urgency, the desperation, to a point of the protection order. Is there a risk we will create more contested protection orders? Is there a risk that we will move up or speed up the level of desperation and pressure?

We’re not opposing this legislation, but we hope that, as we move forward, we can consider whether there are some things we need to do. I think that I have dealt with men who have done horrible things, but they have felt horrible and destroyed, and in some circumstances have ended their own lives. I think we still need to keep the open door to fixing family violence by reducing violence. And, yes, we balance that with putting protections in place, but I hope, as we go into the committee of the whole House, we look at this holistically and understand that there may be opportunities to save families, there may be opportunities to fix broken relationship, there may be opportunities to talk to those who know nothing but violence and give them hope to rebuild a relationship. In some instances, that two years can be that opportunity. As much as I would like to think that the dissolution of a civil union or a marriage would put the vulnerable person in a state of protection, we know that doesn’t always occur and that a dissolution in some circumstances is an escalation of the level of need for control.

I hope that, as we work through the committee of the whole House, we consider whether there are things that we’ve missed. I understand what it was like on the front line when, every time we passed a legislation that we thought would help vulnerable women, we ended up creating another problem, we ended up creating more desperation and more urgency. Rather than implementing orders, just ending relationships, maybe there is some balance we can put into this protection process.

The other risk is that we end up with protection orders being used as an opportunity to manipulate a system and use it to speed up a relationship ending. We would love to think that all women are beyond reproach, that we never lie, and we never manipulate, but, unfortunately, my experience is that isn’t always the case. As we create a rush for protection orders to end marriages, do we end up trampling on genuine victims who are lost in the noise? Do we end up risking desensitising ourselves to the seriousness and importance of a protection order? I just hope that as we work through this process, we continue this agreement round the House, we continue to look at the ways this legislation can be balanced and ensure we are achieving exactly what we want it to achieve, which is creating protections.

I have genuine concern, as I meet with the front-line workers that are so desperately working with our young men—men who are fathers at the age of 15; men who have never known a loving, bonding relationship—that maybe when we take that relationship away and we close the door, we are closing the door on them being able to be fixed.

I just hope that when we work through this process, we have a bigger picture in mind. I know how desperately horrible it is for women who are vulnerable. I know the horror of young children trapped in violent relationships. I’ve also had the absolute joy of seeing relationships saved and the corner turned. I’ve seen the men who didn’t know any better suddenly becoming loving fathers. Once they’ve cleaned up their act, they’ve received the mental health services they need, once they have solved their addiction problems, once they have fixed their desperation, they have turned into good fathers and good men, making good families. I just really hope that we can, as we work through this, do that balanced conversation that we need to have and make sure that what we pass here is going to deliver exactly what we’re asking for: the protection for women who are vulnerable, protection for any person who is vulnerable in a controlling relationship.

At the same time, please let us ensure we do not shut the door on people who need desperate help, so that we can actually start breaking the cycle of violence, fix our broken men, fix our broken families, and actually put an end to domestic violence. I commend this bill to the House, and I hope we proceed with really good conversations, moving forward. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. I rise to support this bill on behalf of the Green Party, and I want to begin by echoing the thanks given by my colleague, my tuakana Hūhana Lyndon here, thanking Angie Warren-Clark and Dr Deborah Russell and the Labour whānau for bringing forward this bill, which will allow for a marriage or civil union to be dissolved where there has been family violence.

I also want to acknowledge all of the people that work in the prevention of violence space here in Aotearoa. I myself was able to work in the prevention of sexual violence space while I was at university as a part of the Thursdays in Black kaupapa, which seeks to end the prevalence of sexual violence within tertiary communities. It’s hard mahi; it can be extremely traumatising. All of the people that I’ve met that work in this space are hugely compassionate and good people who do the hard but necessary mahi, and we saw that in the submissions that were made on this bill by many different organisations who work on the ground and support people experiencing family violence and support people to be able to leave those abusive relationships.

I want to acknowledge that within the prevention of violence space, it is chronically underfunded, and that I really do hope that the Government’s approach to social investment will include strong funding for those organisations that have the specialist knowledge and the specialist experience to be able to prevent and eliminate family and sexual violence.

I want to mihi to our beloved co-leader Marama Davidson, the former Minister for prevention of violence, who introduced the first ever cross-sector national strategy to eliminate family and sexual violence, Te Aorerekura. In the Te Aorerekura strategy foreword, Marama described family violence and sexual violence as two of our nation’s greatest shames, and I just want to reaffirm our party’s steadfast commitment to move towards a world where family violence does not take place, but acknowledge that this requires the efforts of all parties and leaders present in the House today.

The main thing that I want to focus on with the brief amount of time that I have left is on protection orders and how, within this bill, protection orders are used as the evidence that someone can provide that family violence has taken place within their relationship. There were some really good submissions that were made, and they were really advocating to broaden the threshold of what is counted as evidence within this bill. Protection orders are flawed. We know that many people do not pursue protection orders, for a number of different reasons. The point was made by Women’s Refuge that of the 52,000 clients that they support each year within abusive relationships, only a small subset were able to obtain a protection order in the first place. Clients that Women’s Refuge have been supporting reported that obtaining a protection order is a hostile, prohibitive, and often unsafe process, and, particularly for people escaping an abusive relationship, sometimes obtaining a protection order can actually increase the risk to their lives and to their safety.

There is hope. There have been lots of recommendations about how we can make the protection order process more accessible and more equitable and safer. Within the Turuki! Turuki! report by the Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group, chaired by the late great Chester Borrows, they recommended streamlining and reducing costs around obtaining protection orders, and they also recommended that protection order applications should be free. But there’s also some other regulations that we have that provide for broadening the evidence that people can provide to prove that family violence has taken place, including the Residential Tenancies (Termination for Physical Assault by Tenant and Withdrawal Following Family Violence) Regulations 2022, which allows for broader allowances, including testimonies from medical practitioners, nurses, midwives, psychologists, social workers, police, Māori wardens, and even the victim-survivors’ employers.

We just think that this is a good start, but in the future, we need to broaden the pathways for survivors to demonstrate that family violence has taken place so that they can dissolve a marriage and cut those ties that bind them to their abusers. Thank you.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There’s been a number of very strong and impressive contributions tonight. As the chair of the Justice Committee, it seems somewhat odd to pop into the middle and come forth with what’s traditionally more of a summary or review of what happened at the select committee process of the bill, but that role does fall to me. I think, as is custom, it would be appropriate to offer a number of acknowledgments and thankyous at the top.

The first acknowledgment is to the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for stewarding this bill through. She’s already mentioned many of the people who have contributed to the bill to get it to where it is tonight, and actually enlightened me on some of the history of the bill that I was unaware of. I’ll also acknowledge Charlotte Abrial, who had a petition that I was unaware of, and the petition that I was aware of, of Ashley Jones, who’s with us today. I’ll just acknowledge Ashley being here with us and for being able to make a contribution to this bill as well. And, of course, I’ll also acknowledge Chris Bishop, who received the initial petition. If you recall, in the first reading speech from Mr Bishop, he retold the story of receiving the petition, drafting the member’s bill, only to find out that Angie Warren-Clark had pipped him at the post and got in there first. It just goes to show that when a good idea comes before the Parliament and comes before members, it’s one that can be supported across the House. I want to also acknowledge Angie for getting the member’s bill into the ballot, and drawn, too.

I think it’s important to acknowledge that because it shows that this House receives a number of petitions, and it’s a good part of the democratic process that individuals and constituents can petition Parliament to make change. A lot of those petitions flow through the Petitions Committee and come to our committees and, unfortunately, the House can’t particularly act on what’s required or requested in those petitions. This is an example of a constituent who has—or a number of constituents who have had concerns, who have bought petitions to Parliament and those petitions have turned into real change. I think that’s a way to acknowledge that you can affect the democratic process and you can effect change by doing something as simple as presenting a petition to the House. Congratulations to those who engage in that process.

Now, also, I wanted to make a comment on the fact that the contributions tonight have been so constructive and collegial, and that’s how the Justice Committee operated throughout consideration of this bill. You only have to look at bills that touch on family violence and sexual violence to realise that seems to be the pattern across the Justice Committee. We’ve got a couple of other pieces of legislation coming through—strengthening protections for family violence and strengthening legal protections for sexual violence—and in both of those cases, I think, you’ve found a very constructive way that the committee’s approached that. I wanted to acknowledge members of the Justice Committee and also to Dr Russell for her contribution when she sat in on those committee sessions as well. Also, can I just thank the advisers and the Clerk’s team for their assistance in moving the bill through to where it is at the moment.

I guess, as part of this process, I will read into the record essentially what the bill does, the summary of the bill. So, of course, the key purpose of the bill is to insert a new ground for the dissolution of marriages or civil unions. I wanted to note the civil union part because there is a change to the title in the bill that’s been recommended, to reflect the fact that we’re not just talking about marriages, we’re talking about civil unions as well now. That’s important because, as our family and relationship property law has developed over the years, we are recognising more and more types of relationships, and so it’s only proper that we recognise that with more types of relationships come more legal obligations. We needed to recognise that we’re not just talking about dissolution of marriages in this bill, but civil unions as well.

It essentially allows for the dissolution to be granted more quickly in instances of family violence. I’ll touch on some of the issues that the member Tamatha Paul raised as well, in terms of protection orders. It is fair to say that this does represent a slight departure from the no-fault system that we do operate under at the moment. Although I think that is a bit of a misnomer because it’s not quite a no-fault system. Under the current law, in order to obtain a dissolution, you have to, of course, demonstrate irreconcilable difference in the relationship. Under the statute, the only way to demonstrate that is to essentially prove or assert that you have been separated and living apart for more than two years. So, while it may be seen as a no-fault system, it’s certainly not a no-barrier system.

Many submitters throughout the process actually—and it will probably be acknowledged by the committee—made the case that further changes could be made to the bill, that there are other instances where individuals or families may want to or may need to call for a dissolution earlier than that two-year stand-down process. I think that was beyond the purpose of this bill, but it’s something that I’m certainly sympathetic to and something that perhaps could be addressed at a later stage in a further member’s bill, if the House has the appetite.

I think it’s important to probably touch on that point around protection orders right now. There were a number of submitters who said, “Yes, we support the bill. Yes, we support protection orders being an appropriate level of evidence to demonstrate breakdown and to initiate this sort of fast-track dissolution process. But there could be other examples of evidence that we could use. Can’t we use a conviction for an offence of family violence? Can’t we use some other levels of evidence in order to initiate this process as well?” I think they were fairly well-made arguments, and the committee considered them pretty closely. Some of the issues that came with that were that as soon as you introduce more and more levels of evidence and more subjectivity into the evidence, that evidence would then need to be tested, particularly in a judicial sense.

The risk for the committee was that the broader you expand the scope of evidence, the harder it might actually be to get a dissolution. If you are entering into a judicial process where you have to test the evidence, get a family violence conviction, and then have that subject to appeal, you may end up waiting longer to get your dissolution than the original two years, or something that a protection order may have helped with anyway. So, on balance, the committee at this stage has recommended that the evidence be restricted to permanent protection orders. There’s another aside there that the bill as introduced, I understand, actually allowed for temporary protection orders to be the evidence as well, but there were some issues around that too. Temporary protection orders can be issued, essentially, without notice of the respondent and there was a risk seen by some that it would disadvantage, or it could be used to abuse the process.

Of course, we acknowledge that by limiting the evidence that you can use to get the dissolution, you are going to limit the number of people that this can benefit, but there was also always that balancing exercise that needed to be taken into account. Again, I think that there is some scope to perhaps expand the criteria of people who could qualify for this process, but it may be beyond the scope of this particular bill right now.

I wanted to touch on just some of the figures around the submission process. The committee received 30 written submissions, and member Deborah Russell highlighted a number of those organisations. For the Justice Committee, that is probably on the lower end of the number of submissions received, but I can tell you that the quality of those submissions were all incredibly high, and the seven-odd oral submissions that we heard were also of incredibly high value and high quality as well. It’s not always a case that more submissions make a stronger case. It can be the fact that the better the quality of the submission, the stronger the argument can be for the bill’s changes.

Now, I’m very rapidly running out of time, so I thought I would just run through the remaining changes that the committee actually recommended. We have recommended that change to the title just to recognise the different types of relationships that this will cover. We have recommended an extension to the commencement date. As introduced, it was coming into force at six months, but that’s been extended to 12 months to give the courts longer times to adapt to the changes.

We actually grappled with an interesting issue that was only really brought up—the bill as introduced would actually have allowed a perpetrator, or potentially could have allowed a perpetrator, of domestic violence to seek a protection order so that they could then gain a dissolution of marriage in order to disrupt, essentially harass, the victim once again; or maybe speed up the property dissolution process or put them under pressure when it comes to spousal maintenance.

The committee’s actually recommended a change so that it’s very, very clear that the intent of the bill—and it’s important this is read into the record—the intent of the bill is that only the protected person can apply for a dissolution of marriage, not a potential perpetrator of harm. The only exception to that being that if there are protection orders on both sides, then a joint application can be made. That would be the one instance where perhaps if there were family violence incidents on both sides of the relationship, someone who may have been a victim of family harm but had also perpetrated it can apply for that dissolution of marriage. I think it’s important to get that on the record just in case some future court goes back and peruses the Hansard for any guidance as to what we actually meant.

Then the final one I just wanted to put in there was that it was initially unclear as to whether or not you could make an application for an order dissolving a relationship before the appeal period for a protection order had expired. We’ve made that clear that you have to wait for that appeal period to expire. That is going to cause a small amount of delay, but in the long run we think it will actually speed up the process so that you aren’t subject to those potentially long, drawn-out judicial processes.

Look, that is my contribution. I think it is an incredibly important and decent bill and, as you’ve seen from the contributions across the House, very well supported. I want to congratulate the member for stewarding the bill through and acknowledge Ashley and Charlotte for the role that they’ve played in this as well. Thank you.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. First, I’d like to acknowledge my colleague Deborah Russell for continuing with this good bill, and also my friend and former colleague Angie Warren-Clark, who took on this bill when she was a member of Parliament in the previous Parliament.

I’d like to acknowledge Ashley Jones for her strength and championship of such a good cause. I know that she worked with Chris Bishop on this initially as a petition, and now it’s taken the form of a member’s bill.

It’s really important that we understand what we’re doing when we’re passing legislation, and it’s important to note that this bill really intends to reduce the harm that family violence causes in New Zealand by allowing a marriage or a civil union to be able to be dissolved if the person in that arrangement is a victim of family violence inflicted by the other party in the relationship. It was informed by the harrowing experiences that Angie Warren-Clark had supported in her experience of working front line in the family violence space, and I think that it’s really important to state that the conversations or the debates that we’ve been having across the House tonight is that everyone is of the view that every person in New Zealand deserves to live a life free of violence. Our laws and our social supports in all of our systems and in our democracy and our society should work towards achieving that goal, and this bill is part of that overarching view. Addressing family violence is essential for improving the wellbeing of our families and for our tamariki, and it is a priority for us here, in Labour.

The reason why this bill is needed has been clearly laid out. The original purpose behind the two-year wait period under the Family Proceedings Act was to provide a couple with the opportunity to take some time and to be certain of their decision to dissolve the marriage, and that was typically a two-year time of being separate before a divorce was able to take place.

I think it’s important to note that family violence takes many forms. It’s not just physical violence; it can also be financial, it can be psychological, it can be the way that children are spoken to, and it can cause ongoing trauma for both partners and for the children involved in a situation that has turned out to be unhealthy for all those in a situation that’s not working well.

It’s good to see that our law is taking cognisance of the fact that when situations become unhealthy, sometimes things need to happen more quickly than a two-year period, and, as already noted tonight, it’s often in that two-year period when someone files for divorce that tensions can increase, and those pressures that were already operating in the family unit can then become more harmful. While the status quo has the benefit of simplicity, it has been criticised for no longer reflecting the current societal values, and there is real concern that that two-year wait period can be used to perpetuate financial disparities. It can unnecessarily prolong the time before parties can apply for a dissolution, especially for those who have been subjected to ongoing physical or mental abuse. It’s inappropriate for many people where they’re waiting two years and that will not change the outcome, particularly for those in abusive relationships—both for the partner and for the children in that relationship, I think that applies.

I’ve been really heartened tonight around the conversations we’ve been having across the House in terms of agreeing that family violence is a real blight on New Zealand in terms of enabling the next generation of young New Zealanders to be able to grow up and take full advantage of all the opportunities our beautiful country offers them. The complexities of some of the issues involved in a family violence situation are multiple. My real concern is that we currently have a situation in New Zealand where there are whānau and there are families in New Zealand who need help and want to access help and who need that support to either go through a divorce process or get that extra support, and that currently is not available. I think that is something where, if we can agree on so much tonight, it would be good to get that agreement as well.

I fully understand the fact that resources are stretched for police and that police are not the most appropriate people to be dealing with family violence situations. We have trained professionals who are the best to be doing that work, but I, personally, would like to see those trained professionals up and ready and have a workforce in place before our police step back from attending family violence call-outs that are non-fatal. In fact, Te Aorerekura has been a programme that identifies many of the issues identified by this bill, and it’s great to have seen the Minister responsible for the prevention of family violence pick up Te Aorerekura and look at how we grow our workforce and how we enable those workers to be able to assist families and children who are experiencing various forms of family violence.

I think it would be good to have had that plan in place before we were in a situation of having police pulling back from family violence, because when that happens alongside of funding for Oranga Tamariki being pulled as well, what we have are situations where the Minister has said that only those in State care are receiving that support—nothing more, nothing less. That means that there are children who are in families where they are experiencing family violence, and it is that advice and support of social services that would give counselling to mum or dad and that would give extra respite if they’re going through a tough time, that would enable that family to decide whether a divorce was necessary or not, or to decide whether they were able to reconcile those differences or whether they’re able to come together and get some extra help and advice on how to deal with parenting, budget, relationship—a whole range of issues.

I think we owe it to those families to invest and to provide support when it’s needed so that we don’t need to call the police or we don’t need an Oranga Tamariki uplift. I think that would be a better outcome for the next generation of young people, because the last thing that we’d want is the next generation of young people—we know that when we see youth crime peaking and we look into those statistics of that, the vast majority of our repeat youth offenders have come from homes which have been exposed to repeat family violence instances. Having this bill and having an ability to say that a family unit is not working well and our young people are being unnecessarily exposed to family violence—if this bill can assist an intervention at an earlier stage and make those supports available, then that has got to be a good thing.

I would just like to acknowledge the work of family violence and those services that work alongside families to help them make decisions on whether a divorce is going to be the right path and whether they can draw upon this legislation to do that. They provide such vital services in New Zealand, and I’d like to acknowledge that good work.

Recently, I was able to go and visit North Shore Women’s Centre last week, and talk to them about the vital work that they carry out in situations that this bill will directly relate to. It was really sad to hear that North Shore Women’s Centre will be closing in April next year due to the fact that their contracts have been cut, and that will mean that after 38 years of their supporting families and working on the North Shore, they will not be able to continue to provide that level of support. I’m pleased to see that we have agreement on this bill and that this bill will be able to give those families an opportunity to exit a marriage if there is family violence, but at the same time I’m saddened that if there are families who want to work and try to discuss and have counselling to support issues that are relating to family violence, critical services such as North Shore Women’s Centre are no longer being funded to be able to operate in New Zealand, and that is a real concern.

If we want to reduce family violence, we need to encourage people to report it. The number one reason people don’t report it is that they have reached out for help before and they didn’t get it, and that’s what the problem is. With police not attending and services not being available, if people reach out for help and don’t get it, they won’t ask again. We need, as a country, to be encouraging people to ask for help, and when they ask for it, they need to get it, if we’re serious about getting on top of family violence in New Zealand.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It’s with great pleasure I rise alongside colleagues on this side of the House and across the House and around the House in support of the second reading of the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill.

I want to start out by, firstly, acknowledging Ashley Jones in the gallery and the work that she and many others did to get us to this point. Those who think that you can’t change anything in politics from a member of the public’s perspective and you can’t change anything and they won’t listen to you anyhow, Ashley’s proven them wrong. She has managed to turn her lived experience into legislative change in, as James Meager articulated, a relatively short period of time too. We know sometimes petitions can languish, but her petition was brought on to the steps of Parliament back in 2021 with over 5,000 signatures. It headlined, that petition, on the steps of Parliament as “Change our archaic divorce laws so abuse victims can be free of their abuser”.

When you look at when this was last looked at and the legislative framework that currently has to work under, it goes back over 40 years to the Family Proceedings Act 1980, which came into effect in 1981 and has been governing the laws around the dissolution of marriage ever since and was extended to the dissolution of civil unions in 2005. So, as one of our colleagues across the way said, “This is long overdue.”

I want to acknowledge the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for shepherding this through and working with the Justice Committee so diligently, and she’s always the first to give credit to her colleague Angie Warren-Clark. As a previous speaker said, Angie Warren-Clark was a professional in this space, having been a Women’s Refuge manager and a family violence expert, if you like.

Looking back, as someone said just earlier, domestic violence, family violence, family harm, is a real blight on New Zealand society, and, sadly, it is. We look at the New Zealand Crime & Victims Survey’s most recent report of 2021-22, and get this: 24 percent of New Zealand women experienced intimate partner violence during their lifetimes, making New Zealand have the highest rate of domestic violence out of 14 OECD countries. In 2020, New Zealand police responded to a domestic violence call every four minutes. Looking at some stats between the years 2009 and 2018, that decade, 88 New Zealand women were murdered by their partners. Of the woman who were killed, 51 percent had left their abusive partner within the last three months. A further 14 percent of women were killed after leaving their partner longer than three months. Two out of three were actually killed by their ex-partners, but in the eyes of the law, they are, of course, deemed partners. Separation does not equal safety when you look at those stats alone.

I also want to acknowledge some of our previous speakers and some of our leaders in this House. I want to acknowledge the Hon Karen Chhour, the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, and our spokesperson and leader in that space, the Hon Louise Upston. I want to acknowledge the Hon Mark Mitchell, Minister of Police and of Corrections, and the Associate Minister of Police, Casey Costello. These people have real lived experiences, and, as our Prime Minister would say, we have the right people in the right places, and that’s what a team is all about. When you reflect on those four people, those four Ministers, on this side of the House, representing the three coalition parties inside Government, that’s real experience, lived experience that they’re bringing to the bringing to the fore, doing their best, and all of us here across the House tonight are coming up with some legislative solutions.

I just wanted to reflect a little bit more on our guest tonight, Ashley Jones, and tell her story, because we’ve heard a lot about the bill within its technical details in what the select committee changed and why. But let’s have a look at the motivation and the story that kind of motivated over 5,000 New Zealanders to sign that petition and then for the likes of Deborah to shepherd it through the House. Ashley’s story is one of a woman taking on the law system to help thousands of others with the same experience. She has never given up on herself or the belief that all victims of abuse should have more rights. After leaving her abusive marriage in 2020, Ashley found herself in a two-year limbo of separation, required under the law before she could file divorce papers. During that time, she was subjected to financial and emotional abuse from her husband, who refused to properly engage with the separation proceedings. In Ashley’s case, after two harrowing years, she tried to file her divorce papers but was told that because she didn’t know her husband’s whereabouts, her documents could not be processed. It took a further 11 months before she was officially divorced from her abusive husband. Two years, through Ashley’s example, is a minimum this can languish, and the obstruction and the control can continue well beyond that two-year period, as Ashley found herself.

I want to also acknowledge the Hutt Valley Women’s Refuge and the role that they played with you, Ashley, and all Women’s Refuges around the country and all the work that different community leaders do in this space. So it’s with regret that we even have to go here, but I finish as I started out. This goes to show that members of the public can change laws in New Zealand, that members of Parliament can listen to them and respond in a legislative sense to the lived experience of Ashley and thousands and thousands of others—one could argue up to 24 percent of New Zealand women who have experienced some form of harm by their partner—and that things can be changed for the better.

This is only a small piece of the puzzle, but it’s a puzzle that this Government is up for, and we will continue to work as constructively across the House as much as we can as a coalition Government to get the right results, because the answers here are not left wing, centre left, centre right, right wing. They are solutions like this that make relatively small legislative adjustments but a major impact on someone’s life, just as Ashley has shown us what she has been able to do as a single person with a lot of friends and family supporting her as far as coming to the steps of Parliament in 2021. Here we are, three years later, which in parliamentary time is pretty quick, making a real difference to legislation that’s well over 40 years old, well overdue, and will be well received by many, many women tonight. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I’ve been listening to the speeches tonight and a lot of ground has been covered. I don’t intend to repeat some of the statements and arguments that have been made, but I particularly want to acknowledge Deborah Russell not only for the work that she’s done here but for what was, quite frankly, an outstanding speech outlining the reasons for this bill and its history. It was presented in a very thorough and compassionate way, and I really appreciated that.

I also want to acknowledge my friend and former colleague Angie Warren-Clark; this bill was her original bill, and it’s a real passion of hers. She has dedicated many years of her life to keeping women safe, but this may be, in fact, her largest contribution in the sense that it will have impact on thousands and thousands of lives.

I just want to touch on a couple of things. Everyone has been very affirming of this bill, but I do want to touch on some more technical aspects. The first is that in fact at select committee, we almost retreated somewhat from the original idea but that’s for good reason. There was a suggestion that any evidence of family violence should be admissible as a cause for obtaining an order of dissolution.

What we wanted to avoid when we finally reached the conclusion that you really needed a protection order—a final protection order in respect of which the appeal period had expired—we wanted to ensure that we didn’t find ourselves in a situation where there was litigation around whether or not family violence existed and the possibility that that would be further traumatic for the people involved. I wanted to identify that.

I also wanted—and this is linked—to identify the fact that we were concerned with the suggestion that this is leading away from no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce, when introduced, was a world-first, I think, in New Zealand. It has served us very well where parties don’t have to go and recriminate—they just have to want to separate. It’s still important that that’s the case here, and all this does is trigger a truncation of the period before which a divorce can be sought.

We do need a review of our law around divorce and dissolution and relationship property—it’s well overdue. This is just one small reform, but I think it’s a very good one. Once again, I commend all of those—the many, many people who have been involved in getting it to this place—and I commend it to the House.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As a number of those speaking on this bill have commented, it is pleasing to see such unity across the House—the stuff that doesn’t make the headlines, but is actually really important, and where a lot of meaningful work is done. Like the member the Hon Dr Duncan Webb speaking previously, I don’t want to repeat some of the great content that we’ve heard, but I thought I would take a slightly different tack and just focus on those two parallel railroads that we have: one of prevention and one of response.

Of course, this bill is to enable a better and, indeed, a safer response to cases of family harm to ensure that there is timely means for people to leave abusive relationships. That’s really important. Of course I respect the sanctity of marriage, and, while that’s really important, it’s also important that we have safe relationships. That’s why being able to safely exit a relationship is important.

I commend those that have brought this bill to the House, and there have been a number of them. I note, though, that that parallel track of prevention is so important. Of course, there’s work that the executive board that was set up last year around the elimination of family and sexual violence—and, in fact, tomorrow, I’m sure the hard-working chair of the Justice Committee, James Meager, will encourage those to join online and see agencies being held to account, to ensure we are doing a better job in this country of preventing it.

I can give a local example that I think speaks really well to where this prevention goes, because as I stand here to speak on this subject, I don’t stand as an individual but as a proud representative of my community. I’m proud of the strong work that is being done in that community. There are some great examples from Horowhenua, like the Horowhenua Abuse Liaison Team—I have to acknowledge Brigette, who for a long time worked there and did some great work—along with many community agencies. In fact, I share a building with many of them that work in this space, like Women’s Refuge.

I wanted to speak just briefly about what I have learnt in Kāpiti from the interagency case management group, and I just think, what would this country look like if we saw this model repeated across the country? This is a group that was established with the police family harm team. I do want to acknowledge Callan, the police sergeant, who does a great job, along with people like Jimmy and Niall, in that space. This is a group made up of the statutory agencies, with NGOs, and with all those that have an interest and do such strong work, and I do want to acknowledge them.

I want to acknowledge Janie from Oranga Tamariki, and the leadership she provides in this space. I want to acknowledge Louise and the Kāpiti Women’s Centre—what most areas would call Woman’s Refuge. I want to acknowledge A Safe Kapiti, or ASK, and particularly Kathy, and the work they do. I want to acknowledge Wendy and the team from Kapiti Living Without Violence, Victim Support, Kāinga Ora, community mental health teams, child and adolescence mental health teams, Atareira, Birthright—and Jodie does a great job there—and Kāpiti Youth Support, and Raechel and the team, that are doing some excellent work with the young members of our community. I think of Te Hāhi and all that Gradon Harvey and the team are doing, the Salvation Army, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)—Cathy, Louise, and the team there—the community probation service, Wesley Community Action, Plunket, and Hora Te Pai.

There are so many agencies involved, and I’ve been to meet them individually. I was proud to take the Hon Louise Upston to meet Louise and the team at the Kāpiti Women’s Centre last year, to hear firsthand about what they’re seeing in this space and the work they’re doing. I was pleased to take the Hon Mark Mitchell to meet some of our local police officers and police stations in there, so that we could understand. It is because of their experience—them walking these people through—and, look, like every MP, I’ve had interactions with people as they’ve come to me for help. I’ve helped people access some of these services, and the teams and these NGOs and these other groups just do such a fantastic job in the most difficult of circumstances. I’ve been able to advocate for people, and, I have to tell you, with one case recently with MSD, a woman in a difficult situation of family harm actually, when I went to work with them—we were able to advocate and fight and get the result that I thought she deserved. But the team at MSD did an amazing job, and I do want to acknowledge the support they give.

Giving them this tool in the tool box—that women, or, indeed, anyone in the most difficult situation can safely leave an abusive relationship, a situation of family harm, in a more timely manner—is something that I think we’re hearing everyone supports, and that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to also make a contribution on the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. Like many others tonight, I’d also like to very sincerely acknowledge Angie Warren-Clark, a former member of Parliament, who I know was very passionate about this bill and was also very passionate about the work that she has previously done and was very passionate in so far as being able to hand it on to the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, who has shepherded it through and cared for it very much in the same way that Angie would have if she was able to.

I would like to acknowledge the Justice Committee. I heard Dr Deborah Russell say, earlier on, that it was a small change, that it made a real difference. Whilst it may just be a small legislative adjustment and whilst it may have been a relatively smooth process, it had required us to really challenge the rationale behind the status quo, and in that way it was profound in so far as the thinking involved. Whilst I said the process was relatively smooth, there were several things that needed to be worked out. Nothing is ever as smooth as it sounds on the surface. But where there’s a will, there is a way, and there should be a way because there most certainly is a will behind this bill. I think that was very ably summed up by saying simply that all people deserve to be able to leave a relationship where there is violence.

I’d like to, again, take my opportunity, as others have tonight, to acknowledge Charlotte and to acknowledge Ashley Jones and all of the other people who contributed and lent their experience to the understanding of the select committee. It was invaluable. It was worthwhile. It made a difference. It does count. I hope that everybody who has made this happen tonight can feel very, very proud of the contribution that they have made via this House process. So I commend this bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the last person to commend this bill to the House. And it warms my heart, as it has warmed everyone’s heart, that we’re all in agreeance on this subject that this bill must go forward. I mihi to you, Ashley Jones—you’re in the House. A lot of this is because of you, so thank you for your courage, thank you for putting yourself out to exposure, thank you for being one of the main catalysts behind the kōrero that we’re having today.

The proposed legislation, Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill, is in the name of our Labour colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell. It was introduced into the House back in May 2023 by a former Labour Party list MP, Angie Warren-Clark. I thank her as well for charging that through that first reading. Then it was referred to the Justice Committee, which I am privileged to be a part of and which is chaired by my good friend here, the MP for Rangitata, James Meager. That’s where we were privileged enough to listen to the submissions that were brought forward with respect to this bill.

The intent of this amendment bill is very clear, actually, it’s to amend the Family Proceedings Act 1980 so that a party to a marriage or a civil union who has been the victim of family violence inflicted by the other party in the relationship can apply for an order from the Family Court to fast-track their marriage or their civil union so it could be dissolved—that is to get a divorce—without having to wait for the two years to pass which is currently a requirement of the law as it stands. This bill will also remove the requirement for parties of a marriage or a civil union, the subject of the application, to live apart for two years before a dissolution is given on the grounds of family violence.

I’d like to just touch quickly, as a couple of my colleagues did earlier, on the grounds upon which this order for a dissolution can be made. The grounds would be established if the applicant is a protected person under a protection order made against the applicant’s spouse or civil union partner. The following types of protection order—as mentioned earlier but I’d like to put on record—would establish the grounds for this dissolution: a protection order made under the Family Violence Act 2018, a protection order made under the Sentencing Act 2002, or a registered foreign protection order.

Alas, my time is limited tonight, so even though I’d like to go through some of the other submissions that we listened to, I think I’d like to add to the acknowledgment of Ashley Jones tonight. The submission that Ashley prepared for us in the select committee to listen to, which of course strengthened the need for why this law must pass—if I may just read a few quotes from Ashley’s submission: “In 2021 I started and submitted a petition “Change our archaic divorce laws so abuse victims can be free of their abuser”.” I remember what our colleague from the Green Party just said earlier, that a lot of these people, many times women, are stuck when they find themselves in this situation.

Ashley went on to say, “I strongly believe if victims were able to file for a divorce it would remove a lot of the further abuse that continues throughout the two year stand-down period.” That’s the ultimate goal here. The ultimate goal, the ultimate intention, objective, and indeed the hope is that family violence harm in New Zealand will be reduced by passing this law. No, it’s not going to eliminate all family violence, but someone that’s been through it, Ashley Jones, who sits here with us in the gallery tonight, almost like the shepherder herself of this bill, said it in her own words, that it will remove a lot of the further abuse that continues throughout those two years. “Abuse is about power and control”, Ashley wrote, “and this current system allows many occasions for the abuser to still maintain that power and control, even in cases where a protection order is in place.”

Ashley, thank you. Thank you for highlighting some of the horrible statistics that exist in our beautiful country, New Zealand. Sometimes it’s very difficult to reconcile with the fact that we live in such a beautiful country, Aotearoa New Zealand, and yet we’re riddled with such horrific statistics when it comes to family violence. Bless you with the rest of your journey, Ashley, and thank you for everything that you’ve done. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Is this a—

Glen Bennett: A Te Pāti Māori call.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Oh, OK, are you taking the Māori Party call? I call Glen Bennett.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. This is heavy, heavy conversation this evening. It’s about the abuse, about things that are physical, that are sexual, that are mental. It’s non-discriminatory, in terms of family violence—it covers so many facets of our communities and society, whether you’re in the wealthiest of suburbs, the poorest of suburbs, or anywhere in between.

Family violence not only impacts on heterosexual couples, but, in my case, I know, and I know of stories within my own rainbow community of relationships and civil unions, relationships and marriages, relationships and partnerships, which have been violent, which have been manipulative, which have been physical. That’s why there’s old legislation. There were compromises made back in 1980 when this legislation was first brought in, so that’s why we need to change it. I think we need to actually fully remove the two-year ban across the board. But this is just simple legislation.

Angie Warren-Clark, who is actually a family member of mine, has worked in this space, and I just want to acknowledge her this evening for her work, her legacy, that will live on beyond her in this House. I commend this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Name changed to Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for committee stage next sitting day. Members, given the time, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.