Wednesday, 11 September 2024

WEDNESDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2024

WEDNESDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

Obituaries

Hon Peter John Gresham ONZM

SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 31 August 2024 of the Hon Peter John Gresham ONZM, who represented the electorate of Waitōtara from 1990 to 1996, and continued to serve as a list member from 1996 to 1999. During his membership of the House, he served as Minister of Social Welfare and Minister for Senior Citizens. I desire, on behalf of the House, to express a sense of loss and sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me to observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory.

Members stood as a mark of respect.

Visitors

Canada—Speaker of the Senate

SPEAKER: I’m sure members would wish to welcome Raymonde Gagné, Speaker of the Senate of Canada, who is to my left, and her delegation, who are present in the gallery.

Motions

New Zealand Paralympic Team—Congratulations

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice congratulating the New Zealand Paralympic Team on their achievements at the Paris 2024 Paralympic Games. I move that this House congratulate the New Zealand Paralympic Team, comprising of 24—

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute, I’ve got to put the leave first—which would be kind of useful. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. Please start again.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That this House congratulate the New Zealand Paralympic Team, comprising of 24 athletes across eight sports, as well as their support team, on their success at the Paris 2024 Paralympics, where they won one gold medal, four silver medals, and four bronze medals.

On behalf of the whole Government, I would like to congratulate the New Zealand Paralympic Team on their fantastic performances and achievements at the Paralympic Games. The 11 days of the Paralympic Games in Paris included our team delivering electrifying performances, personal best times, New Zealand records and Oceania records all being smashed, and, of course, many Kiwis on the podium. As their team slogans so aptly put it, we’ll give you something to talk about—and they definitely did.

Danielle Aitchison, our double silver medallist, winning silver in both the women’s 100 metre and 200 metre T36 is one example. Danielle had such an epic race in the 100 metre T36 final and has since spoken about her ambition to go out and achieve further excellence in LA in 2028, and we’re all looking forward to seeing her do exactly that.

Holly Robinson’s smile after winning the bronze medal in the women’s shot put F46 lit up the Stade de France, as did William Stedman’s after winning silver in the men’s 400 metre T36. It was heart-warming hearing him speak afterwards about how much this achievement meant to him, his support team, and all of his family, but also knowing how inspirational his performance was to New Zealanders.

In particular, Anna Grimaldi gave us many moments of inspiration, and watching her throughout the games was an emotional roller-coaster, from jubilation at her silver medal in the women’s 100 metre T47, then despair as she lost out on the women’s long jump T47, which she’d expected to be her best event, only to then go out and win gold and smash the Oceania record in her last event, the women’s 200 metre T47. Her resilience in picking herself up after the disappointing long jump result—usually her strongest—to win the gold medal in the 200 metres, the event that she was less confident about, the very next day is a great example to us all. Anna now joins Dame Sophie Pascoe and Eve Rimmer as the only female Paralympians to have won gold in three successive Paralympic Games—a brilliant achievement.

It wasn’t only happening just in track and field; Kiwi Paralympians shone in the velodrome, including Anna Taylor’s silver medal in the C4 3,000 metres, and Nicole Murray, who smashed the New Zealand record in qualification for the C4-5 500 metre trial time. The New Zealand flag also flew at the Nautical Stadium as Peter Cowan took home the bronze medal in the Paracanoe men’s VL3 200 metres on the final day of competition.

Our team’s results weren’t all medals and glory, but, even in moments of disappointment, the Kiwis made us proud through their integrity, their sportsmanship, and congratulating medallists and thanking their supporters with such grace.

I do want to take this opportunity to also acknowledge the hard work of chef de mission Raylene Bates, supported by deputy chef de mission Lynette Grace and their whole team of para-athlete support staff. The team behind the team did a great job of ensuring that all of our Paralympians were ready and able to perform, and supported them along the way in everything from prosthetic limb servicing to health, psychology, and performance support.

I’d also like to acknowledge Paralympics New Zealand, High Performance Sport New Zealand, and Sport New Zealand for all the work that they have done to get our Paralympians to Paris. I know that they’re already looking forward and building on this team’s performance as they think about Los Angeles in four years’ time.

To the athletes of the 2024 New Zealand Paralympic Team: your friends, your family, and the rest of New Zealand are so very proud of you. Again, can I offer my congratulations on behalf of the Government to all the members of New Zealand’s 2024 Paralympics Team.

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

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to join with the Government and support the Prime Minister’s motion to congratulate New Zealand’s Paralympic Team for representing our country with such energy, pride, and tenacity.

Our nine medals—including four bronze, four silver, and one gold—are a just reward for years and years of dedication and hard work. Our Paralympians continued the proud Kiwi tradition of punching above our weight. With 24 athletes competing across eight different parasports, they all proved that they had, in the words of Anna Grimaldi, “a bit of dog” in them. Perhaps that’s the theme of these Paralympics. Against far larger countries with far bigger budgets and with a host of new Olympic athletes, our Paralympians showed that our little island can never be discounted.

Of course, none of that success would be possible without the support networks that surround our para-athletes. To the coaches, to their families, to their friends, and their support staff, we know the sacrifices that you have made and we thank you too. Their success is also your success.

Los Angeles in 2028 may feel like a long way away at the moment, but with so many new Paralympians making their first showing in Paris, we know that we’ve got a lot to look forward to in 2028. On behalf of the New Zealand Labour Party, on behalf of the Opposition, we want to congratulate and thank our Paralympic team for the inspiration that they have provided to all of us.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Mr Speaker, thank you. I rise to take this call on behalf of the Green Party in support of this motion and the words of those who have spoken before me. We extend our heartfelt congratulations and pride to our wonderful New Zealand Paralympic Team for their outstanding participation and performance at the Paris Paralympics.

The 24-strong New Zealand Paralympic Team included 10 debutants and five Paralympians aged 20 and under. It was an historic achievement for us, with Aotearoa athletes securing nine medals: four bronze, four silver, and one gold. We were all impressed with the records being set all over the show: one Paralympic record, four Oceania records, 11 national records, and 12 personal best performances as well as countless season best performances at Paris 2024.

As my mum always told us, it’s not just about winning; it’s about participating and doing the best with what you’ve got. We want to see disabled people participating in whatever sport they choose to, and that means breaking down barriers to participation.

Paris 2024 has staged one of the most influential additions in the 64-year history of the Paralympic movement, and here in Aotearoa New Zealand, it has captured the heart and minds of the public like never before, leading to record-breaking levels of engagement across both linear and digital platforms. Our athletes have not only inspired us but they’ve set a powerful example for future generations to participate in and support and enjoy sports.

Among the many impressive achievements, a personal highlight for me was witnessing Anna Grimaldi’s remarkable resilience and mental fortitude. After finishing fourth in her favoured women’s long jump T47, she bounced back the very next day to win gold and set an Oceania record in the women’s 200 metres T47.

While these incredible achievements were consistent throughout the games, I want to focus on the 2024 Paralympics New Zealand campaign, We’ll Give You Something To Talk About. The campaign challenges us to see para-athletes through a different lens, one that celebrates athletes’ extraordinary achievements rather than focusing on athletes being disabled people. Our athletes are inspiring because of their sporting achievements, not inspiring simply because they are disabled people.

The New Zealand Paralympic Team are high-performance athletes who reach the very highest level of elite sport. All athletes face challenges and they fight hard to overcome them, step on to the world stage, and do incredible things. Our Paralympians also happen to have truly inspiring and sometimes heartbreaking stories of resilience. We know parasports are woefully under-resourced compared to mainstream sports, making it more difficult for disabled people to access.

We need more backing and resourcing at the grassroots level for disabled people to be able to participate in sport, whether they aspire to compete or, equally important, they want to participate to have fun. Let’s all commit to breaking down barriers to participation.

One story that stood out to me was that of three-time Paralympic champion swimmer Cameron Leslie. To quote Cameron, “Disability can so often be talked about in whispers and behind people’s backs … Those of us with disabilities go through life proving people wrong and sport became my way to do this”.

Paris 2024 has been a true celebration of inclusion, diversity, and achievement, proving that anything is possible: having fun and winning gold. Congratulations to our athletes, you are incredible. Tino pai rawa atū! [Incredible!]

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We celebrate 64 years of Paralympics this year, and Paris has been absolutely stellar in hosting the world yet again for 11 competition days and an opening ceremony day—12 days of athletic excellence with record-breaking levels of engagement. Paralympians have captured this nation’s heart. Kiwis have had our attention turned to the vast range of parasports available across New Zealand, and the level of coverage that the Paralympics received this year really helped to showcase this.

The Paralympics New Zealand campaign slogan, as we’ve heard, is “We’ll Give You Something To Talk About”. And it did just that. Kiwis have had access to Paralympians like never before. The Paralympics education programme has exceeded all expectations, with over 250 schools registering to take part in the programme. My daughter and I had a chat about this, and she told me about a project she’s been doing at school on Nicole Murray, a paracyclist. Nicole had always been an active person, but her journey into parasports started in 2015, when she was attending a conference for young amputees. She was invited to try paracycling for the first time, and less than 10 years later, she’s a bronze medal winning Paralympian. Well done, Nicole.

While my daughter was doing her project on Nicole, she actually told me that she really liked Anna Steven more. So, naturally, when your kid looks up to someone, it’s worth finding out a bit more about them. And, wow! Anna is an amazing, impressive person. Like Nicole, Anna found her way in by attending a parasports open day, where it was suggested she try out athletics. Anna has been a competitive athlete since 2016, and just six months after, she was competing in the 2017 World Para Athletics Junior Championships.

Anna is a cancer survivor, diagnosed at age 12, which led to her undergoing chemotherapy and the amputation of her lower right leg. She has worked hard to be a world-class athlete, and she has provided space for other disabled athletes to excel as well. She continues to tell how running gives her a sense of empowerment and freedom. Her career as a Paralympian is an inspiration, and I am bought in. I cannot wait to see where she smashes her next goal, whatever she chooses it to be. It’s clear why my daughter was inspired by her. I hear Anna has recently picked up surfing. I hope you get to catch some great waves when you get home, Anna. And, with parasurfing potentially being included at the LA games, I hope we’ll see some athletes catching swells who have been inspired by this New Zealand team.

The Paralympic campaign this year really did help to connect New Zealanders with the Paralympians in Paris. We got to see Anna Grimaldi win gold in the women’s 200 metre T47—an absolutely electric performance that sees her bringing home gold to our proud little nation. I want to thank all the people who made this possible, not only for our athletes but for all of New Zealand, the parents, the partners, the coaches, the medical teams—all the kaimahi who came together. You continue to inspire and push our next generation to greater heights. Mahi tika. [Do what is right.]

We are a land of opportunity and freedom. We are proud to support our Paralympians, and we look forward to the 18th Paralympics in Los Angeles. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. It is indeed an honour to be here to support the Government’s motion and do a huge mihi to our Paralympic team, to let them know personally how extremely proud we are of everything they did, particularly the way they ignited excitement across Aotearoa. These are huge congrats to the 24 athletes, 10 who were first-time Paralympians, and a large team of rangatahi. They came home with one gold, four silver, and four bronze, and also a huge degree of mana for us as Aotearoa.

Our athletes, as has been said before, competed in eight Paris sports, and yet there were another 14 on the global stage. We continue to show indeed how we push and punch above our weight. We had Anna Grimaldi, who got bronze and gold; Anna Taylor with silver; Danielle Aitchison with silver; Nicole Murray with bronze; Will Stedman with silver; Holly Robinson with bronze; and Peter Cowan with bronze—not to mention the amazing amount of records that were reached and broken and extended upon. You generously shared your journey with us all. I mihi to Peter Cowan, who also shared his journey as he was preparing for Iron Māori, and instead here we have this amazing feat that he showed us—truly, truly inspirational.

There simply wouldn’t be this amazing kaupapa without the support of the friends, the whānau, and the support staff of all the New Zealand Paralympic Team, and indeed I recognise, and we recognise, the commitment of the communities who proudly stood side by side, on the edge of their sofas, no doubt, over the last couple of weeks. You have won medals, indeed, but also you’ve won medals of our deep gratitude and pride, and I hope that you can feel that from this House. I also want to give a special mention to the technical experts, who literally brought the TV screen into your house. It was so graphic that I’d be really surprised if neighbours weren’t hearing each other screaming. It was truly an inspirational time for us.

I do want to conclude on the reflections that came from Andrew, president of the International Paralympic Committee, who reminded us indeed of our obligation to use the momentum of the Paris 2024 Paralympics to be more inclusive, to remind us of our commitments to diversity and our differences, and to use them as a reason to unite—and that seems to be a big theme for this week—and to use that to drive change in creating a better world for everyone. I hope that each of us today continues to use this sphere of influence and, indeed, what it is that our athletes have shared and taught us. I then would like to conclude by thanking them all for their excellence and for showing us every day what is possible. Kia ora rā.

Motion agreed to.

Petitions, Papers, Select committee reports, and introduction of bills

Petitions, Papers, Select committee reports, and introduction of bills

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

CLERK:

Petition of Rajeev Nair requesting that the House condemn acts of violence in Bangladesh and urge the Bangladeshi army and interim Government to take measures to protect Hindus and minorities

petition of Sam Fisher requesting that the House conduct an inquiry on the abuse and intimidation of women representatives, in Parliament and local authorities

petition of Eugene Greendrake requesting that the House amend section 213 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011

petition of Rainbow Labour Christchurch Branch requesting that the House pass legislation to protect the right of transgender and gender nonconforming athletes to compete in publicly funded sports

petition of Philip Naniov requesting that the House reduce Road User Charges for light electric vehicles

petition of John Clarkson requesting that the House update the child support system

petition of The Criminological Society of the University of Otago requesting that the House urge the Government to disestablish youth offender boot camps.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. It’s a long list.

CLERK:

Statements of performance expectations for the:

Electoral Commission

Independent Police Conduct Authority

Law Commission

Privacy Commissioner

Criminal Cases Review Commission

City Rail Link Ltd

statements of intent for the:

Independent Police Conduct Authority

New Zealand Customs Service

City Rail Link Ltd

strategic intentions for the:

Border Executive Board

Ministry for Regulation

Mercury New Zealand Ltd Integrated Report

annual report of the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.

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

CLERK:

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Education and Training Amendment Bill

report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Contracts of Insurance Bill

report of the Justice Committee on the Petition of Liya Lupala.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Parliament Bill, introduction.

Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill, introduction.

Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2), introduction.

Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Urgent Debates Declined

Supermarket Sector—Lack of Competition, Government Response

Winstone Pulp Mill—Closure

SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from Arena Williams seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Government’s response to the lack of competition in the supermarket sector. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The Government has indicated that it would support a targeted inquiry into the major retailers’ wholesale offerings. The business of the House should not be set aside just because a ministerial announcement has been made, even though it may be important. There must be such an element of urgency that the matter must take precedence over other business of the House—Speakers’ ruling 224/4. I do not consider that that threshold has been reached, and the application is declined.

I’ve also received a letter from Helen White seeking to debate the closure of the Winstone Pulp mill. For there to be an urgent debate, there must be ministerial responsibility for the case of recent occurrence—Speakers’ ruling 216/4. The application has not identified any Government action to be debated. In the absence of Government action, it’s not a matter that can be the subject of an urgent debate—Speakers’ ruling 222/4. The application is declined.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 10 to Minister, 28 August—Amended Answer

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Point of order. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to an oral question.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to none.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: On 28 August, I was asked by the member Teanau Tuiono what I believe the implications of a recent Court of Appeal decision involving Uber drivers would be. I responded that it was my understanding that one party has filed for an application of appeal and this would therefore be out of scope for Parliament to discuss. I have since discovered that although the party had publicly announced that it intended to file an appeal, this action had not been completed by the time my statement was made. Even though my statement was only based on my understanding rather than an assertion of fact, I am issuing a correction to clear things up. Regardless of these particulars, I consider that my overall approach to addressing the member’s question was in line with the Cabinet Manual—where an appeal period has not expired, matters related to judicial decisions are still considered to be before the court. It would have therefore been inappropriate for me to comment on the implications of the results of this particular case, especially given one party had publicly announced an intention to appeal.

SPEAKER: I sometimes forget to give the House officers the instructions that I’ve said I would. One was that that microphone that you have by your desk could be moved more closely to you so that others can hear you. Obviously some over here can hear you quite clearly but others, clearly, could not, so I hope that will be picked up by whoever is listening.

Question No. 1—Finance

1. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government’s revenue strategy?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The Government’s revenue strategy is part of the Fiscal Strategy Report. It sets out the Government’s view that a good tax system finances public expenditure in a fair and efficient way, minimises bias in economic decisions, limits the number of tax provisions that provide preferential treatment for certain activities or sectors, rewards effort and individuals’ investment in their own skills, has low compliance and administration costs, and minimises opportunities for tax evasion and avoidance.

Tim van de Molen: Does the revenue strategy consider the introduction of any major new taxes?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, no. The revenue strategy explicitly says that with the prudent control of spending, the Government does not see the need to seek major additional sources of revenue. Government spending and revenue are clearly out of balance. That is because of big spending increases with core Crown expenses up 72 percent in the last six years. The Government’s focus is squarely on controlling spending, restoring fiscal discipline, and improving efficiency and productivity. It would be a very lazy Government indeed that leapt to increasing tax as a response to a blowout in spending.

Tim van de Molen: Does that mean the Government is not considering a wealth tax?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, no, the Government is not contemplating a wealth tax. Almost no other countries have such a tax, for good reason. The main result would be wealthy people leaving New Zealand in droves, taking their money with them, and paying no tax here at all. To be fair, there are some local commentators who argue publicly for a wealth tax, and there are commentators who publicly argue against it. It’s interesting to see these disagreements playing out in public, particularly from such close colleagues.

SPEAKER: I just want to say that I think the affirmations coming from the Government’s side are no better than the interjections coming from the other side, and they need to stop. I was hoping we might get through this week—given the great day that we had yesterday—where I might not cop the blame for your bad behaviour. So could we just please have your next supplementary, Mr van de Molen.

Tim van de Molen: Is the Government considering a comprehensive capital gains tax?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, no, we are not considering a comprehensive capital gains tax. Our focus is on controlling spending, not finding new and more ways to get tax out of people. We are not going to be a Government that goes to small-business owners and tells them the Government is going to tax them more when they sell their business and retire. We are not going to be a Government that tells people with savings, including in KiwiSaver, that the Government is going to tax their savings more heavily, and who tells people that they should not invest in productive assets because we’ll tax you more. For a country that is short of capital, a capital gains tax is the last thing we need.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: So, in summation, the Government’s position is Hipkins pre-election, not Hipkins post-election?

SPEAKER: No, no, stop. That’s not a free question. You can have an extra one for that, which I don’t often do, as you know.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just wait for the House to compose itself.

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, especially our decision to deliver more funding for cancer drugs and other medicines, which will have a massive impact in the lives of thousands of New Zealanders. On Monday, Pharmac announced that from 1 October, Keytruda will be funded for eligible people with advanced triple-negative breast cancer, head and neck cancer, advanced bladder cancer, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and as a first-line and second-line treatment for bowel cancer. That funding comes alongside a massive record investment of $16.7 billion in this year’s Budget for health. The last Government left a train wreck for Health New Zealand after their failed mergers, and this Government’s cleaning it up, and Shane Reti’s doing the job.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has Cabinet agreed to draft a law change that will delegate the power to increase public access to semi-automatic weapons to Nicole McKee; if so, why?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the Government has a number of works in the firearms space which we’re working our way through, trying to work out how we balance public safety and also efficiency of compliance.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet has agreed to draft a law change delegating power to increase public access to semi-automatic weapons to Nicole McKee and, if they had done that, why they had done that. Simply saying that they’re trying to increase or balance public safety doesn’t really address that question.

SPEAKER: Well, it sort of does, doesn’t it? Because otherwise he’d be telling you what Cabinet business is, which is not the usual course of action.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of Order, Mr Speaker. Once the Cabinet has released the papers, then it is perfectly acceptable for people to talk about it, and the Prime Minister should clearly know about it given that he chairs the meeting.

SPEAKER: I was unaware that the papers had been released. I should have known because that’s how you’d have found out. The Prime Minister might want to say something more in direct answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’m happy to repeat it for the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, please.

SPEAKER: We’ve got a long afternoon ahead of us.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has Cabinet agreed to draft a law change that will delegate the power to increase public access to semi-automatic weapons to Nicole McKee; if so, why?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, the member’s getting well ahead of himself. We have a piece of work under way. There have been no decisions made whatsoever about semi-automatic rifles. There’s been a minor change made to clubs about technical reporting; that is a technical matter and entirely appropriate.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did Cabinet agree to amend section 74A of the Arms Act to delegate to Nicole McKee the power to determine what a “prohibited weapon” is?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Minister has responsibility for firearms legislation, and Cabinet obviously supports the Minister.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will the delegation to Nicole McKee under section 74A of the Arms Act allow her to increase access to semi-automatic weapons?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Cabinet has not had the discussion about access to semi-automatic weapons. When it does, it’ll come back and be discussed fully.

Hon David Seymour: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports of the Labour Party police spokesperson getting her facts woefully wrong and being publicly humiliated for it, as may be happening right now?

SPEAKER: No—no. No need to answer that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If Cabinet has not had any discussions on semi-automatic weapons, why has it agreed to change the law to delegate the power to liberalise access to semi-automatic weapons to Nicole McKee?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I would say is that no decisions have been made about semi-automatic weapons. We’re going to be focused on public safety, and those conversations are still to happen.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did the Government notify its Korean counterpart that it was cancelling the contract for new ferries by text message less than an hour before announcing the cancellation, despite receiving advice that, “Careful and deliberate communications with the Korean government would be required in advance of any public announcement,”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That’s a commercial matter between two commercial parties to resolve: KiwiRail and Hyundai.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Prime Minister not read the advice from Government officials that suggested that cancellation of the contract would need to be handled carefully in terms of the New Zealand Government’s relation with its Korean counterpart?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I was in Korea last week. The issue didn’t come up. I can tell you, in a $2.7 trillion economy like Korea, it’s not a big issue. Two parties are quite capable of resolving that commercial arrangement.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Perhaps, then, did the Prime Minister raise the issue himself to apologise to the Korean Government or was he more interested in discussing K-pop?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely not. There was no need to raise it with the Korean Government, because you have one company in Korea and one company in New Zealand—two companies can resolve a commercial dispute. It’s very simple.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Winston Peters and Judith Collins that Shane Jones’ comments referring to a judge as a communist should not have been said and were inconsistent with Cabinet Manual requirements, or does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said the comment was “descriptive” and was consistent with Cabinet Manual guidance?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the member is actually conflating two issues there, but the Attorney-General—it is entirely reasonable for her to remind all Ministers about the importance of comity.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: She’s got higher standards than you. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Question—excuse me.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He mentioned you.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know. But I’m not so sensitive to think that he meant it.

Question No. 3—Infrastructure

3. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent announcements has he made on actions to improve New Zealand’s infrastructure system?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): At the Building Nations summit a couple of weeks ago, I announced two actions that the Government is taking to improve our system: establishing a new national infrastructure agency on 1 December and directing the Infrastructure Commission to develop an independent 30-year national infrastructure plan by the end of next year. In relation to the new infrastructure agency, this is repurposing Crown Infrastructure Partners so it will act as the Crown’s shop front for the private sector, partnering with agencies and, in some cases, local government on projects involving private finance, and administer central government infrastructure funds.

Katie Nimon: How will the new infrastructure agency improve the supply and quality of infrastructure?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The new agency will unlock access to capital for infrastructure and be a gateway for the private sector partners that have big and credible ideas for New Zealand. It will also lift the commercial capability inside the Government and help us to be a better client around infrastructure. This will also work on projects involving traditional loans, equity investments, public-private partnerships, developer levies, beneficiary levies, tolling, and value capture. We’ve set out an ambitious plan on this side of the House to use new tools to fund and finance our future infrastructure needs, and the new agency will be a part of delivering those tools.

Katie Nimon: How will the national infrastructure plan improve long-term infrastructure outcomes?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We’re developing a 30-year national infrastructure plan consisting of infrastructure needs analysis, a strengthened infrastructure pipeline, and an infrastructure priorities programme, and looking at priority reforms to improve the way we select, invest in, and deliver infrastructure. We are letting the infrastructure experts at the commission, which was set up by the last Government with bipartisan support from the then National Opposition, to do that work. They will be looking at the current state of play, identifying the gap between what we have now and what we need into the future, and looking at independent assessments of credible investments, reforms, and policies to fill our infrastructure deficit.

Katie Nimon: What else will the Government be focusing on to improve infrastructure?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: According to the Infrastructure Commission, one of our biggest challenges facing our system is the cost and resources we need to repair the assets that are wearing out. In fact, there was a recent OECD report out just last month that shows we are ranked fourth to last in the OECD for asset management and, in fact, dead last for accountability and professionalism. Asset management is not something that has been core business for Governments in the last few decades, but it is something that we need to drastically improve. So the Government is considering our next steps for how we improve asset management and maintenance. We’re looking at long-term capital planning. We’re looking at mandatory reporting. We’re looking at tighter rules. We’re looking at upskilling and training, better structures and incentives, minimum standards, and stronger regulatory scrutiny. This all sounds quite boring to some, but it is absolutely vital for driving better value for money out of Crown expenditure.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given the interjections across the House, why doesn’t he take advantage of Shanan Halbert’s, Labour MP’s, extensive business knowledge on this matter?

SPEAKER: That’s not something that can be commented on by the Minister, and it’s the second one today from the Government. It’s not going to go well for the Government—[Interruption] Just a minute—[Interruption] Quiet, thank you. It’s not going to go well for the Government in the long term.

Question No. 4—Customs

4. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Minister of Customs: What updates does she have about recent drug seizures at the border?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): Customs continues to make significant seizures at the border. So far this year, 1.2 tonnes of methamphetamine was intercepted onshore, while 1.7 tonnes was intercepted offshore. Internationally, Customs is working closely with its offshore partners and has been very effective at targeting and intercepting significant quantities of drugs—both very large intercepts, as well as the smaller packages intercepted on a daily basis. Currently, around half of the drug seizures destined for New Zealand are made before they reach our border. In collaboration with New Zealand Police, Customs has had a number of successes in dismantling organised crime groups, arresting key members, and ensuring they will face justice. Preventing drugs from arriving in our community has prevented massive social harm and cost to New Zealand. This Government is committed to being tough on crime and ensuring that our communities are safe and that offenders face consequences for the harm they cause.

Tanya Unkovich: What methods are criminals using to try and evade interception?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Transnational organised crime groups use all manner of concealment methods to try and evade Customs’ border security measures across air, sea, and freight import pathways. While transnational organised crime groups continue to target New Zealand through high-volume attempted imports through mail, we are now seeing more sophisticated deep hides in, for example, industrial machinery, and in and around maritime vessels. Transnational organised crime groups also exploit the legitimate supply chains by using trusted insiders with privileged access to systems in order to circumvent border controls.

SPEAKER: There have been any number of conversations going on while questions are being asked. That’s not acceptable, so we’ll just wait until those conversations finish—and, of course, those involved in those conversations can’t even hear what’s being said.

Tanya Unkovich: Has there been a shift in how criminal groups are attempting to bring drugs into New Zealand?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Transnational organised crime groups are determined in their attempts to infiltrate the import-export supply chain. They actively recruit workers on ports and within airport facilities, known as trusted insiders, to manipulate the movement of goods, circumvent Customs’ controls, and work with external criminal groups to smuggle prohibited drugs into our communities. The emergence of rip methods that involve trusted insider elements at both the originator and the New Zealand port premises placing and removing prohibited goods from containers before they are subject to customs processes is an ongoing challenge to Customs’ border security role, and it highlights the importance of Customs’ overseas postings and partnerships.

Tanya Unkovich: What work is under way in seeking to make it harder for organised crime groups to operate in New Zealand?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Transnational organised crime groups represent a significant threat to New Zealand and pile misery into our communities not only through drugs but also through activities like fraud, migrant exploitation, and tax evasion. These groups are sophisticated businesses that operate across crime types and borders. This means we need a strategic, coordinated response to detect and disrupt these groups’ activities. While we have good foundations to build on, I believe more could be done to join up efforts across Government to tackle the interconnected nature of offending that transnational organised crime groups present. That is why I am progressing work that aims to strengthen operational responsiveness across Government and to update the transnational organised crime strategy. It is critical that we have the tools and operational processes to detect, prevent, and dismantle organised crime in New Zealand, and I expect to be able to make further announcements before the end of this year.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What will it cost to upgrade port facilities for Interislander ferries, and who will pay, given her comment that “It will, of course, cost something to upgrade port facilities”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Ministers are carefully working through advice and options to ensure the Cook Strait connection is resilient. Announcements will be made once decisions have been taken.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she provide any funding for port-side infrastructure and facilities?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that remains to be seen, but all I can do is repeat the answer to the primary question, which is that the Ministers are carefully working through the advice we’ve received and options around ensuring the Cook Strait connection is resilient. Once we’re in a position to say more about it, that member will be one of the first to know.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement that the public will find out about the ferries “within the quarter”, and is she confident she can make an announcement on the new ferries before the end of September?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister, I’m not aware of the full context that that quote was given. What I can assure the House is that Ministers are carefully working through the reports we’ve received and analysing the options that are on the table. Once we’re in a position to say more about it, we’ll do so.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters when he said in 2017 that he “is committed to restoring rail to its rightful place in New Zealand. Bigger, better ships with new technology are yet another step on that journey”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister, I often find it’s wise to agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, particularly when he’s making very sage and cogent comments in relation to infrastructure and particularly rail. This is a Government that is committed to a resilient connection across the Cook Strait, and we are also committed to the rail network, which plays a very important role, particularly in Auckland and Wellington through metropolitan public transport.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that the 2017 comments matured into the 2020 decision by the then Minister in charge of railways to buy two ferries for $400 million max—right?—and not end up with $3.2 billion that we ended up with under that Government?

SPEAKER: Well, in so much as the acting Minister would be aware of that, he can answer.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, yes, I am aware that the original decision back in 2020—it ended up in 2023 with a projected cost of both the new ferries but also the associated port-side infrastructure cost approaching $3 billion. The new Government did not consider that to be a prudent use of taxpayer money.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How much does she expect to have to promise New Zealand First to confirm their support for non - rail-enabled ferries?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I don’t have anything more to add other than what I’ve said in the primary answer, which is that Ministers are working their way through the advice and the options that have been received. When we are in a position to say more, we will do so, and that member will be one of the first to know.

Question No. 6—Transport

6. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) to the Minister of Transport: How many public transport improvement projects that were bid for by regional and local councils were funded in the National Land Transport Programme 2024-27 and how many did not receive funding?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): In total, 42 public transport (PT) improvement projects are included in the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) 2024-2027, and 87 public transport projects were not included. The number of public transport improvement projects covers projects across both the public transport services and infrastructure activity classes. The National Land Transport Programme delivers a record amount of investment across public transport services and infrastructure: $6.4 billion has been allocated, which is a $1.5 billion increase over the previous National Land Transport Programme. Public transport projects progressing in their 2024-27 NLTP include—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just stop there. Wait for some reasonable listening time.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’ll try.

SPEAKER: Resume.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: PT projects progressing in the 2024-27 NLTP, among others, include the Rosedale bus station, City Rail Link activities that enable day-one operation of the new rail link, delivering new electric ferries, the Eastern Busway, Palmerston North bus service improvements, Christchurch bus service improvements—

SPEAKER: Good, just table it.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —on route 7, Wellington Metro rail track—

SPEAKER: That’s enough. Thank you. It’s enough.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Oh, thank you. There’s lots more.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How many, if any, of those public transport projects that the Minister mentioned—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: I might get you to—sorry, just ask that question again. The House will be silent while people are asking questions. Little conversations will stop.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How many of the public transport projects that he just referred to which are funded under the new NLTP are new projects and not just a continuation of projects that had already been funded under the previous NLTP?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, if that member wants to talk about announcements versus delivery, let me introduce her to Auckland light rail.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I’m sorry, I don’t have the exact Speakers’ ruling before me, but I believe there is one that says that an answer to a question should not start with a political attack, especially since it was a very straight question—that was, just how many of those projects are new projects.

SPEAKER: Well, he got about four words out that I could hear before you rose to your feet. I’d suggest that the Minister answers the question as directly as possible.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, a number of these projects are continuing. A number of the projects such as enabling day-one operation of the City Rail Link is critically important to ensure that when it opens in 2026, it’s able to be successful. There’s new funding in there for the new services which are going to need to be enabled. So there is funding for new services, there’s funding for existing programmes, but, ultimately, it’s about delivery. And if the last Government needs to learn—the last Government—

SPEAKER: No, no. [Interruption] That’s enough, thank you. It’s enough.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that funding applied for by Auckland for level-crossings removal to enable the City Rail Link to function at the highest possible standard have not received funding under this NLTP?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There is funding in the NLTP for parts of the level-crossing removal programme.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: What does he say to the people of the Hutt City who, amongst 18 cancelled, unfunded public transport improvement projects, will not see planned improvements to train stations and bus interchanges at Waterloo and Woburn, no progress on the regional busways work, or the possibility of double-decker buses on key routes over the next three years, and who may now see reductions in ferry, bus, and rail services?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I say to that member that there is $100 million more being spent on public transport services and infrastructure in the Wellington region under this National Land Transport Programme than under the last Government’s National Land Transport Programme. Now, when it comes to this Government, we’re actually focused on delivery, and that member forgets a thing called “Let’s Get Wellington Moving”, which actually spent more time on “Let’s get Wellington consulting”.

SPEAKER: Good, thank you.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that, once accounting for inflation, the amount of funding in this NLTP for public transport infrastructure is less than the previous NLTP and that, as a share of the overall NLTP, public transport has reduced, compared to the last one, to 8 percent?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this is where the Opposition get confused between how much is being spent and actually what’s been delivered. Actually, if you look at how much—let me just give some facts to the member. At the last National Land Transport Programme, the Wellington region was allocated $744 million for public transport infrastructure; they only spent $421 million of that. They have a problem when it comes to delivery, and so this Government is focused on actually getting things done, not just announcing amounts of money being spent.

Scott Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was hoping to hear an answer to a very direct question. All I heard was an attack. I would ask the Speaker to reflect on that and see if there can be a response to a very direct question.

SPEAKER: No, Speakers’ rulings make it very clear that the Government can refer to past Government programmes. I think the Minister, in his answer, was simply saying that if you look at money allocated compared to money spent, there is a delivery problem, and I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he believe that Kiwis are sick and tired of improvements to public transport, and is that why he has, effectively, cut funding for new public transport improvement projects? It, basically, killed the pipeline, so there will be no improvements to new public transport infrastructure that will enable services to improve over the next three years other than what was—

SPEAKER: I’ll ask the member to phrase that as a question, not a statement. Please, have another go at it first.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m happy to address that.

SPEAKER: You may well be, but I’m not happy with the question.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he believe that Kiwis are sick and tired of improvements to public transport, and that is why he has reduced the funding available and, effectively, killed the pipeline for improvements to public transport and Kiwis are going to see the difference?

SPEAKER: Yeah, not a lot better. Just answer so we can move.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I completely reject the premise of that question. In fact, under this National Land Transport Programme, in Auckland, the City Rail Link is going to be completed. That is going to double the capacity of the Auckland commuter rail network. That is a project started under the last National Government, and it’s going to be delivered under this coalition Government. This Government delivers; the last Government just did business cases.

SPEAKER: That’s enough. Don’t ruin it. Question No. 7—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: He gets too excited.

SPEAKER: —in the name of the Hon Willie Jackson. Don’t talk to me about who gets excited in this House. The Hon Willie Jackson—we’re all listening in silence.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Justice: Does he agree with all of the Government’s statements and actions in respect of the Treaty principles bill, and, if so, why?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Justice): I was tempted to answer the way that that member did when asked a similar question once. He said, “Yeah, at the time.” But this Government is united in its purpose. You might even say it has kotahitanga. So, yes, I do agree with its statements. For instance, I agree with Cabinet’s decision to progress the Treaty principles bill, a bill that would enshrine in law the principle that everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Everyone is entitled to the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights without discrimination. Oh yes, I agree with that.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does he agree with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, who says, “we’ve never been open-minded. We’ve always said there’s no intention, no commitment, no support for it beyond first reading”, and, if not, why not?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, for the simple reason that the Government has no policy on a second reading—it may well be that that’s the position of the National Party, and I respect that because, in our coalition, we work together professionally. We have areas where we disagree as parties. That’s why we’re in different parties.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister agree with the Hon Shane Jones, who said, “There is no ambiguity, no doubt,” that the Treaty principles bill would not be passed into law, and, if not, why has he decided to continue with it?

Hon Shane Jones: Source—source?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, first of all, I hear the Hon Shane Jones challenging the member for a source. But I repeat that the Government doesn’t have a position on that. Political parties and their leaders may do, but the Government does not.

Hon Willie Jackson: Will the Minister stop wasting everyone’s time and resources and kill the bill now, given that no one in the coalition Government supports him, the religious fraternity doesn’t support him, the political experts don’t support him, and Māori certainly don’t support it, and, if not, why not?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, Mr Speaker, could I have permission for a longer answer? There’s a lot to address there. First of all—

SPEAKER: No, no. Permission is not granted. If I ask you to be as brief as you normally are, it’ll be a long answer, anyway.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: He mentioned the religious fraternity, and I hear God loves a trier. Starting with one group of people, Labour supporters, when asked, do support the principles in the bill—62 percent of them. So there’s one group. He said Māori don’t support them. Since when did Willie Jackson get to say what every single Māori person thinks? In fact, usually, when you stereotype a group of people by race and say they all think the same, that’s actually racism. We oppose that kind of thinking. Why are we advancing this bill? Because I believe that this country deserves to be able to have a say about its constitutional future and doesn’t need to be cut down or told they’re not allowed an opinion.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Why is the Treaty principles bill needed?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: For the very simple reason that this Parliament, in 1975, when almost no current members were here, introduced the Treaty of Waitangi Act, which said that the Treaty has principles. For 50 years, this Parliament has been silent on what those principles are, and into that void has emerged, according to the Court of Appeal, “a partnership between races,”. I simply believe that there is no credible constitutional basis or successful model where people have different rights, based on their background and their ancestry, because they’re in a partnership between races.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister stand by his statement, “Well, I think the debate will be fun.”, and does he think it will be fun to see racially charged rhetoric and possible civil unrest, and, if so, is that party supporter Matthew Hooton correct that the true motive for the Treaty principles bill is “to inflame hatred in New Zealand”?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It’s a funny and desperate day when the Labour Party is quoting Matthew Hooton. Willie Jackson says he’s my supporter. Willie Jackson should be very careful, because if I was Willie Jackson, I wouldn’t want politicians to have to be responsible for all of their supporters. Actually, I think the debate can be fun, I think it can be civil, and I think he underestimates New Zealanders’ ability to have a civilised and constructive discussion about their future. But if there’s anything that’s been divisive, if there’s anything that has led to racial tension, it is the previous Government’s belief that each of us exists in a partnership between races—

SPEAKER: Yep, that’s enough. That’s enough. Thank you.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What’s wrong with the current interpretation of the Treaty as a partnership, and how would the Treaty principles bill change this interpretation?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, the term “partnership” does not appear in the Treaty and does not align with either version of the original text. It’s a relatively recent invention of the courts in response to this House saying that the Treaty had principles.

Hon Willie Jackson: All those judges are wrong—all those judges are wrong!

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: And there just isn’t a workable model. And this is the challenge for people like Willie Jackson heckling away: where is the successful model of a society which divides people by their ancestry with a different constitutional race to play based on the history of their family? There isn’t one, but there are so many examples of States that have failed because of that exact thinking, and so many examples of good people that Willie Jackson should join who have campaigned for universal human rights.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What support has he seen for the Treaty principles bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, widespread support. In fact, I’ll hold it up again: 62 percent of Labour supporters, according to one poll that I’ve seen. And it’s a warning to those in the Labour Party that as they grapple for an identity in the wake of their crippling loss of 2023, they must really think—

SPEAKER: No, that’s far enough, thank you.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, especially this Government’s action to reduce the number of families in emergency housing. Our Government inherited a rather shameful track record on emergency housing, and now we’re going about fixing it. I’m pleased to report that as of 31 July, there were just 1,548 households living in emergency housing, down from 3,000 when the Government took office at the end of last year. Our policies, like Priority One, which shifts families out of emergency housing and into sustainable social housing, are working. And I want to thank Ministers Tama Potaka and Chris Bishop. No child should have to grow up in an emergency motel, and under our Government, fewer children are. In the month of July, we shifted 525 children out of emergency housing, and that’s more than 10 children a day. There’s more to do, but we want to be able to give families the opportunity to get out of emergency housing, and so far we’re seeing some good results.

SPEAKER: I just want to say to this side of the House: calm it down. If you want to ask those questions or make those statements, do it by way of questions.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his statement that Hawke’s Bay health professionals were “out of line” for offering young Māori and Pasifika people aged 14 to 24 free GP and nurse services?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes; we believe that health should be offered on the basis of needs.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he commit to offering all New Zealanders aged 14 to 24 free GP and nurse services?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That hasn’t been part of our policy. What we’ve been working on is making sure we improve immunisation rates for young Māori under the age of two and working with iwi health organisations to do so, and we’re getting some fantastic results doing it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his statement that reporters need to “look at the facts”; and, if so, does he accept the fact that 22 percent of Māori are unable to see a GP when in need, compared to 13 percent of non-Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I accept that we have major challenges in our healthcare system, thanks to a botched merger from the previous administration. Our Government’s working really hard to get the workforce in place and get the targets in place. We’ve spent a record amount of money—$16.7 billion in place—and we’ve appointed a commissioner because we know how to run things on this side of Government. We know how to run things and how to organise things, and that needs to be a much better performing organisation.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is his plan to ensure more Māori and Pasifika are able to access healthcare?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, a good example would be what we committed to before Christmas, where we committed to spending $50 million to raise immunisation rates amongst young Māori under the age of two. We partnered with iwi-led organisations and as a result we set a target of 10,000 immunisations—I think, as of last week or so, we’re up to about 33,000, so it’s been a tremendous success. We believe very strongly in this Government about localism and devolution and about partnering with community organisations to get things done. What we don’t believe in is centralisation and control—that Government has to do it all. We believe in partnership and working with iwi organisations, communities, and businesses to get things done. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. We’re going to hear the next question and answer in silence.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is he doing to—

SPEAKER: No, no—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is he doing to ensure that his Government’s decision to allow the Treaty principles bill to live for six months beyond first reading will not increase racial division in Aotearoa?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re working incredibly hard to improve outcomes for Māori and non-Māori. That’s what our Government’s focused on. We’re rebuilding the economy, we’re lowering crime so that Māori who are disproportionately victims of crime are not impacted as much, and we’re making sure we’re improving health and educational outcomes as well.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. The question was specifically directed towards the Treaty principles bill.

SPEAKER: No, the question was directed towards what actions would be taken by the Government, and you’ve got an answer that referred to actions.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Justice: Does she agree with the Ministry of Justice’s advice that her proposal to change the regulations on gun clubs and shooting ranges “increases safety risks to range users and members of the public”; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): The quote that the member refers to is from a briefing that I received in March this year from the Ministry of Justice about phase 2 of the Government’s firearms reform. The member assumes that I have blindly chosen this option exactly as it was presented to me. I have not. Since then, I have received further advice. I have consulted on these proposals as well. This specific policy proposal was amended and is not included in the final bill that I intend to take to Cabinet.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did she exclude information, from the phase 2 firearms reform Cabinet paper, that hundreds of improvement notices had been issued by police to pistol ranges for not meeting pre-2020 safety standards, given this would have assisted Cabinet to make an informed decision about potential safety risks?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: The clubs and ranges regulations introduced by the previous Labour Government have placed unnecessary burden on firearms clubs and ranges for no tangible safety benefit. What we have ensured is that the consultation that was done under the previous 2022 consultation with New Zealand Police actually referred to some of the changes that we have made under the Order in Council. It is really important to note that, while we have made these changes, it is to enable the clubs and ranges to continue to operate and to be the eyes and ears of New Zealand gun users. This is very important because, without them, we will be in a more serious public safety risk, and that, ultimately, is what this Government is trying to avoid.

Hon Ginny Andersen: When Cabinet agreed, as per Cabinet minute 0173, to amend section 74A of the Arms Act, was the Minister of Police and the Prime Minister made aware that this would give her the power to define what is a prohibited firearm?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Again, I would have thought that perhaps the member, having been a previous Minister, would understand how this works, but obviously she doesn’t. The amendments that have been made in regard to section 74(4) are that all powers to make regulations actually still lie with the Minister of Police. They do not lie with me. This means that the Minister of Police, in consultation with me and then with agreement by Cabinet, comes to the decisions that we make. While it is still under the Minister of Police, he is the one that ultimately confers with Police and makes the decisions, in consultation with me. I do not have that power.

SPEAKER: The question is an important one. The issue is an important one. And the Minister will answer without any personal reflections of any type, and that would go for all other Ministers as well.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why was the Prime Minister not aware that changing the responsible Minister under section 74A would give her the power to determine what is a prohibited firearm?

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I just answered that question by telling the member that I do not have that authority, nor do I have that power. It still lies with the Minister of Police. And, while I don’t want to make any personal inferences, I think that perhaps maybe the member should listen to the previous answer.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order. I have available—and it is publicly available—Cabinet minute 0173 that specifies that Cabinet has given a change and instructed legislation to be drafted for Nicole McKee to have the power under section 74A of the Arms Act to be the responsible Minister to define what is a prohibited firearm in New Zealand.

SPEAKER: That may be true, but until it is in law, it is just a draft. The Minister’s answer is not incorrect.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Did she mislead Cabinet by not informing them that changing the responsible Minister for section 74A would give her the power to determine what is a prohibited firearm?

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, can you give us some clarification? That surely is outside the bounds of Standing Order 390, making that type of accusation.

SPEAKER: Well, to be honest with you I didn’t hear it entirely, but I’d ask the member to make sure that the questions are within the Standing Orders.

Hon Member: I think it is.

Hon Member: It is. It’s fine.

SPEAKER: Well, that might be the case, but if I hear it again and it’s not, then it will be the end of the question.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Did she mislead Cabinet by not informing them that changing the responsible Minister for section 74A, as Cabinet minute 0173 specifies, would give her the power to determine what is a prohibited firearm?

SPEAKER: No, I don’t think that’s a reasonable question at all. You can’t start off by accusing someone of misleading the question, so I’ll move now to question number—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. There was no assertion in that question.

SPEAKER: Yes, there was.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: If the Minister—

SPEAKER: The question was—sorry, I’m not going to go further with this. It was twice: why did the Minister mislead?

Hon Members: Did she?

SPEAKER: Well, what did she say?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. She asked if the Minister did, and if the Minister didn’t, it’s very simply cleared up by saying no. She didn’t say why; she didn’t say when. She asked “did”—“did the Minister mislead?”

SPEAKER: No, I think there was also quite a clear inference in the question, and that is the problem with the question. I’ll give the member one more chance to ask the question inside the Standing Orders.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is she confident that Cabinet was fully aware that changing the responsible Minister for section 74A, as per Cabinet minute 0173, would give her the power to determine what is a prohibited firearm?

SPEAKER: One hundred percent; your mark’s right on top of mine.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: When making an Order in Council, we were specific about what it was that we were changing. When you have a look at section 74, there is actually a large number of references that a person may be entitled to change. We did not go through every single one of them. What we did go through is what the task at hand was, in the Order in Council that we were going to be changing, and that is what we will be presenting in a bill very shortly.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Transport: How is the Government Policy Statement on land transport delivering for New Zealanders?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In June, I released the Government Policy Statement on land transport to deliver our commitments to get transport back on track. Last week, our Government welcomed the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP), which gives effect to our Government policy statement and delivers a record $32.9 billion of investment in transport to get Kiwis where they want to go quickly and safely. The National Land Transport Programme brings back the successful roads of national significance programme started under the last National Government, boosts investment in road maintenance across the country, and delivers reliable public transport options in our main centres.

David MacLeod: What does the National Land Transport Programme mean for motorists and freight operators trying to get around our country quickly and safely?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The National Land Transport Programme prioritises investment in building and maintaining our roading network to boost economic growth and productivity. After years of non-delivery and the abrupt cancellation of the roads of national significance programme, our Government is bringing back the roads of national significance, with 17 projects across the country, to get Kiwis and freight to where they need to go quickly and safely. Takitimu North Link Stage 1 is already under way, Ōtaki to north of Levin will begin construction next year, and an additional seven roads of national significance will begin procurement, enabling works and construction in the next three years. This Government is getting roading and transport back on track.

David MacLeod: What investment is being made on road maintenance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Whenever I travel around the country, I’m constantly hearing complaints from motorists about the record number of potholes that have been peppering our roads. That’s why this National Land Transport Programme delivers a record $5.5 billion for resealing, rehabilitating, and drainage maintenance works on our State highways and local roads over the next three years. On our State highways alone, there’s a 91 percent increase in funding for pothole prevention to deliver thousands of kilometres of road sealing, rehabilitation, and drainage renewals to prevent potholes from forming in the first place. Our Government has long-term targets in place and is also working with the Road Efficiency Group to ensure this money is achieving value for roads on our State highways and our local roading networks across the country.

David MacLeod: What does the National Land Transport Programme mean for public transport commuters?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this National Land Transport Programme makes the largest investment in public transport services and operations ever to increase reliabilities for commuters, with a 41 percent increase in public transport (PT) services over the next three years. The National Land Transport Programme is focused on reliability of PT services to ensure that we can increase patronage in our main centres. There’s also good news for commuters: the City Rail Link will soon be complete, and other major public transport projects are being progressed through this NLTP, including the Eastern Busway, Airport to Botany busway, Northwest Rapid Transit corridor, and upgrades to commuter rails in the Manawatū and Wairarapa.

Question No. 11—Transport

11. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements and actions in relation to the recent announcement of the National Land Transport Programme?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Yes. We’re committed to providing New Zealanders with quality investments and value for money, and that is what the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) delivers. The NLTP is a record investment in transport projects that will reduce travel times, improve public transport options, and build and maintain our roading network to the safe and reliable standard Kiwis expect. For example—

SPEAKER: No. No need, sorry. You said yes at the start, and that was probably enough.

Tangi Utikere: Does he agree with the National MP Simeon Brown who said, “The whole purpose of how we fund roading is meant to be user pays. People who benefit, people who use the roads contribute towards building it and maintaining it.”; if so, does he stand by the funding announced in the NLTP, which includes more than $7 billion in Crown loans, grants, and contingencies?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, I do stand by that statement. Ultimately, the people who use our transport networks pay for it, whether through road-user charges, petrol taxes, and also contributions which are paid for by taxpayers.

Tangi Utikere: Why is he prepared to allow funding that would be used to build new schools and hospitals to be used to pay for the items in his roading plan, such as the roads of National Party significance?

SPEAKER: No, no. The member will ask that question again.

Tangi Utikere: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is he prepared to allow funding that would be used to build new schools and hospitals to be used to pay for the items in his roading plan, such as the roads of national significance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I’m not sure if that member remembers, but the last Government had a programme called the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, which allocated capital to building a range of transport projects. So if that member wants to lecture this Government for investing in the critical infrastructure, maybe he should answer that question. But, ultimately, this Government has issued the National Land Transport Programme, which allocates $32.9 billion over the next three years to ensure that we can invest in the transport network, which is critical to our economic growth and productivity as a country. And to do that, we need to deliver—

SPEAKER: That’s good.

Tangi Utikere: Is his Government only proposing a toll on the Te Ahu a Turanga - Manawatū Tararua highway, a road already budgeted and paid for by the previous Government, because his roading plan simply doesn’t add up?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: That proposal has been put forward by the New Zealand Transport Agency. It’s out for consultation. Ultimately, that roading project is a major upgrade and will have a significant benefit, particularly for freight operators, who will have an incredibly efficient and modern reliable piece of infrastructure. And, ultimately, we’ve been very clear as a Government that tolling is one way to help contribute towards the building, construction, and maintenance of our roading network so that we can continue to invest in that critical infrastructure.

Question No. 12—Corrections

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. My question is to the Minister of Corrections. What consultation, if any, did he undertake with Māori before the Government decided the Treaty provisions should be removed from the Corrections Amendment Bill—

SPEAKER: Just stop there. Start asking your question again as soon as the House is silent and everyone is listening. Away you go.

12. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Corrections: What consultation, if any, did he undertake with Māori before the Government decided the Treaty provisions should be removed from the Corrections Amendment Bill, and is he concerned that this decision will increase the overrepresentation of Māori within our prisons?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development) on behalf of the Minister of Corrections: In respect of the question pertaining to consultation, that took place during the election in 2023.

Tamatha Paul: Does he agree that people in prison having access to their culture and identity is an important step towards successful rehabilitation and reintegration?

Hon SHANE JONES: There are programmes in our prison system, not the least of which is Hōkai Rangi, but if many of the prisoners practised their culture, they wouldn’t be there in the first place.

Tamatha Paul: If there are no Treaty provisions within the Corrections Act and no active strategy to reduce the overrepresentation of Māori in prisons and given Hōkai Rangi expires this year, how will Corrections be held accountable for reducing the overrepresentation of Māori in prison and meeting their obligations under Te Tiriti?

Hon SHANE JONES: Firstly, there are no obligations in terms of the prison system under Te Tiriti o Waitangi—which is best described as the Treaty of Waitangi, an indivisible document not to be dismembered. In respect of initiatives to deal with the disproportionate number of Māori, it’s about time this House thought about the disproportion of Māori victims.

Tamatha Paul: Is he concerned that despite making up just 17 percent of the general population, Māori make up half of the male prison population, two-thirds of the female prison population, and 67 percent of those in youth justice facilities, and how does he think this overrepresentation has happened?

Hon SHANE JONES: Yes, I am aware of the disproportionate statistics. Māori are twice as likely to be victims of violent crime. Māori are 60 percent likely to be the victims of a higher nature than ordinary New Zealanders. Stop lecturing about people in jail and start thinking about the victims of their crime, who are substantially Māori.

Tamatha Paul: Will he commit to a refreshed and renewed Hōkai Rangi strategy, given it expires this year, to address the overrepresentation of Māori in our jails, in our prisons, and throughout corrections?

Hon SHANE JONES: As I said, a sum of $80 million was set aside in the recent Budget. But I want to make the point: Māori are not in jail because of colonisation. Māori are in jail because of self-responsibility and the need for whānau to refresh and remake themselves so that the values that Kiwis take for granted underlying our society are not trashed and are not explained away by some distant colonial event.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Well, over in the Labour Party we are seeing very interesting times, because what do people do when they get a bit depressed and they get a bit unhappy about life? What they do is they turn to comfort food. For me, it’s pies and pizza; for the Labour Party, the comfort food that nourishes them through the hard times, the depressing moments, the hard times at 10 p.m. at night when they’re thinking about the next day and how bad it’s going to be in Opposition and how they can’t make decisions any more for the future—the comfort food of the Labour Party is tax. Particularly the comfort food for the Labour Party is more and new taxes on New Zealanders: capital gains taxes and wealth taxes.

While business confidence is returning to this country and while the official cash rate is coming down and interest rates are coming down and we’re getting those green shoots of change coming through the economy and New Zealanders are starting to think about a better tomorrow and a better 2025, the Labour Party has decided—most particularly their leader for the moment, Chris Hipkins, he’s decided—that now’s a good time to talk more about tax. He goes on Q+A and starts to talk about a capital gains tax and a wealth tax.

The thing about this is he’s got issues in his caucus, because he’s got David Parker sitting there on the back benches, who has no portfolio responsibility for tax whatsoever, but that is not stopping him from freelancing all over the media, most notably Radio New Zealand, to give his reckons on wealth taxes. Here we have David Parker on Radio New Zealand: “I know the critics of it say this will somehow cause capital flight”. Interestingly, his leader, Chris Hipkins, said on Q+A specifically, “One of the challenges is if New Zealand’s one of the only countries in the world doing it, then you run the risk of wealth flight.” David Parker and Chris Hipkins completely disagree on this issue.

For the first time in a long time, I actually agree with Chris Hipkins, because it is true that if New Zealand became one of the only countries in the world to put in place a wealth tax, then we would see a horde of New Zealanders who’ve invested their money and their capital and their energy and time in New Zealand leaving New Zealand. So for the Labour Party, it’s always all about tax. They always want to tax New Zealanders more and retard the progress that New Zealanders are making.

Ultimately, at the moment, we have a debate playing out between the centre-right bloc in the Parliament and the centre-left, and it’s really a choice about if you believe in smaller Government, efficient Government—

Dan Bidois: Pro-growth.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —and a Government that goes for growth—exactly right, Dan Bidois—to grow the wealth and the prosperity of the country so that we can invest more in effective and efficient public services. Or do you think that the right way to go is more tax, more spending, and more debt? Actually, we’ve got the evidence in from the last six years: we tried the experiment of ever-increasing tax, ever-increasing spending, and ever-increasing debt, and where has it got us? It’s got us into this economic funk that we find ourselves in right now.

Under the last Government, spending went up by 70 percent in six years and debt went through the roof. When we came into Government, debt had hit $100 billion, and we find ourselves in a situation where the Government is having to grapple with tough fiscal decisions because of the wanton mismanagement and reckless fiscal profligacy of the last Government.

This goes right to the choice that New Zealanders are facing and will continue to face into the next two years as we run into the 2026 election. The choice that they will face at that election is between a coalition of parties that believe in smaller Government, believe in more efficient Government, and, most importantly, believe that the right way to deliver better public services for New Zealanders—health and education and all the things that we rely on; law and order—the right way to deliver more spending for those things is not just to shovel money into the Wellington bureaucracy and tax New Zealanders more money in order to pay for it. The right way to do that is to grow the economy.

The Labour Party and the Green Party in particular think that the right way to grow the economy is more taxes. Actually, the last thing New Zealand needs is a wealth tax and a comprehensive capital gains tax. We need more capital. When you don’t want more capital, you tax it. We need more wealth in this country, so the last thing we need is a wealth tax. We will fight the next election on lower taxes versus more and new taxes from the Labour Party.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I’ll start by saying that wasn’t his best work, actually. But never mind; we won’t dwell on that.

Is this drama? Is it comedy? Is it horror? God only knows what genre we have been presented with in the episodes we’ve seen in the last year, but particularly the episodes that we’ve seen in recent weeks and in recent months. But one thing’s for sure, and that is that it is a symbolic, incompetent, and chaotic production that we are seeing run out by that coalition.

I’m going to give a few examples. Recently, we’ve seen the self-appointed executive director of the judiciary—that would be the Hon Shane Jones, a Cabinet Minister—calling a judge a communist. The Attorney-General, Judith Collins, told him off; Jones’ own party leader, Winston Peters, told him off, but Christopher Luxon is yet to do so. In fact, he implicitly supported Jones’ comments when he described them as “merely descriptive”. We now have a Minister tearing up the Cabinet Manual and the only person who is unwilling to chastise him is his groupie, the Prime Minister.

We’ve had Andrew Bayly, who is meant to be the leading actor in this particular episode, trying to do the bare minimum to disrupt the supermarket duopoly that is ripping New Zealanders off at the checkout by supporting the Grocery Commissioner’s plan, but David Seymour, who isn’t even supposed to be featuring in the episode, is once again showing that he values the interests of big companies over everyday Kiwis and says that he and ACT will block any efforts to hold those companies to account.

We’ve also seen another producer, Winston Peters, who clearly doesn’t respect Nicola Willis, who’s meant to be the director and funder, and her abilities as finance Minister. He didn’t even discuss the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s Budget bid earlier this year with her, instead going right over her head to chat to Christopher Luxon directly. That does not bode well for Nicola Willis’ future Budgets.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: He’s a man.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Well, he is a man, and perhaps that is the issue: Winston Peters needed to go to a man. He couldn’t go to Nicola Willis herself and so bypassed her to go directly to the Prime Minister.

We have a Government who are rolling things out that were not voted for by New Zealanders. Did we have a debate about Treaty principles in the lead-up to the election? Did we tell the public or ask the public about tobacco legislation and whether or not they wanted to get rid of the smoke-free policy? Did we tell the public that we need to make $1.4 billion worth of cuts to their health system, and that they would suffer when they went to receive the healthcare that they needed as a result of that? I don’t recall that being part of the election campaign by the other side of the House. Kiwis are clearly not getting what they voted for.

This Government are taking us backwards. Instead of credits at the end of the episode, we have a whole lot of political lines that are coming through that describe what this Government are doing. National agreed to a divisive and racist Treaty principles bill when they entered into the pact with the ACT Party. National entertains New Zealand First’s harebrained conspiracy theories, refusing to commit to a routine international agreement with the World Health Organization, with no clear rationale for why that is necessary. National will stop building State houses—stop building State houses—instead relying on community providers. This will undo the six years’ worth of work that Labour undertook. They are taking us backwards, and that’s only in a few of the areas.

I think the important thing to end the speech with is that, actually, this Government’s priorities are in the wrong place. Who in this country thinks that it was appropriate, during a fiscally tight time, to give $2.9 billion worth of tax breaks to landlords? Apart from a few landlords, apart from the property investors and that side of the House, the rest of New Zealand is saying it’s not appropriate. That side of the House is waving the flag, saying, “We gave everyone tax cuts.” Well, New Zealanders are actually saying now that the $20 a week extra that some of them are getting—not all of them; some of them are getting only $2—does not weigh up when you look at everything that New Zealanders have lost. That side of the House is taking New Zealand backwards, and they have their priorities in the wrong place.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Ko te manu e kai ana i te miro, nōna te ngāhere. Ko te manu e kai ana i te mātauranga, nōna te ao.

[The bird that feeds on the miro berry, the forest is theirs. The bird who feeds on knowledge, the world is theirs.]

One of the things that we saw recently was how Te Tiriti o Waitangi is under attack in Aotearoa, but one of the things within education that came out last week was the subtle and underhanded consultation to remove Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a priority in section 127 of the Education and Training Act. Just for context, currently in section 127 of the Education and Training Act, there are four primary objectives. The consultation means that only one of those will remain, which is around educational achievement, and the part—subsection (1)(d)—on giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi will be moved down and deprioritised. It also means that unless the school board deems that giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which also includes tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and the teaching of te reo Māori, is in line with and meets the objective of educational outcome—if it doesn’t meet that or if the school does not have the capacity for it, it does not need to consider it. This is of serious concern in the context of Te Tiriti.

The Ministry of Education may say that schools will continue to give effect to it, but, like I said, if the capacity doesn’t meet the primary objective of the school, which is educational achievement and educational achievement alone, it does not need to consider it. That is a downgrade. That is a deprioritisation of what is currently in line in the legislation, and it is a deprioritisation of our obligation to Te Tiriti o Waitangi in our education system.

What does te reo Māori mean? Te reo Māori is a taonga. It should be protected under article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. As someone who speaks multiple languages, and as someone who had to learn English upon coming to New Zealand and who had to understand the references and everything that comes with learning a new language, I thoroughly enjoyed my journey while at the very beginning of my journey of undertaking te reo Māori and learning te reo Māori. Now, the reason for that, as with my background in linguistics, is that when we are looking at any language, let alone an official language—by the way, in any other country, it is compulsory for you to learn the official languages of that country in their schooling system.

When we are learning a new language, it expands our horizons. Language connects. Language builds understanding. It allows us to be able to relate to each other and understand why we do things in the way that we do. It allows us to understand that level of whanaunga and the whakapapa of a particular language and a particular culture. So, for us, by removing and deprioritising it—by taking away those berries—we’re limiting the horizons of our ākonga.

When we are looking at this—and we’re going back to the whakataukī I mentioned at the beginning—and as we are looking forward to expanding our own horizons in Te Wiki o te Reo Māori, we must ensure that Te Tiriti and te reo Māori continue to be at front and centre of our educational system.

Kia mau ki te reo Māori o Aotearoa. Ākona te ao pūpuritia. [Hold fast to the Māori language of Aotearoa. Learn it and secure it.]

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): It gives me great pleasure to rise this afternoon, as the Minister of Conservation, on the back of a successful Conservation Week 2024. Toitū te taiao.

Over the past year, I’ve had the great and humble pleasure of attending various parts of the majestic and iconic conservation estate throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. For example, I went down to Piopiotahi, or Milford Sound, where the humble, hard-working MP beside me, Joseph Mooney, resides. To see some of these places that we are absolutely responsible for—to look after, to take care of, and to ensure their sustainability into the future. I’ve met and engaged with a number of iwi and hapū stakeholders, community organisations, environmental organisations, like the Environmental Defence Society, led by Gary Taylor, and others who are all working together under the korowai of conservation.

Most recently, I managed to visit The Capital Kiwi Project: some people who are working very hard to preserve and enhance the kiwi and other populations out on the north and west of hills of Wellington out towards Mākara. They’re doing some really phenomenal mahi to look after kiwi out there. This ambitious little community conservation project was dreamt up, and is still being undertaken and driven, by the local community. It was heart-warming to see the recent Instagram post about one little kiwi who ran out in front of a mountain biker and then secured over 370,000 views and likes on Instagram.

This year’s Conservation Week held the theme “take action for nature”, and this Government is doing exactly that—toitū te taiao. Just before, I was sitting next to the humble and hard-working MP for Coromandel, Scott Simpson, and, earlier this year, had the great opportunity to go down to Te Whanganui-a-Hei to see the access issues that are currently confronting Mautohe, also known as Cathedral Cove—one of those majestic places across the conservation estate. After Cyclone Gabrielle in February of last year, the access route to Cathedral Cove had actually been closed off because whole parts of that access route had been washed away. We went there in January to see what was going on, and we’ve taken action, taken a decision, and decided we’re going to reinstate that access and ensure, supported by the international visitor levy, that we actually get something done—an outcome. I look forward to the Christmas bromance with Scott Simpson and his whānau walking down with my whānau to that beach at Cathedral Cove to Te Whanganui-a-Hei.

I’m excited to announce and outline the clear priorities of Te Papa Atawhai, the Department of Conservation (DOC), to protect our exquisite and majestic taonga. You might be aware that Te Papa Atawhai manages around 30 percent of the entire whenua of Aotearoa. That’s over 8 million hectares. That faces some serious and significant challenges, like weather. The floods of 2020 caused about $12 million of damage; ditto Cyclone Dovi in 2022; and then, of course, Cyclone Gabrielle with an estimated $90 million of impact and damage to the conservation portfolio.

We have some pretty clear priorities within planet DOC, and protecting Aotearoa New Zealand’s natural environments and historic and herstoric and cultural heritage is important. Number one: target investment into high conservation outcomes. Our mahi will identify and strengthen protection of high-value conservation areas to deliver the best outcomes for biodiversity and recreation. You might not be surprised that a lot of the high conservation area throughout Aotearoa New Zealand is actually on private land. Those people working on QEII trust lands—farmers all over the show—that are trying to do their little bit to preserve and enhance biodiversity across the country.

Number two: make more money through the conservation estate. What a great idea, because most of the revenue for the conservation responsibilities comes from the Crown and, ultimately, the taxpayer, and a very small amount of money comes from concessions and users of huts and tracks and the fees that they pay to use those huts. We’re really committed to strengthening the efforts of conservation to generate new revenue and improve outcomes.

Number three: strengthen relationships with the whānau, iwi, and hapū throughout the country. There’s a great example coming with Maunga Taranaki, with that mahi up in Taranaki to vest that into its own legal personality. We’ll work closely with these iwi and hapū to ensure there’s strong conservation outcomes.

Number four: fix concession processes. Right now, nearly 25 percent of all concession applications have been received over one year ago, and that simply isn’t good enough. We can do better than this. By pruning regulation, by growing revenue, and by nurturing the things that matter most, we’re securing the future for biodiversity and for the conservation estate that all New Zealanders, Māori, iwi, hapū—all New Zealanders—can enjoy. Kia ora tātou.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Look, last week was recess week, and during recess weeks we get a chance to spend some time, if we’re fortunate, in our electorate, and I was able to do that in the great electorate of Palmerston North. I want to acknowledge one person in Palmy, because I was able to visit Aileen Kars last week with her friends Jan and Ken and the good folk at Olive Tree, because Aileen is turning 111 tomorrow. She is the oldest person in New Zealand, and the Department of Internal Affairs have confirmed that for us. So, Aileen, I wish you all the best for tomorrow in turning 111 years old.

Last week, also, the Government released its funding around its transport plan, the National Land Transport Programme—all about roads. Look, roads are important, but this is a Government that clearly has put all of its eggs in the one basket. You do not have to be a Sherlock to find that there’s a little bit of an issue in this Government’s funding plan, a little bit that will grow day by day. It is a funding gap, a hole of $6 billion—$6 billion. Now, during the campaign, the now Government was put under the test about their plan. It is all coming to fruition because this is a plan that has a funding hole. It will see this Government have to take money from schools, from hospitals, and who knows whatever else in order to plug that hole that they are so keen to have in favour of roads. Last week—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Tolls.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, I’m pleased, actually, Mr McAnulty, that you’ve talked about tolls, because last week this Government also announced that they were going out to talk to the community about putting a toll on a very special road that connects Mr McAnulty’s electorate and my area as well, Te Ahu a Turanga Manawatū Gorge replacement. It is a 11.5 kilometre stretch of road. It will be delivered next year on time and on budget thanks to the provision of the former Labour Government ensuring that we paid for it; we were committed to it, we built it, it’s going to serve the communities of the Manawatū and the Tararua district so well. This Government is now suggesting that a toll of $4.30 or $8.60 be placed over a 24-hour period. That is absolutely uncalled for. It is outrageous, it is a disgrace, and I tell you what, it is a kick in the guts for the people of the Tararua district and the Manawatū region.

If we think about that as a connector, it is going to add additional costs on to those hard-working folk. For someone that uses that to get to and from work on a weekly basis each day, that is going to add a minimum of an extra $21.50 per week for those vehicles that utilise that. Let’s actually remember the fact that for those senior citizens, how much did they get from this Government: $2.25. Well, if a senior citizen is going to jump in their car and use that, they are going to be far worse off under this Government, let alone for the fact that we have paid for it. Do you know, I’m hearing, and I’m sure Mr McAnulty is hearing, the same from constituents, who are saying, “Our taxes have already paid for that stretch of road.” This Government now is wanting to whack additional costs on local folk because their plan does not add up. It is an absolute disgrace.

It is no surprise when this is a Government that is lumping additional cost when it comes to driver’s licences, lumping additional cost when it comes to an extra $50 for motor vehicle registrations, lumping additional cost when it comes to the excise duty going up 12c, 6c, and then 4c in the years to come. This is an absolute disgrace, let alone the costs that that will bring to councils who may actually be responsible for some of the alternative routes. When we’re looking at the Saddle Road, which is a piece of road that is currently actually maintained by Waka Kotahi, it is likely that if a toll is applied, that cost will fall to local councils. This is another kick in the guts for those folks who are doing it tough right now. It is not the residents of the Tararua district and the Manawatū region’s fault that this Government cannot add up and their numbers simply don’t match. It is absolutely shameful.

There is an opportunity for folk to provide some feedback, and I know that we will be encouraging them to do so because this Government, sadly, needs to get the message loud and clear that this is a stretch of road that has already been paid for by taxes. It was planned and delivered by the Labour Government, and now they’re coming late to the party to say, “You know what, we’re going to whack some additional costs on fine folk who are just wanting to do their honest best.” This is a Government that is heading in the wrong direction. It is taking everyone backwards. We expect better.

Hon MELISSA LEE (Minister for Economic Development): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to participate in the general debate. I want to talk about the fantastic trip that I just had with the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister’s mission to Malaysia and South Korea last week, which was hectic: two days in Malaysia and two days in South Korea. I want to start by acknowledging the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, for leading yet another very successful mission overseas. I have to say, his relentless energy is always a sight to behold and it really set the tone for the business delegation and myself and my companion on the mission—the Hon Nicola Grigg. But it was because he was so relentless and so full of energy, we could not actually stop work. We literally went from really early in the morning to really, really late at night. Parliament seems like a bit of a holiday, actually, so I’m feeling really good to come back home.

I also want to say that New Zealand’s relationship with both Malaysia and South Korea has always been strong, spanning trade, security, and people-to-people connections. But, with any relationship, there’s always room to grow, and that is what the mission was all about—to boost trade, drive investment, and, ultimately, rebuild our economy with the relationships that we actually have with those countries.

As Minister for Economic Development, with responsibility for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, I’m relentlessly focused on the Government’s goal of doubling the value of exports within 10 years. Achieving this requires not only opening new markets but actually looking after the relationships that we already have, to actually grow it. It was fantastic to see some of these concrete steps taken on the mission to do exactly that. The highlight for me was seeing a range of New Zealand companies signing deals with partners in these markets to grow their global reach and contribute to New Zealand’s economy. There were so many deals that were actually signed—I think it was like 10 deals in Malaysia and eight in Korea—spanning industries such as food and beverage, technology, education, health, tourism, and the energy sector, which was really wonderful to see. There’s truly no limit to the range of industries that Kiwi innovators can make an impact on overseas.

I have to tell you a funny story. While in Malaysia, Minister Grigg and I had the honour of opening a fertility clinic in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. What a joy that was to actually see the juxtaposition of a very conservative Muslim community opening up a fertility clinic in the middle of a mall. We had two New Zealand Ministers going to actually open it. To actually see that New Zealand’s technology and culture was influencing another culture, and we were crossing not only geographical but cultural borders as well—that was wonderful to see.

I have to say, the mission was a fantastic success, but we can’t just rest on our laurels thinking, “Oh, New Zealand has such a wonderful reputation and everybody loves us.” It actually takes work and it takes hustle. As the Prime Minister always tells us, we have a great marketing strategy, but we actually need a better sales strategy. We need to sell New Zealand products, New Zealand goods and services. Our goal to double our exports in 10 years is deliberately ambitious, but it’s only going to be delivered if we actually work together and work harder and actually deliver for New Zealanders.

The trade with Korea is an example. The free-trade agreement that was signed 10 years ago, effectively, has delivered double the value. That is a huge success. I think this particular trade mission last week, like others, will play a significant role in actually growing that relationship. One of the business delegates who participated in the mission sent me a text when she landed in New Zealand. She said, “I’m back home in Godzone, and I’m still buzzing from this fantastic, super trade mission.”

I just want to close by paying tribute to the passing of several great New Zealanders. Yesterday, we paid tribute to Kiingi Tuheitia. I would also like to pay tribute to Sir Harold Marshall, long-time Mount Albert community champion and respected international architect, who left us at the end of August. Thank you for your annual efforts at Anzac Day and in championing Mount Albert. Also, New Zealand Business Hall of Famer and co-founder of Ryman Healthcare Kevin Hickman ONZM.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise today with a message to many in our society who have felt or still feel isolated or forgotten as a result of policies responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. New Zealand First is excited about our commitment to an independent inquiry into COVID-19, which will be delivered as phase 2 of Labour’s royal commission of inquiry into COVID-19, lessons learnt. Now, this wasn’t our first choice; our leader, Mr Peters, detailed as such. We preferred to stop the current royal commission and replace it with an inquiry with broader terms of reference and commissioners that weren’t compromised by their involvement in the previous Government’s administration. However, phase 2 represents a genuine opportunity for forgotten New Zealanders to tell their story and it will fulfil what we as a party campaigned on.

There is a sigh of relief, because finally we have time frames, details, and a clear line of sight for what has been a long road for many New Zealanders—New Zealanders who have felt shunned, ignored, gaslit, coerced, isolated, and forgotten; New Zealanders being unable to participate in an inquiry where they can truly tell their stories. Now, with expanded terms of reference, those stories can include vaccine mandates, vaccine efficacy and safety, the reporting and monitoring of adverse reactions to vaccines, and vaccine approvals and procurement. New Zealand First knows that there are stories out there, because we have spent the time to listen to them.

We all have our personal experiences to draw on during these years—I certainly have mine now. This House must understand that there are still many Kiwis out there who are still hurting. We have walked with them, sat with them, and we are working to support their needs in this House. We first listened when the Rt Hon Winston Peters walked amongst the Parliament protesters on the lawn of this very House in February 2022. We heard the stories and concerns of many New Zealanders as we packed public meetings across the country. We started in Warkworth, Pakuranga, Hamilton, Tauranga, Whanganui, Lower Hutt, Nelson, Christchurch, Dunedin, and Invercargill. All across the country, we filled town halls to the brim and we listened to these people, until July 2023 when in Whangārei our party outlined our commitment to an independent COVID inquiry based on what we heard from those forgotten New Zealanders.

We fought hard—[Interruption] We fought hard during this election and we secured it in our coalition agreement in November 2023—a massive milestone. We fought hard during the election. We debated this topic in the House and, surprisingly, in my contribution, I was continuously heckled by the other side, just as I am now. And then, once my contribution was completed, the member opposite decided to give half of her contribution to speak to mine.

Members opposite may not have wanted to hear what New Zealand First have to say, just like now. However, the public did and our debate was subsequently well received. The gaslighting continues—gaslighting, it’s so 2021. We’re over it. New Zealanders are still concerned and we continue to listen, accepting a petition about the inquiry terms of reference and an open letter about the vaccine. New Zealand First have met with many who have been adversely affected by these vaccines and we will continue to listen to them and their heartbreaking stories of how their lives have changed, and this is what we will continue to do.

Phase 2 of the inquiry will begin very shortly with hearings as early as November. We have an independent royal commission with new commissioners, as promised. We have wide-ranging terms of reference, as promised. The inquiry will take a year, as promised. And finally, a report will be delivered in early 2026, and with this report, be it a lesson for future parliamentarians. New Zealand First, we are here to listen and to support the forgotten New Zealanders who are still suffering today. Their story must be told and this House must listen. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Just before I call the next speaker, general debates are a good time to make speeches; we discourage reading. It’s a good time to start and speak from the heart, so I didn’t want to interrupt—just for future speakers.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Now, back to the issues that New Zealanders are really concerned about and the issues that the Government campaigned on at the election time: the cost of living.

Last week, an important report that all parliamentarians should read was introduced. It’s from the Grocery Commissioner and it’s his first Annual Grocery Report. This follows legislation introduced in 2023 by Labour to create a new set of powers for the Commerce Commission and the new Grocery Commissioner to monitor and give reporting annually about the state of our grocery sector. This is something National vociferously opposed at the time, but then on the election campaign started talking about because they know it matters to ordinary New Zealanders. The people who put us in this place, the people who vote for us as parliamentarians to have their backs, want this Government focused on the supermarket sector.

Have a thought for Minister Bayly, who was today denied the ability to debate with me this important question which he is championing. As the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, he knows that consumers want him to be tough on the supermarkets, but he is in the most corporate-friendly Cabinet this country has ever seen. In fact, he’s not in it—in it is the Minister for Regulation, who today announced himself as the “White Knight” for the supermarket, and he will find himself among friends: “Big Supermarket Seymour” alongside “Big Airlines Luxon” and “Big Tobacco Chris Bishop”.

There will be friends in that Cabinet for those opinions which say that the Grocery Commissioner should not have the power to issue useful reports like this one, which most Kiwis will read and they will say, “Well, isn’t it reasonable that retail margins of major supermarket brands increasing is something that the Government should be concerned about? And isn’t it reasonable that Cabinet should be worried about sustained high levels of profitability and market share in our sector which make it uncompetitive and ultimately lead to higher costs for consumers at the checkout? Shouldn’t that be something that the Government should be looking at?”

Many in that Cabinet will be reading this report and saying, “Gosh, hasn’t the supermarket done well to entrench their market power such that almost no new entrants can compete with them?”—that the small guys in the supermarket and grocery sector who compete with them, like the mums and dads who own the vegetable shops around the country, cannot compete with the supermarket duopoly, which has entrenched its market power in a way which only the Government can stand up for consumers in. The only way we will have proper competition in this sector is if that commerce Minister, Minister Bayly, is able to enact some of the reforms that he has said he wants to seek for the Commerce Commission. He should support the entry of a third competitor where possible. He has said to me on our occasions in select committee and in answers to my parliamentary questions—many of which are overdue, Madam Speaker—that he is interested in seeing a third entrant in the market sector.

We’ve got to wonder if the solution that he’s proposing there will only have effect in the years to come—perhaps five years to come, perhaps 10. Once that third entrant gets enough of a market share in a distribution network around the country, then shouldn’t he be more interested in these simple, effective regulatory measures that there is a mounting body of evidence for in this report that we have seen from the Grocery Commissioner—shouldn’t he be implementing some of those? But we have a problem here, in that the Minister for Regulation, David Seymour, came out publicly and criticised another Minister of the Government when he voted against that creation of the Grocery Commissioner in 2023 under Labour. Then he has recently said that he’s “unimpressed” with this first report card from the Grocery Commissioner and feared that there would be regulation introduced which would be more outlandish measures which wouldn’t have effect.

Well, if he’s also pinning his hopes on a third entrant into the supermarket sector, there are also measures that his Ministry for Regulation could be undertaking to make it easier for a third entrant, but those will not have an effect soon. Those will not have an effect on the consumers that have voted for him, the ordinary people in his electorate who are paying hundreds of dollars more at the checkout at the supermarket each month because of the way that our supermarket duopoly works in New Zealand. Those are people who want to see more action from not only the National Ministers in Cabinet but also from David Seymour, who represents them.

There is a mounting body of evidence that this Parliament cannot continue to ignore about the need for regulation in the grocery sector in New Zealand. For decades, Kiwi consumers have been paying out more than our counterparts overseas—say, in Europe, with a flourishing supermarket sector with five major players who all compete on different things, not only price but range—and we deserve that now.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I rise in this general debate today to talk about our Government’s actions to restore law and order, crack down on the gangs, and create safer communities. As the MP for Tukituki and a mother of four young children, I want to see safer communities for our children to be growing up in.

It’s not OK for gangs to be committing violent crime across our communities. It’s not OK for gangs to be intimidating our communities. And it’s not OK for gangs to be peddling meth and devastation across our communities. In Hawke’s Bay, we have one of the highest rates of gang membership in New Zealand. In the recent police meth testing water results at the weekend, we saw Hawke’s Bay overtake Northland as the top spot. Not a top title for our region. This rise in meth and drugs is fuelled by the gangs. That is why this side of the House and our Government is cracking down on the gangs.

Hawke’s Bay, Hastings, is home to the Mongrel Mob, and the gang presence in Hawke’s Bay has increased hugely in the past six years under the previous Labour Government. In fact, the former Labour Prime Minister gave $2.7 million to the Mongrel Mob. What a great idea that was to get on top of meth addiction! In fact, the results of that investment we have seen a 33 percent increase in violent crime, a 51 percent increase in gang membership—what a crazy idea. More pedalling of meth, more crime, and more devastation across our communities. That soft-on-crime approach on that side of the House has meant more youth crime, gang crime, and violent crime running rife across our region. But our Government is saying, “Enough is enough.” It’s time to crack down on the gangs and keep our communities safe.

I thought that this message was quite loud and clear, so it was really disappointing recently to see footage of our Hawke’s Bay Regional Council dancing and celebrating with patched Mongrel Mob members in the council chambers. Wearing gang patches in the council chambers is illegal; it is against the law. Wearing gang patches in schools and in public buildings is illegal—it is against the law—but our regional council thought it was OK. In fact, they danced alongside the patched Mongrel Mob gang members. In fact, they actually then decided it was a really good idea to go and post that footage of them dancing with the gang members in council chambers all over social media—not a good read of the room at the moment. Not only did they break the law and enable these gang members, who believe they are above the law, to break the law.

This was just quite unbelievable, to be honest. Our Minister acknowledged that and said, “We need to see our councils focusing on the things that matter.” Seeing council members dancing with gang members in council chambers, acting against the law, is really, really disappointing. Our Prime Minister recently sent a very loud message to councils across the country to make sure that we get back to basics, to make sure that we focus on the things that truly matter in our communities. From a council point of view, that is fixing roads, it’s making sure our local assets are well maintained, it’s focusing on flood protection, it’s focusing on the infrastructure that is going to get us ahead—that is going to get our communities flourishing. This is what Hawke’s Bay needs at the moment. This is what New Zealand needs at the moment: focus on the basics, focus on the things that truly matter, and get our country back on track.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. Today, I asked for an urgent debate in my capacity as the manufacturing and small business portfolio holder in Labour, and it was on the Winstone Pulp company. Now, there are two businesses down there: one is a timber-processing plant, and the other is a pulp-making plant. People in the area around Ruapehu, several little towns—Raetihi, Ohakune—are living and working in that mill, and have for a very long time. All the work that comes from the mill—230 jobs—also generates work well beyond it. I asked for that urgent debate, and it was declined because it was ruled that this was not within the scope of a Minister’s responsibility. Respectfully, I disagree. I take a very different view.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member had just better be careful. Mr Speaker has actually made a ruling. I’m happy for you to say it was declined, but we won’t perhaps make judgment on Speakers’ rulings, thank you.

HELEN WHITE: I’m absolutely respectful of the Speaker’s right to make such a ruling; let me make that very clear. But what I need to make clear is my position, in the Labour Party, in terms of what I think a Minister should take responsibility for.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s fine.

HELEN WHITE: What I think we have to do when we’re in Government is stand up for people. We need to see the systems errors and the mismanagement that is there, and we need to try and step in and assist people in systemic ways. Here we have a little community that utterly relies upon the work that is available from the mill. And it’s a proud community. I went up to a hui about the potential closure of these mills, and here was this community that was proud. It was bouncy. It was full of optimism. All its little businesses relied on that mill, and it was hoping that the Government would take a role in resolving matters up there that meant that they prioritised the people of those towns, and also the growth of our productivity in an area so important: timber. It’s so important that we start to add value to our raw products.

What our Government had done was we had prioritised that. We had prioritised it, and we had created a plan. We had a plan, which was called an “industry transformation plan”, and we prioritised this one: advanced manufacturing. We did that in collaboration with businesses and with unions and with workers and with many stakeholders. We created that plan, which was to push our manufacturing into another era. Some of what we needed to do was things like circular economies. They are actually all about the need for an industry like that to transform and think differently so that it becomes environmentally sound, so that it moves into the future. Some of that work had been done, and do you know what the Minister did in this circumstance? They cancelled the plan. This Government and this Minister cancelled the industry transformation plan. No work progressed. Labour put real money into the sector. It knew that it was really important we create new products out of timber. There was a structural timber project that was created: $57 million went into that. This is an area that I can be proud to say that Labour stood up for people in.

Now, I want to talk about the impact on people in that town. I rang Liz Brooker, who created the hui the other day. She told me that her partner, who’s a builder, has just lost a job. It was a renovation job in that town. It was going to be $80,000. That won’t be going ahead. What a lot of the workers are going to do is go to Australia, if they can. Many of them might not be able to, because they’re older or they’ve got houses and mortgages in the area. Who knows what will happen to them. It will be devastating. But the young ones? They’ll be off. They’ll be going to Australia. Manufacturing in a town like this has such an important role. It is so important to community cohesiveness. It is different from the challenges that are being faced at the moment by manufacturers in Auckland, because it is a small town. We must support people first. Our manufacturing plans must be ones that respond to the needs of our people throughout the country. So, although I represent Mt Albert, I stand by the workers in this area.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you to my friends for coming today. This will be hard for me. It’s about rural mental health.

You all know why I came to this building. It was for the farmers, that somehow we could all celebrate rural New Zealand, that I might shed some light on what it meant to be a farmer, for farming folk. To share the hows and whys of rural New Zealand, in the hope that some may choose to hear, that some may choose to help; to bring perhaps an authentic voice, to keep it bloody real in this building. That is why I came to this House, that is why joined this party, because I believe in rural New Zealand, that we might share periodically in the way of life of farming folk.

It is in this parliamentary journey that I and Andrew Hoggard and others—God knows—try and share the thoughts of rural people and what it means to be a farmer. The detractors scoff; I hear them. I don’t listen and nor do I believe.

Yesterday was World Suicide Prevention Day; hard for some, bloody hard for me. I buried my boy and he is gone. I stand here to address this House, to address all of you, a shadow of the man that boy would have become—a shadow. But I am here because I must. I am a father to a lost son, a parent to a lost child, but I turn up every day in this House because I believe in rural New Zealand. I believe in this man [Gestures toward the Hon David Seymour] and I believe in my team. But I remain here.

My boy was a contractor, a farmer, an everyday good Kiwi bloke. He is no more. Perhaps another, I might save. I might save someone else. I might be able to help rural people preserve their way of life. There’s a novel idea, and I don’t just mean in passing, giving them a passing ear; actually listen to these people. Politicians need to stop and actually listen to rural folk.

Can we actually change the laws that affect their lives? Yes, we can. We don’t need any more vacuous sermons on what we should be doing in rural New Zealand. We need people that actually listen to us, and this side of the Housewe’re invested in that. Will policy changes actually help these people or hinder them? I ask everyone here.

Farming is a hell of a thing and so many people choose not to do it because of that. The scourge of suicide took my boy. It must not take any more children; your children, my children, our children, our people. Actually think of the people we affect when we make laws in this place. Weeks, months, thousands, tens of thousands of dollars lost on a crop failed by a farmer that worked his guts out to put it in. Gone just like that. Or the pangs of hunger and persistent droughts. We invest tirelessly for better outcomes and our crops fail. Splintered or skin cracked from weeks to months in an endless winter. This is the life of a farmer. I know this well, but do our politicians listen? Absolutely, on this side of the House, we certainly do.

No more red tape. The nightmare of convolution and nebulous “I will do this; I won’t do that.” We are listening to rural New Zealand. I get it, this side of the House gets it, and this Government and this party certainly understands that. For our farmers, I say one thing: congratulations, for you feed a nation.

A contractor, a farmer, a good Kiwi bloke is lost—my boy is gone. His suicide was one thing; it could have been many things, but I will say this to this House: in this god-awful mess that is my life, I am in this House every day because I absolutely believe in rural people. I absolutely believe in this man and the team behind me. I believe in what we are doing and, most importantly, I believe rural New Zealand is worth listening to. Thank you very much.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mark.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I must acknowledge my colleague the member Mark Cameron. My heart goes out to him and I thank him for his courage.

I’m pleased to be able to speak in this general debate, and my statement this afternoon takes advantage of this time to thank the many very amazing people who help make the electorate of New Lynn the vibrant living space that it has become and that it continues to evolve into. The New Lynn electorate is comprised of a portion of Avondale, New Lynn, Blockhouse Bay, Green Bay, Titirangi, Waiatarua, down to Karikari and Pīhā. Amazing people who have been helping us and others, their neighbours and communities, through the challenges of cyclone recovery, youth crime, the high cost of living, difficulties in housing, and the challenges of educating our children.

I take this opportunity to express not just my heartfelt thanks but the thanks of the community, the people in the community, to everyone who serves and give themselves in service to others. I start with the police. I’m thankful for the police’s increased presence in New Lynn, supported by the policing precincts of Avondale, Henderson, and Central Auckland, and also a very competent community patrol. I praise the quick response and apprehension of the suspected offenders in the Blockhouse Bay stabbing, and the assault on the bus driver driving through Avondale just the other day.

I also thank the many school principals and teachers in the many schools that are in New Lynn for giving themselves to their work, for their support of structured literacy—the numeracy and literacy programme and policies of this Government. Some of them have been doing this over time, and now they put their attention even more to it. Also, these principals and teachers have collaborated with the police and with Auckland Transport to provide a presence in the transport hub in New Lynn so that they could be seen and be very visible to the student population that go through the transport hub and to avoid any misbehaviour.

I thank also the justices of the peace in New Lynn—there are many, but special thanks to the very active ones who spend hours on-roster, dealing with many people who need their guidance and their services.

Then there must be mention to the community groups of Blockhouse Bay, Titirangi, Waiatarua, Karikari, and Pīhā who have provided their own help to their own neighbours, their communities, even if they themselves need help navigating through the cyclone recovery process.

Then there are the business clubs in Blockhouse Bay, Titirangi, and New Lynn, who operate small businesses and stick to it and look for better days.

Finally, wearing the second hat of being the first member of Parliament of Filipino descent, I thank the Filipino community for their contribution to New Zealand society: their work ethic; their dedication and genuine concern for others, especially in the medical space; their ability to stick to community spirit; and their dedication to faith and family. They are an inspiration to many and an inspiration to me, and I just wanted to mention and thank everyone for all they do. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Before I begin my contribution, I’d just like to acknowledge my colleague Mark Cameron for his contribution. Our hearts are with you, mate. Our ears are with the farming community. Kia kaha to you and to your family.

Today is a good day in the House. Today is a good day for consumers, who have clarity to know that when they get a gift card, they are able to realise the full value of that gift card. Today is a good day for businesses, who have clarity on their liability when they issue gift cards, and today is a good day for those who are looking for cost of living relief in the way of making sure that gift cards are fully realised in the economy.

I am merely part of a relay competition. I’d like to start my contribution today by acknowledging the Ministers and members I have inherited this bill from. The first is my dear colleague Melissa Lee. Melissa is now a Minister and so could not be the member in charge of this bill. I certainly would like to acknowledge her contribution and her dedication and her hard work as a Minister as she passes the baton of this bill to me. The second person I’d like to acknowledge is the Hon Jacqui Dean, a former member for the great electorate of Waitaki, who originally initiated this bill idea in the House. I think that without those two members, I wouldn’t be running the final relay of this competition.

The clear truth is that I have no issue spending gift cards. Anybody who knows me will know that I am quick to spend the full value of gift cards within a matter of days, and, like any good economist, I will make sure that I spend the full value and make sure that I will find the goods and services that realise that full value of the gift card.

There are many out there with expired gift cards in their purse, and I’ve had many people come to me, and, in fact, the dollar value is anywhere from $20 million to $40 million in unrealised gift card value on any given year. That is what this is bill is designed to address—it is to provide clarity for those people to realise those gift card values so the cards can be used for what they were intended for, which is that a gift card for $100 actually gets realised for $100 in the economy.

What does this bill intend to do? Well, simply put, it means that there will be a minimum expiry date of three years for all gift cards. Three years—there you go. I take a week to spend a gift card but New Zealanders will have up to three years to spend the full value of their gift cards, whether the cards are in digital form or physical form.

There are a range of gift cards that are excluded from this bill, and I’d just to just summarise that for the House and for the one or two people that are tuning in to Parliament TV. The first is gift cards that are sold for charitable purposes. I’m thinking about gift cards sold at my own local primary school just at the weekend. They were sold at auction. They will not need to have expiry dates on them. A gift card supplied through a loyalty programme will not need an expiry date. Gift cards sold at time-limited events, such as Splore and other great events that I’ve never been because I don’t really care for such events, will not need expiry dates. If you buy an AT HOP card and give it to somebody else, or an energy card or a utility card voucher, they will not need an expiry date.

Everything else, for the purposes of the bill, for those listening at home, will require a standard three-year minimum expiry date. And that is actually bringing us in line with most of our comparator countries. That is a good thing.

The second thing this bill does is it provides an offence under the law for those who do not comply. If those businesses do sell gift cards with a minimum expiry date less than three years, then they will be able to be fined by the authorities. And if they continue to do so, then the relevant regulator will have the ability to take action and fine them up to—actually, a fairly hefty amount prescribed in the regime.

I have talked about the 18-month transition. If you’re a business watching this at home—which is not the case because most people that run businesses are not sitting at home idle on the TV. But if they wish to know, I can tell them that for the next 18 months, they don’t need to comply. It’s after 18 months from the date of Royal assent, and that is to allow time for businesses to comply with the legislation, whether it’s time to train their staff, make sure that they can get rid of all current gift cards, and make sure their IT and relevant systems are all kosher.

I would like to acknowledge some of my colleagues here in the House today—firstly, colleagues on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on both sides of the House, most of whom are here today. Thank you for the engagement. This bill has received very good and widespread support, and I would like to acknowledge the contribution of my colleagues here today.

Thank you to the officials who traversed a range of very subtle and nuanced issues through the select committee process. Thank you to the officials and the unsung heroes for making sure the legislation is written in a way that is relatively easy to understand and also fit for purpose. Thank you to those that submitted on the bill. Most of the submissions were in support of the bill, even within the business community, and so I’d like to acknowledge them.

I would like to acknowledge ACT, but in previous rounds of this bill, they have been the only party in Parliament that hasn’t supported this legislation. I would like to encourage ACT, on the 30th birthday of the ACT Party, and to remind those members that ACT stands for “Association of Consumers and Taxpayers”. I would like to remind my good friends from the ACT Party that this bill is very much consistent with the values of the ACT Party and the greats; whether they’re Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble, or Derek Quigley, they would all be wanting to pass legislation like this because they were on the side of consumers.

Consumers have the will to decide for themselves, and it is through that that we will have greater competition in society and greater outcomes. I would like to extend the kaupapa and send an olive branch to my dear friends in the ACT Party—join us in this waka. Become relevant on this particular bill and vote to support such an important piece of legislation in the House today.

This bill is part of the National-led Government’s plan to make practical changes that reduce the cost of living pressures on Kiwi households, to restore the economy and the economic growth potential of our country, and to get our economy and our country back on track.

It is my privilege and pleasure today to be the member in charge of this bill and to, on behalf of my colleagues and my party, commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I stand in support of this bill. I’d first of all like to thank Dan, who has brought the bill to the House; but also the Hon Melissa Lee, who had the bill before and has been my competitor in Mt Albert and can be proud of this bill; and Jacqui Dean, who had the bill prior to that.

This is a bill that I wouldn’t have thought was particularly controversial for the ACT Party, because it is quite right that it is about consumers and it’s about making sure that things are fair. My understanding is that the ACT Party have not supported the bill, seeing the issue as one of letting people do what they want or businesses do what they want. With respect, I think that that shows a flaw in the thinking of the ACT Party, where, in fact, it is not willing to accept that we need to get the balance right in things like this. In fact, I think that the other parties in the House that support this bill can see that this is a small change—it’s not a giant change, but it’s a small change—that favours consumers and that makes sure that there is a better situation. The free market shouldn’t be something that we treat in some sort of slavish way, because it’s not really that free when, in fact, people can covenant something like this and contract out of an obligation.

In a situation like this, what we see is that, up until now, private companies have taken hard-earned money from a consumer. Perhaps my grandmother gives the hard-earned money across and gets a $200 voucher for $200, and the company that she’s given it to, perhaps a big supermarket chain, pockets that money and puts an expiry date on the end of the gift voucher. And, then, I am not like Dan; I have been known—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can you use last names as well?

HELEN WHITE: Sorry, I’m not like Dan Bidois; I have been known to keep the vouchers on my fridge, actually, often for years, and only discover it, in fact—those vouchers are there underneath probably some little calendar or a little Helen White fridge magnet—once they’ve expired, and, actually, the hard-earned money of the person who gave it to me has been lost. I’ve also had the annoying reverse of this where I have given gift cards to my children and they are worse than me at actually noticing such expiries and all the money that I’ve earned and given them these vouchers with has been lost. So the business does rather well out of it.

Well, it’s just all about a balance here. We didn’t go to an extreme. We didn’t say, “No expiry ever.” We put a capacity in the voucher to have an expiry at three years because we were worried about the kind of accumulated responsibility for refunding and how that would go. We reached a pretty good compromise, I think, at three years. We have done that in 18 months. There’s plenty of lead-in time. As a result, we have a regime that I think everybody would consider fair, where if a voucher is bought, people can spend the full value of that voucher over quite a long period of time—three years—and they’ll get a real fair opportunity to spend that.

I’m very pleased with this piece of legislation as a recognition of a more moderate approach to such things, a point where law comes in and it actually just gently nudges people into a position where power is balanced. I support this bill, as does the Labour Party today, and I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Scott Willis—you might want to be a little faster next time, or you might lose the call.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for allowing me to take this call and to let the member opposite know that, of course, the Green Party does support the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill. There isn’t a great deal that we can say, except to acknowledge that it is somewhat ironic that the ACT Party, which purports to support consumer rights, doesn’t support this bill. But, apart from that, we are very happy and we would like to see this bill progress.

We don’t think there is actually a great deal of need to take full calls on it, because virtually everyone is in agreement. What we would like to see is that we have more opportunity to have more members’ bills out of the ballot, because there is some important legislation to proceed with. I’m going to be short and sweet and thank Dan Bidois, in particular, for progressing this bill, and members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for all the work we put into it. It is something that needs to be done promptly, and so I commend this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dr Parmjeet Parmar, to speak for the ACT Party.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Yes, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, I am taking this call for the ACT Party. To the member in charge of this bill, Dan Bidois, I would say in the start that the ACT Party is not supporting this bill, the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill. The reason for this is that we believe that this is actually something that is totally unnecessary and we believe in the ACT Party that we do not want to overburden businesses with things that are not required. In our view, this bill is, basically, taking up the time of the House which is just not needed. I would like, actually, to ask the member in charge of this bill to reconsider, before we finalise the third reading of this bill, if the member really wants to proceed with this bill. This is based on the arguments that I’m going to present to the member here.

As we look at this bill, what this bill does is it amends the Fair Trading Act 1986 to give recipients of gift cards a more reasonable period in which to redeem their full value. The question here from the start that I have asked is what is a reasonable period? And here we heard just now from the member in charge of the bill that he’s very quick at using his gift cards. My colleague here Cameron Luxton, he might be taking maybe two months to use his gift cards; I might be taking up to six months. Tell me, what is a reasonable period? It’s very subjective. It depends on the individual who receives the gift card or who chooses the gift card—it depends on that person.

This bill is setting a minimum expiry date of three years from the initial date of the sale of that gift card. I’m sure there will be people who will find some expired gift cards in their drawers even after this bill goes through, even when the expiry date will be three years. What do you think we should do next? Do you think then we should bring another bill here in Parliament and say that the expiry date should actually be five years? It’s very interesting that in the select committee, we did have a discussion about whether it should be three years or five years. “Reasonable time” is subjective; it depends on the individual. There will be some people still who will not use their gift card within three years and will complain that the three years’ time period was not enough. Just coming up with this reason that “Yeah, there are so many people out there who see their gift cards expire. We should make sure that it is a minimum of three years.” is not a logical argument and is not a logical policy.

As I said before, this is going to create unnecessary burden on businesses because businesses should be allowed to use the kind of marketing strategies they want to. This is one of the tools that some businesses might want to utilise. Also businesses when they change hands, it becomes really important for that business to note that any business card that has been sold and is not redeemed becomes a liability of that business. That needs to be passed on to that new business. And then, obviously, there needs to be some additional accounting that needs to be done. That accounting expense is also put on the business because of this legislation.

We should let businesses decide what the expiry date is. And my experience is that—yes, I have seen gift cards from big companies and small companies as well—when you go to purchase a gift card, they very clearly tell you what the expiry date is going to be and then that decision is for that person who is purchasing that gift card if they want to proceed with that purchase after they know what the expiry date is. They can go to other outlets and shop around if they don’t like the expiry date that the business is offering.

Also the expiry date—my experience is they’re quite clearly printed on gift cards. This is just an excuse. I also ask where is the personal responsibility component in this. There is no personal responsibility component in this, because what this bill does is it says just because somebody could not use their gift card within the time period that was printed on the gift card as the expiry date, it should become someone else’s problem. In the ACT Party, we really believe in personal responsibility. When someone makes the decision of buying a gift card, clearly knowing what the expiry date is, or when somebody receives a gift card as a gift, clearly knowing what the expiry date is, that person should be responsible for redeeming the full value of that gift card within the time period that is on that gift card. And if they do not, then that is their issue. That should not become businesses’ issue that we go on creating more burden on businesses.

As I’ve said, in the ACT Party we really believe in personal responsibility and we really believe that businesses should be doing things in a transparent manner in a way that is confining them within the legislation that we have. This is also taking care of rights of other businesses, taking care of rights of consumers, but just adding more and more layers doesn’t help businesses and doesn’t help consumers. What we know is that businesses like to offer a diverse range of marketing ideas to their consumers. This is to widen their market. This is also to influence more people to come to their outlets so that they can grow.

We know that the economy at the moment, because of the previous Labour Government’s mismanagement of the economy—yes, under this Government it’s improving, but it will take some time to improve from where it was left when we came into Government. We need to provide all the support that businesses need to do what they need to do to grow their business so that they can employ more people and support our economy, rather than creating another issue or other work for businesses.

We know that this is definitely something that cannot happen overnight, because in the bill, during the select committee process, we discussed that this kind of change cannot be implemented overnight. That’s why this period of 18 months is allowed for transition. That clearly shows—that 18 months, as discussed—that businesses will need time to transition to this new requirement of making sure that their gift cards have a minimum of three years expiry date from the date of sale. That clearly shows that businesses will have to divert some of their resources to ensure that if they want to continue with this strategy—this is for marketing and giving out gift cards, selling gift cards—then they will need some time to implement this new requirement of a minimum of three years.

Here I also want to highlight that for large businesses it may not be an issue, because large businesses have lots of resources. They can easily divert those resources to ensure that they are compliant with this legislation if it goes through—it is my feeling that based on what I’ve heard from previous speakers here on this bill, the bill will go through. They have the resources. They can easily divert those resources to comply with this bill. But we have to note that most of our businesses are small to medium businesses. We need to keep those businesses in mind when we come up with ideas.

That’s why we believe that it is actually not a good idea; it is actually a bad idea. It’s not going to support businesses. It doesn’t help consumers because consumers are informed. As long as consumers are informed by business, as long as clearly the date is printed, businesses—[Phone rings] Ha, ha!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That wasn’t my bell!

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Ha, ha! Madam Speaker; it was coming from that side. I just want to emphasise the point that as long as businesses are transparent to their consumers about what the expiry date is, that’s how it should be operating. I think this bill is totally unnecessary and I again ask the member in charge to reconsider proceeding with this bill before we finalise the third reading of this bill. We do not commend this bill. We do not support this bill. Thank you.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill. We are very much in favour of this bill at the third and final reading. I am also part of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee with my colleague Mr Dan Bidois, and I’d like to congratulate him on all of his work during the select committee process—of course, knowing that you had to manoeuvre everything around your son being born. We know that you’ve been a very busy man, yet you still had the time to come very prepared to our select committee meetings.

It is great to spend time—and this is probably one of the first bills that I’ve had the pleasure of seeing quite a way through the process. It was really good to learn the process of how a bill actually works through. It does make standing up in the House considerably more comfortable when you know a little bit more about what you are speaking of and you just are able to recall some of the submissions and the conversations that you had. I just hope they come to me while I’m up for my 10 minutes today.

Now, this bill is about fairness, and it is a concept that New Zealand First is very, very firm on: fairness. Common sense—that is one of the many reasons that we are supporting this bill, but we do feel that fairness is really at the top of that list there. It is fair for the consumer. It is fair that there is a good relationship of trust and rapport between business and consumer, and this is one way that this can happen for the business.

What this bill does is it introduces Subpart 3A, which will prohibit the selling of gift cards with an expiry date that is less than three years after the sale of the gift card. Now, I must admit, when I saw this come up on the Order Paper and I got the email saying, “Tanya, you’re speaking on this”, it really did feel like we’ve been speaking on this for three years. But that is just the process; it does take time for legislation to come through. Today, this legislation will pass.

Now, look, I’ve not personally been a big fan of gift cards myself. I prefer to have the experience of going out and buying something for someone and wrapping it and handing it to them. Then again, I don’t probably see that they might not do anything with that gift or it might end up on TradeMe or something like that later on. I, personally, don’t tend to use it a lot myself. I must admit, when I do receive a gift card, I go, “Oh, I’ve got to spend this really quickly.”, because I was an accountant in a previous life. Being someone who doesn’t like to spend or waste money, it’s like: don’t let this puppy somewhere die in my drawer. I like to go and spend it straight away. I haven’t received a gift card for I cannot tell you how long, and—would you believe?—I got one this weekend.

Anyway—for a wonderful store with some good Croatian food. I’ll go and buy that. But I could feel the part of me going, “Grant! Grant!”—to my husband—“Should we go and spend it today?” But we didn’t have time. OK, so I’ll put it in a safe place, and I’ve put it in a safe place. Now, the challenge for me will be remembering where that safe place is when the time comes to spend it.

I know that Dr Parmjeet Parmar, who spoke previously, was talking about personal responsibility and having to go out and make sure that you spend it on time so that you don’t get into this position of it being wasted. But, often, the elderly are the ones who forget that they’ve got the card. I can say that after my mum passed away, I was really miffed when I found a $200 card somewhere. It was well expired and mum wouldn’t have known it was there, but it’s examples like that that we have to consider. Maybe the elderly people just don’t even know what it is, actually.

Speaking of my mother, she always used to give me the job of, every Christmas, going to the Farmers Trading Company, as it was then known, and buying vouchers for all of my nieces and nephews—all of her grandchildren. That was great; it was easy. But, boy, the teller didn’t like it when I came to the counter and said, “Can you give me thirty $20 vouchers?” That wasn’t a lot of fun—back in those days it was manual, you know? But it was one way that my mother could give, as she was getting older, without having to think about, or the stress of, buying a gift.

Look, I do believe it is important that this bill passes, because something I learnt, according to Consumer New Zealand, was that evidence showed that one in five gift card holders have been stuck with an expired gift card. I was quite surprised at that, truthfully. I was also quite surprised to hear of the stories that we heard during the select committee process—you know, some of them lost cards and that, but some of them are actually quite difficult stories where people were getting ripped off. That is why it is important that we address this issue.

New Zealand First—you know, we aren’t in favour of burdening business and we took this into account when we were making the decision. We didn’t feel that it would burden business any more—maybe a little bit of accounting tweaking or a little bit of advice there, but nothing major. If anything, it would probably help business to be a little bit more structured in their own bookkeeping and being able to go, “Yes, I’ve got X dollars in my liability account.” We felt that it would probably be beneficial for business. The other thing we felt would be beneficial for business would be the rapport, the relationship, with the customer. It’s one way to build trust with your customer, and it may even increase the sales for the business if there is an increased flow in these card purchases.

It was also encouraging for us to see that our Australian neighbours are doing something similar. We looked at other countries to see what their period of time was—you know, it was five years, one year. We did settle on three years; it seemed to be in middle there. We discussed the transition period and what would be an appropriate transition period. Less than six months—probably not good because it’s less than one financial year. A little bit more than one financial year would probably be better. It would give you time to have a full financial year plus a few months. We felt that that was a good reason to have the 18 months.

Now, there are some cards that are not included in this legislation. Specifically, customer loyalty programmes, cards for vouchers for limited events or discounts—that might be a concert or a three-day type of event, which I don’t think I’ve personally ever been to—and also cards that are used to pay for transport and utilities aren’t included in this legislation. But that good old Farmers trading card—well, it’s no longer Farmers Trading Company. That good old Farmers card will be coming under this legislation.

One of the things we also talked about during the select committee was the importance of the expiry date being on the card and also the word “exp”, an abbreviation of the word “expiry”. It was important that that was clear on the card so that someone actually could see that. That was one of the additions that I felt was very important.

Well, I feel I have probably contributed enough. I look forward to going and spending my $40 voucher when I get home. I’m really proud to stand and, with support of many of the other parties, commend this bill to the House on behalf of New Zealand First. Thank you.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe te Pīka. Well, this is a weird week because we fully support this bill. I love this bill because I’m a big shopper and I don’t think I’ve ever spent a gift card in my life. And especially if shoppers are losing $10 million a year—Te Pāti Māori takes a short call today to support this.

I think it’s also the convenience of the physical gift card. I’m just going to add a little spiel in here: it’d be really great if we could add gift cards to our phone and PayPal, and an app, but that’s just the Gen Z coming out in me today. We support this bill. Kia ora.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise to support the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill as well, from the Green Party. I just want to mention a couple of things. I think this is a really interesting moment for me, because when I first arrived in Aotearoa, a gift card was a weird thing. Coming from the Chinese culture, we like to give cash, because we feel cash is way more personal. But, in terms of gift cards, you are basically giving someone the same amount of money. It’s not like you pay $80 and you get $100, or you pay $20 and you get $30 on a gift card. You’re paying for the same amount of money with an expiration date, and also, you can only use it in one store. For me, growing up, that was an incredibly weird concept. Saying that in China we give cash in red envelopes for major festivals or birthdays, we are almost sneered at—“That’s so crass. Why would you do that?”, as if giving a fake card with the assumption that you know what someone really likes is any better!

In any case, we do support this bill, but there are a couple of things that I would like to mention—and I think this is something that we have mentioned before—in terms of the arbitrariness of when we are using legislation also, because of the fact that we know, in this particular instance, and many other instances, when it comes to consumer rights, we cannot wholly trust the market to be able to create fair conditions for the people of Aotearoa. And we have seen it with this particular bill. It might be quite a small one, but it really highlights the fact that sometimes we cannot leave things to businesses. I think that’s a really important thing to mention again in this particular instance.

Also, when we’re looking at the fact that a number of times, with some of these businesses, the large amount of wasted and expired gift cards—I myself, in many ways, am to blame for that, because, when you are neurodivergent, you get a gift card and that’s it; it just never sees the light of day ever again! The number of gift cards I have inadvertently wasted hurts my soul as a Chinese person. It probably hurts my mum’s soul more so than mine! But, in this case, when other speakers are mentioning, “Oh, it’s going to put a lot of pressure on small and medium size businesses in particular”, I guess the fear is that if people are spending the money, what additional hardship or what additional pressure is that going to be adding by having an expiration date on a gift card—and the potential, maybe for some large businesses of a disingenuous nature, for getting money that someone paid for but they haven’t actually provided a service or provided a product? I think, in this case, sometimes it’s more harmful.

Again, to finish, when we are looking at this, once again, a lot of this is a political choice. The decisions we are making today are a political choice, and when we are looking at other elements of our communities, such as the fact that it’s inappropriate for businesses to get money that they cannot provide a service for, other elements such as poverty can also be considered as a political choice, and we do actually, in Aotearoa, in this very Parliament, have the tools to make the changes that we would like to see in Aotearoa.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand in support of the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill in its third reading. I congratulate my friend and colleague Dan Bidois and also the Hon Melissa Lee for the passage of this bill through all of its phases.

This is a small but useful piece of legislation. It seeks to address an insidious and kind of pervasive consumer issue. We’ve heard, across the House, many stories of gift cards, and I’d just like to shout out yet again to Catherine Wedd’s husband, Henry, for his attempt to line his wardrobe with the various gift cards for their four children in order to try and actually use those. I think that was one of the most useful ways, but it didn’t work. I’ve also had a drawer full of gift cards that have gone to waste. When my mother passed away, I too found a $200 gift card that I had seen her open a couple of years before, and she was very complimentary, and I wish that she’d actually had the chance to spend it.

By amending the Fair Trading Act 1986, we would be introducing a minimum expiry period of three years. As many of my colleagues have traversed, through the process of the committee, we discussed the options of having it be a longer period of up to five years or, following the Canadian example, of having it never expire, and we landed somewhere in the middle. We do think that this is about fairness; it’s about consumer rights. It’s an unfair practice for those gift cards to be able to moulder away and disappear and to prematurely expire. That sense of frustration for consumers is very real.

Through the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, we had a pretty thorough process. We had some very valuable feedback. Some of those stories that we heard in that committee stage were pretty stark. The one that sticks out to me the most, that we’ve talked about before, is the $1,500 Mobil voucher that one unfortunate consumer was unable to use. We recognise the need for stronger consumer protections in this realm.

We decided on a few amendments to the bill to make it a little bit clearer. Some of those were around making sure that the definitions of “gift cards” were extremely clear and that we covered all of the potential permutations of what could be considered a “gift card”. We looked at whether or not a gift card that is provided as a customer loyalty programme should be included. I was personally quite keen on the idea because I have, many times, had the Farmers beauty card vouchers that you get when you spend a certain amount of money or the Unichem vouchers that you get for a similar thing that only last about three months. Every time you go back, you think you’re going to be able to use your voucher, but you never can. Those are the sorts of programmes that are provided as a means of promotion, but we felt that it would be too difficult for business to be able to comply with those, and it wasn’t within the scope of what the bill was intending. We did define those cards to be out of scope.

If you are talking about a loyalty programme where, for example, with Westpac, you have the hotpoints programme, one of the things can redeem your points for is, for example, a gift card through Ballantynes in Christchurch. Those gift cards would be eligible to be considered under this bill because they are redeemed for a reduction in the number of points. That’s very much clarified in the bill.

We also recommended that open loop cards, such as Prezzy cards, were within the scope of the bill, because those cards can be redeemed at a number of different businesses and they’re very popular and they can be transferred from one person to another. It’s very important, with that increasing popularity as well, that we make it that they are subject to that minimum expiry period as well. Regardless of whoever ends up using them, they needed to be treated equitably and to provide consumers with that reasonable time frame to be able to use them. Other members around the House talked about personal responsibility and said that timing doesn’t seem to matter, but, actually, a year goes past extremely fast—it’s extremely fast. It only feels like a matter of weeks, and some of us who are new have been in this place for 12 months. It is a very, very fast period of time, and it can go by in a flash.

The other element of things is who is not included in this bill. Other members have explained some of the exclusions to the gift card expiries, including those that are provided as part of a charity, those that are part of utilities, and part of a concert or a limited-time arrangement.

We also talked about how long we should take to implement this. One of the reasons that hasn’t been traversed about this was that there is potentially a large stock of small plastic cards around that need to be used up. Most of them had about a year’s worth of expiry. That stock needs to be able to work its way through the system, and we didn’t want businesses to be burdened with stock that they couldn’t get rid of. That was just one of the provisions that we took to make sure that that 18-month period of grace before the bill comes into effect would help businesses be able to make that transition.

We think that that proactive approach means that we can demonstrate that balance of consumer protection but also allow a practical solution for businesses. The requirement to have the expiry printed on the card is actually important because it’s a way of explaining to people and making sure that that’s communicated clearly.

Now, the other very important element that the bill has is providing a reasonable but significant penalty for breaching this. It was important for us to make sure that this part of the bill is shifted into Part 4A of the original Act so that, that way, any breaches of the regulations are treated as infringement offences on each occasion, and that can be quite a significant amount of money and also subject to a large fine. We think that that approach should incentivise compliance by business and create a strong deterrent against issuing the short-dated gift cards and ensure that customers are protected.

In conclusion, I think that the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill is a small but significant step forward in protecting consumers from unfair gift card practices. I think that with the amendments that we’ve made along the way, we should be able to address some of the concerns and some of the ambiguities that have arisen, and we can ensure that the provisions are appropriately enforced and provide businesses with enough time to make adjustments. I commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): “Good things come to those who wait” was a bit of a mantra that lived in our household as I grew up. Delayed gratification—whenever gran or poppa sent you that Christmas or birthday card and there was that $2 or that $5 in there, it was always encouraged that we bank that money and save it and learnt what it meant for good things to take time.

When it comes to gift cards, it’s not quite the same thing, as I’ve learnt. That’s why this side of the House supports this bill. Some research was done a few years ago and they saw that around $267 million on unspent gift cards was floating around, sitting on those empty plastic cards never to be used again. Some 24 percent, in fact, of gift card holders didn’t get to fully spend their money.

That’s why we want to say thank you to the Hon Jacqui Dean, the Hon Melissa Lee, and now Dan Bidois for shepherding this through. Labour supports this legislation, and I support the kōkako for Bird of the Year.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I stand in this House this afternoon to support the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill.

Before the debate started today, the Hon Melissa Lee asked me to say a few words on her behalf; she originally introduced this bill to the House. Cool. Today is the final reading of the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill in the House. This bill may seem small to some, but for many going through the cost of living crisis this bill can and will make a difference. The Minister would also like to acknowledge all those who have worked on and in support of this bill, including the members of her office and her adviser Matthew Stephens; members of the National leader’s office including the now MP of Rangitata, James Meager, who spent a lot of time drafting this bill.

Stuart Smith: He’s everywhere, that man.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: Yes. Also we want to acknowledge his colleague Dan Bidois as well, the hard-working MP for Northcote, who will see this bill through its final reading today. Then millions of New Zealanders will benefit from this barrier being removed from our economies.

This is my first and, I believe, my final contribution to this bill, so I would like to begin my contribution by thanking my colleagues the Hon Melissa Lee and Dan Bidois as well. Some people may argue this bill only addresses a small matter; this is not a small matter. Gift cards are a big business. The digital gift card industry alone is expected to reach $2,000 billion by 2027. Research shows that 52 percent of people bought a gift card to give to someone else in the past 12 months.

In my electorate of Mt Roskill, gift cards are commonly purchased, especially around Christmas time. If you visit a shopping mall before Christmas time, you can see a long queue of people just lined up outside the consumer counter, waiting to buy a gift card. Why? Because looking for a perfect gift item to give someone can be very stressful. You may not know what they really want at such time, and giving them a gift card will allow them to make the choice while saving themselves the stress too. They are commonly gifted to people of all ages and stages of life. Gift cards can be the best gift you can ever imagine giving to a loved one, a friend, or an employee. However, I myself have had the experience with gift cards expiring very quickly after purchase and not being accepted by the retailers, or when I find a gift card and want to use it, I realise it has expired, unspent. I call this “gift card anxieties”, and it is real because research has found that one in five recipients lose out when they don’t redeem the full value before the card expires. This could be worth up to $10 million per year. A nationally representative survey by Finder, a financial information business, found the average Kiwi has $72 in unused gift card credit, equivalent to a national outlay of $267 million.

New Zealand is getting a short change compared with those in other countries. In Australia, consumers have a minimum of three years to use their gift card; and in Canada, the US, and Ireland, they have either no expiry date or at least five years to spend their gift card. However, many New Zealand retailers are still using a six- or 12-month expiry. Consumer New Zealand reviewed 61 gift cards in 2023 and they found out that only 14 gift cards did not have an expiry date. Only a few retailers have a five-year expiry date, but they also found out 14 out of 61 gift cards only last for a year, and they receive a lot of complaints. A lot of small businesses only have an expiry date of less than six months.

This bill is an important bill because it will prohibit the sales of gift cards with an expiry date of less than three years from the day of sale, giving the recipient a more reasonable period in which to redeem the card’s full value. This bill is about the people, this bill is about the ordinary, hard-working New Zealanders. This bill is another example of our National Party commitments to working for the people, addressing the issues that matter to the people, and getting New Zealand back on track.

We are actually taking a social approach to restore the economy. Not only have we delivered tax relief for the first time in 14 years; we have also delivered our Family Boost policy to make childcare more affordable for family in Mt Roskill and New Zealand. This bill is yet another step towards getting New Zealand back on track.

Gift cards can be purchased from big retailers; however, it is important not to forget gift cards can also be an opportunity to support local and small business, and especially small businesses in Mt Roskill. I also believe that it supports small businesses in Northcote, Upper Harbour, Bay of Plenty, Mangakiekie.

Hon Member: What about New Plymouth?

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: Yes.

Hon Member: Respect!

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: That’s right. We will support all businesses across New Zealand. This will enhance the original concept of what a gift card is all about: flexibility, not only for what the gift card is spent on but also the period of the time it is valid for. Right now, small businesses are struggling and elevating confidence in gift cards is another measure our party is taking to generate revenue and get our economy back on track. However, it is very disappointing that members from the ACT Party do not support this bill, because this bill absolutely will help our businesses. Moreover, the good news is that the signs of green shoots in our economy are there. Interest rates are starting to come down and this Government has got inflation under control. We will get our economy back on track.

Before I finish, I would also like to thank the members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for all the hard work they put into this bill; also the members of the public who made submissions on this bill as well because their input actually made a difference and resulted in substantial changes to this bill, including the following: a clear definition of gift cards which included all gift card vouchers redeemable for goods or services, but not including card supply and substitution for goods returned, prepaid telecommunication services, public transport or utility cards.

We also changed the rules for displaying the expiry date so the issuer will be required to clearly state the expiry date for all gift vouchers and cards. We also changed the fines for infringement offences up to $10,000 for an individual offence and up to $30,000 for a body corporate. Also, we changed it to a longer transition period as well. An 18-month transition period has been recommended to allow businesses enough time to prepare this system for changes.

This Government is committed to make sure more money stays in the pockets of New Zealanders. This bill is a perfect example of supporting both retailers and consumers to work together to get New Zealand’s economy back on track. Today, like my colleague Dan Bidois said, it’s a good day for consumers, it’s a good day for business, but also a great day for people in Mt Roskill, and a great day for all the hard-working people in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): To begin my contribution on this third and final reading, I want to recall some words of wisdom from one of our senior colleagues: the Hon Damien O’Connor, who, when I was in my first term in this House, was talking about what we legislate for. What we legislate for is the margins, for the hard cases, for the people at the edges, and for the people who have just a little bit, and I think that in some ways, this bill exemplifies that. When we’re talking about gift cards, they often don’t have a lot of value on the card. They’re often $100 or maybe $200, or something like that. So it’s a small amount of money and it might seem not to matter a lot to many people, but to people at the margins, it matters a great deal.

In terms of spending gift cards, we all know what happens. We might spend a bit of it or we might even spend most of it, but then there’s a little bit left on it—a marginal amount. It’s the sort of amount that when you’re scrabbling around your house thinking “I really need to go and get my kids some shoes.” and you scrabble together the money for it, there is a gift card with a little bit of money left on it—and those are the people we’re trying to protect here.

They are the people just getting that last little bit of value out of their gift card, and it astonishes me that the ACT Party—the party which started out as the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers—does not support this bill. One would think that the ACT Party, which is so keen on legislating in some other areas, would actually look after the small people, but apparently not.

I just wanted to point out that there is no requirement for businesses to offer gift cards. A business who finds it too burdensome need not offer gift cards as a service. There are some advantages to businesses in offering gift cards. They get the money upfront. They get considerable benefit from it, but it should not be a benefit which comes along with, effectively, a free ride.

There are some obligations that come along with that benefit and it seems quite reasonable to ensure that people who have gift cards have a reasonable amount of time to spend them, and that is exactly what this bill does. It doesn’t extend the time for a gift card out into eternity and it doesn’t limit it to six months. It strikes a reasonable balance between consumers and businesses, and it enables people at the margins to get that last little bit of value from their cards. I commend this bill to the House.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): This is quite a delight to be able to speak on this bill. My first time speaking to it—and only 2½ speeches to go, Mr Bidois; only 2½ speeches to go.

Tom Rutherford: 1½.

GREG FLEMING: 1½?

Tom Rutherford: Yeah.

GREG FLEMING: No, no, no. Don’t discount me completely.

Tom Rutherford: You’re the half.

GREG FLEMING: There’ll be something in this, Mr Rutherford—2½ speeches until gift cards and their expiry dates will be fairly treated in New Zealand.

As I looked carefully through the detail of this bill, what came to mind for me was my own experience as a trader in gift cards—[Members groan] and that, yes—

Hon Members: Woah!

GREG FLEMING: That came about. It wasn’t something I planned. No, it was a business I fell into. First of all, it came about because we had five children, and by the time we worked out why that was happening we had five of them for ever. Every time we sent them off for birthday parties, so would begin the great search of what it was that we were going to give their dear friends for birthdays. When you’re dealing with that number of children, inevitably you turn to gift cards, which was great for us, except that then the gift cards started coming back. Before long, we found that every time we would host a birthday party for one of our five children, there would be this deluge of gift cards—some of them looking like I’d seen them before—getting ever-closer to the expiry date.

Hon Member: They expired?

GREG FLEMING: Then my kids worked out—yeah, exactly. My kids would go down to The Warehouse, where they’d seen the toy that they really wanted, and they’d proudly pull out their Rebel Sport voucher, and they couldn’t use it and they were outraged. At which stage, it was my job as the parent to exchange said voucher for cash.

I quickly discovered—I had these building up, these expiring gift vouchers, and that’s when the trading part came in. I began to agree to buy these gift vouchers from each of my five little darlings, but at a discount—at a discount. [Interruption] Yes, yes. Then I needed to—[Interruption] Scrooge? Absolutely. But this was where they began to learn about the market. In fact, they have become such market gurus that they have threatened to even join the ACT Party, until this moment, because this bill is about fairness for the consumer. They, like most of the members of this good House, are outraged that our colleagues in the ACT Party can’t see this for what it is. This is a rort of consumers; this is a greater rort than that which I tried to bestow upon my own children. This bill deserves to pass.

Now, the only part of this bill that I had any doubts about was whether this was placing an unfair obligation upon retailers, which is where I think that this time limit of three years strikes an excellent balance. When I look at the experience of overseas jurisdictions and when I look at my own forgetfulness, I think three years is about right. So I move my final attention to the original sponsors of the bill, the Hon Jacqui Dean and then the Hon Melissa Lee, in terms of this particular bill, and then to my good colleague and friend Dan Bidois—or “Daddy Dan”, as we call him.

The reality of it is that “Daddy Dan” is going to find that for the next 15 years, he’s going to have such brain fog from his lack of sleep as he follows in my footsteps and has five children that he is going to be forgetting expiry dates and he’s going to look back with great pride and satisfaction on the day that he ushered this fine piece of legislation through this House, and ensured that he would indeed be able to endure the sleepless nights of those early years of his children and make it through to that 2½-year mark when your brain starts to operate again and you’ve still got six months where you can go and redeem that gift card. That is why I am thrilled—I am delighted—to commend this fine piece of legislation to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): I have very much enjoyed listening to the speeches for this bill and it is a good opportunity to thank all of the members around the House, particularly those members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee who have worked on this piece of legislation; and the Hon Jacqui Dean, who was one of the finest Speakers of this House; the Hon Melissa Lee; and now Dan Bidois, who have all shepherded this bill through.

It’s an opportunity for both sides of the House to talk about those protections that, look, just make common sense for consumers, should be a part of our law, and, actually, often retailers uphold too. Small businesses, especially the kinds of businesses where they’re really connected to the communities, where they know their customers, will often have acknowledged the value of gift cards and cards that were sold—like loyalty cards in the store—for much longer than the expiry date because it’s the right thing to do.

This kind of legislation is about making sure that everyone’s got a good, fair playing field and that those small business retailers who would have always honoured the obligations—which, arguably, as my colleague Camilla Belich has pointed out, exist under common law anyway—it levels the playing field and it means that those big businesses that might not have honoured it otherwise are held to that same standard that we expect of our small and medium sized businesses.

This is a really good piece of legislation. Good on the ACT Party, too, for saying the quiet part out loud—that there will be some queasiness in this House from people who do not want to see these kinds of consumer protections being legislated for when it requires more regulation and it requires a Commerce Commission with beefed-up powers to be a regulator in this space.

We saw over the election period a Prime Minister who rubbished the idea of a Grocery Commissioner. He said, “Well, he’s going to be out there with his clipboard checking prices—how’s that going to work?” This kind of bill introduces more regulatory powers for the Commerce Commission to be able to check that consumers are getting a fair deal when they have bought something—or when one of their loved ones has bought them something—that they see value in, that they get the value of that thing. That’s sensible regulation. Good on the ACT Party for being honest about exactly the sentiment that was expressed by many more in this House. At least they have put their colours on the mast, and good on them.

I would say that more regulation like this is sensible in New Zealand’s market. We have several sectors in New Zealand that are some of the least regulated in the world, some of the least competitive in the world—like our grocery sector, which gift cards are used in, to the detriment of some consumers, especially those vulnerable consumers like we’ve heard the New Zealand First speaker tell very compelling stories, twice, about her elderly mother who is affected by this. I know my elderly father has also been affected by this.

Many in the House will think about those people who, when given a gift card, absolutely want to be able to use it, but for many, many reasons could not use it in the time period before. It’s just good practice to have these kinds of rules which protect them, make it easy for people to use these things, and don’t result in the devastating disappointment of realising a few years down the track that you’ve been given a really nice thing by someone who cares about you very much and you can’t use it because of a sense of personal failure when it is, in fact, just a right that you should have always had, being recognised by the law. I’m pleased to support this bill, I’m pleased it will be the law soon, and I commend it to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. And if you just give me a moment of indulgence, I do want to make a couple of acknowledgments: firstly, to Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke on her really heartfelt and genuine speech that she made yesterday in acknowledging the death of King Tuheitia. You could tell and feel the emotion that she was giving at that time of her relation, and understanding the grief, and obviously the difficult times that have been experienced for her and her wider whānau over the last couple of weeks. I want to acknowledge Hana for her incredible contribution yesterday.

Then, today, I want to acknowledge the final speech that we heard in the general debate from Mark Cameron of the ACT Party—a real close-to-home story for him and for many New Zealanders who have experienced suicide in this country: a pandemic that we are not proud of. Mark spoke freely and openly and with a real sense of rawness around what yesterday, as World Suicide Prevention Day, meant to him, and what it means as a farmer and on behalf of the rural community. I applaud people like Mark for standing up in this House, speaking out, being prepared to have those difficult conversations so that the New Zealand public knows that it’s OK to not be OK and to talk about it out in public. I wanted to acknowledge both Hana and Mark for their wonderful contributions both yesterday and today.

Then, coming to the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill, I want to acknowledge that it was previously in the name of Melissa Lee, prior to her the Hon Jacqui Dean, and now it is under the leadership of my colleague and friend Dan Bidois, the wonderful MP for Northcote, which ranks at about the second or third electorate in the country, depending on what day it is. The way it’s been shepherded through the House, it’s been fantastic to listen to the variety of contributions, both in this third reading and also through the first reading and the second reading and the committee of the whole House, and, obviously, what took place at the select committee as well.

There are some key points on the bill that I definitely did pick up, but before I dive into those, I was thinking, while I was listening to the other contributions, about the Christmas card and gift card roulette that takes place in the Rutherford household on a regular basis. As you start to grow up—as I’m still currently doing—in our household, instead of buying a gift for my sister and buying a gift for my sister’s husband and buying a gift for my brother and buying a gift for my brother’s wife—and, you know, I’ve got separated parents, so you’ve got step-parents, so you’ve got to buy all of them gifts—we just thought, well, actually, we’ll just simplify this. On my mum’s side of the family, we just do Secret Santa, and we do the same on my dad’s side of the family too.

What I found one year was we set the spending limit at $50, and then it came to it, and you had been allocated your person, so I might have got my brother, for example, and in one particular year, out of about the eight of us who were involved in the gift card—or Secret Santa—gift-giving situation, there were six $50 vouchers to lululemon. Lululemon took $300 from the Rutherford family that day, and they just simply went across the table to my various family members. I think we’ve put in a rule since then—my sister runs the Secret Santa competition—of no more gift cards.

David MacLeod: What’s her name?

TOM RUTHERFORD: Jade—Jade is my sister’s name.

Hon Member: What did you buy, though?

TOM RUTHERFORD: Oh, I bought some lovely running shorts; whether I use them or not, we’ll see. We got rid of that in our family because of the gift card roulette that took place each year.

I’m like a few of my colleagues in that, actually, as soon as I get a gift card, I’m thinking about the first thing I’m going to buy with it. I treat that thing like cash. I don’t carry cash any more, but I treat that thing like cash—I’ve got to get rid of it, because I’m going to lose it if I don’t spend it, you know? I might not lose it in the sense of “not spend it” lose it; I might physically lose it. I’m thinking I’ve got to get out there and spend this gift card; I’ve got to make the most of it; I’ve got to use it to its potential; and, like my colleague Dan Bidois said, I’ve got to use all of it. There’s no point in getting a $50 gift card and then only spending $45 and missing out on the $5. Then there’s also that time where you go, “Oh, I’ve got the $50 gift card.”, and then you spend $60 and you go “Oh, those cheeky guys, they got me—they got me.” But, unlike my colleague Dan Bidois, I’ve definitely got to utilise the gift card as soon as I possibly can.

I applaud particularly the select committee for their leadership around the 18-month commencement date, providing that allows New Zealand businesses to change their practices around how they operate with gift cards in our country. It gives them a lead-in time to adopt that change. I heard my colleague Nicola Grigg ask and say, “Oh, if I bought my partner a gift card today—if I did that today, would that mean it would then be the three years?” No, no, there’s the 18-month lead-in time—there’s the 18-month—

Hon Nicola Grigg: So I’m in trouble?

TOM RUTHERFORD: Well, you are, but I don’t want to talk about it. There is that 18-month lead-in time to ensure that businesses around the country have the opportunity to update their gift cards, update their processes, and then allow people the three years to spend their gift cards, rather than what we see at the moment as the 12 months, in most instances.

I was reading through some information from the Parliamentary Library that was provided on this. I noted a couple of examples that were provided by Consumer New Zealand, and they highlighted an example from both Mobil, the petrol station, and also from SkyCity. When they talked about the Mobil situation, they cited a case of a person who purchased $1,500 worth of Mobil gift cards. He then mistakenly assumed the cards had a two-year expiry period—simple mistake to make—when, in fact, they were only valid for 12 months. He contacted Mobil as soon as he realised the gift cards had expired, but they refused to do anything to help.

Then another example was from SkyCity. Another person contacted them and said that they got a $180 SkyCity gift card for Christmas in 2022, but due to family illness, plans to redeem the gift card were put on hold. By the time she came to use the card, it had expired. She contacted SkyCity, explained their circumstances, and asked for an extension. SkyCity refused, even though it now sells the vouchers that are valid for three years. The thing I saw from this information, actually—what I thought was commendable from SkyCity was their understanding in that, after they heard this story presented to the select committee, they publicly apologised for how they treated the gift card holder who lost their credit. They said, “We are sorry, we got this one wrong, and we will make it up to the customer with an exceptional experience.”

That’s what this legislation is about: it’s about simply moving one year to three years for gift cards; it’s about simply saying that the one-year arbitrary time line we see on most gift cards in the country is not fair. Pushing out the threshold to three years is much better for the consumer and much better for the New Zealand public.

Then I come to the ACT Party. They say they’re not going to support this legislation. They’re the only party in the Parliament not supporting it. And I’ve got—

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Because we believe in personal responsibility.

TOM RUTHERFORD: I’ve got this feeling that we’re almost—

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: There’s personal responsibility.

TOM RUTHERFORD: I’m holding on to hope, like David Seymour is with the Treaty principles bill, about a reversal. I’m saying they’re talking about not supporting the legislation, and I think they might get in behind and actually support it. They have said out loud they’re not supporting the legislation, but just you wait till they come to voting on the bill, and I think there may well be a chance. Parmjeet Parmar has listened to 12 excellent contributions across the House from all the other political parties. She’ll be standing up 11 votes in favour for the ACT Party and voting in support of this legislation, because it’s about the consumer, it’s about businesses in New Zealand, and it’s about ensuring that everyone that receives a gift card, whether it’s through the Rutherford Secret Santa roulette, whether it’s through birthdays, whether it’s just for someone who is leaving a business and moving on to a new opportunity—whatever experience or whatever undertaking they receive it in—has got adequate time to use it and spend it as it is intended.

I just want to say that this has been a great way of watching a member’s bill be passed through the passage of this House: through Jacqui Dean having it when she was here previously, and then Melissa Lee holding on to it, and then getting her ministerial responsibilities and transitioning the leadership of it through to Dan Bidois, who’s then shepherded it accordingly. I recall the committee of the whole House three weeks ago, with Dan sitting in the chair, and a really good understanding and debate taking place around both the title of the bill but particularly relating to the commencement and the feedback that the select committee had heard from public submissions that were received on the bill—and also the provisions that were excluded, and as to why they were.

If you just give me a moment, Madam Speaker, these are the definitions of those that were excluded: a card supplied in substitution for returned goods; a pre-paid card or voucher redeemable for phone credit, internet access, or other similar services; a debit card, credit card, pre-paid travel card, or any other similar product; and a card or voucher supplied as part of a customer loyalty programme. These excluded types of cards or vouchers will not be subject to the minimum expiry period. This is a pragmatic piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 111

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 11

ACT New Zealand 11.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 and 3

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just a few remarks before we start. I want to, first of all, place on record again—I’ll keep on doing this—the names of the people who have been so much concerned with this bill. First of all, Ashley Jones, who is a woman who had the courage to bring this to a local MP and then to see it through, and, before that, Charlotte Abrial, who brought a petition to this House—both women who had experienced family violence and felt that they ought to be able to leave their civil union or marriage long before the two-year period of separation.

From there, I wish also to commend the Hon Chris Bishop, who worked with Ashley Jones and was also instrumental in getting—maybe not this particular bill—this idea to the House, and, especially, my dear friend and former colleague Angie Warren-Clark, whose bill this was, when it was drawn out from the ballot. It’s a real honour to be taking it through the House on behalf of Angie. This is one of those bills where the House is entirely in agreement. It’s obviously something that is needed, when the entire House agrees on it.

Just a quick reminder to members of what the bill actually does: what it does is it ensures that, in cases of family violence proven by there being a final protection order against either one or both parties, the person who is being given protection by the order can apply to have a marriage or a civil union dissolved immediately rather than waiting for a two-year separation period to occur. It moves us away from no-fault divorce, which is, in some ways, a shame because there’s some real merit to the notion of no-fault divorce, but it’s also an indicator that our law around divorce is perhaps in dire need of being updated. So, although it does move us away from no-fault divorce, I think it is a move worth taking.

The Justice Committee did some really good work with the bill. They tidied up a lot of the provisions while making sure that the intent remained intact. In particular, the tidy-up was around ensuring that the cases where a person can apply to have their marriage or civil union dissolved immediately only applies in the case of a final protection order, not a temporary protection order—you have to wait until all the appeals periods have finished. Those are the major things that the select committee did to ensure that this piece of legislation worked as intended. I’m very grateful to the select committee for working so hard on it, and thank you to James Meager, who chairs that select committee. So, with those remarks, I’m happy to take members’ questions.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): I rise to speak, and I have spoken on this bill, and we are in support, but I rise to speak in support of an Amendment Paper that we have submitted. This amendment is seeking to insert an additional clause in 39A, and, effectively, it’s asking to seek a protection in place for the applicant, that we have some insurance that legal advice has been obtained. I would like to preface this, in discussing that, and I would be grateful for the member’s response in terms of this. We are putting this amendment sincerely because we believe there is some risk here.

I think if we go back to the purpose of the bill, it was to seek to reduce harm caused by family violence. That is the key point on which we have reservations. I think it’s our duty in this House to really carefully consider the practical implication of the decisions that we make. That is why I’m talking about this amendment. We know that the volatility and the level of concern that exists—heightened emotions, the vulnerability of victims of family violence—and that in the effort to flee the shackles of that relationship, decisions will be made. It applies to the fight or flight nature of taking decisions. Our concern is that in this emotional time of seeking to terminate a relationship as quickly as possible, there is risk of additional victimisation through the fact that we have failed to ensure that the victim in this scenario is afforded full protections, because in the nature of property settlements and in the nature of this terminating of a relationship, we can end that bond but it doesn’t end that abusive relationship.

I think we would be deceiving ourselves if we said the dissolution means that that abusive relationship ends because then it’s terminated. If that was the case, we wouldn’t have the need to continue protection orders. We know that, at the termination of dissolution, that abusive relationship can continue, and, therefore, we want to make sure that there is some level of protection. If there’s property, if there’s custody issues of those things, in the speed and haste of terminating the relationship we aren’t further victimising the applicant in this matter. This is why I’m talking about the risk around—you know, the termination of a relationship is a business; it is a process. Under the two years of separation of that process, you could work through all of those issues around property and selling businesses and ensuring that you get the right legal advice and ensuring that you are not acting emotionally and agreeing to things. We just want to end it. So, yes, I’ll agree to “You have this and I have this and you have that.”, and we just are in an emotional state of risking rushing through decisions that will impact your life for a long time.

I think I’d go back to the point that we’re making, and I say this sincerely: we absolutely, New Zealand First, are totally committed to doing anything we can to ensure we reduce the impacts of family violence. But I think we’re being disingenuous if we suggest that the dissolution is “That’s it. You’re free and clear.” We know that’s not the case. Therefore, because it’s not the case, we need to make sure that when we go through this process, there are full protections—that there is no risk that a rushed decision is being made; that there’s no risk that we are allowing an emotional state, a vulnerable state, to be the method under which this marriage is dissolved. That’s why we’re seeking this amendment to look at an opportunity to give pause so that we know that the applicant is required to get independent legal advice, that there is some level of protection through this process. We are absolutely in the best interest.

I think we have to be really honest when we make these decisions, that this dissolution is not the end of the story and that the risk of an elevated volatility and the dissolution has to be considered. Therefore, we want to make sure that there is some protection in place. That’s why I hope the amendment will be considered.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I thank the speaker Casey Costello for the points she’s made. I’ve had a look at the amendment that’s been proposed, and I take the point about not acting in haste.

We’re about to go to the dinner break, so I do want members to think about this during the break, because the point raised is a good one. However, I just want to raise a couple of other things that people might like to think about. One of the characteristics of family violence is that the abuser can hold his or her victim in thrall and can put up all sorts of mechanisms to ensure that a person is held in a relationship against their will. I note that in the proposed Amendment Paper, it says that each party has to receive independent legal advice and each signature has to be witnessed by a lawyer, and so on. Now, I can foresee a situation in which an abuser would just refuse to get the legal advice, so it would hold the process up. It would actually just defeat the entire purpose of the bill because it continues to hold the victim in the thrall of his or her abuser. Again, I’ll be anxious to hear what other people think about this, but I think for that reason I couldn’t support this amendment as written.

Two other points: one is that, typically, a temporary protection order comes in first. If it is undefended, it becomes a permanent protection order at three months. It’s not an immediate emotional reaction. There is a three-month period in which there is time for people to work through some of the issues. In terms of the custody of children, I just want to direct the member’s attention to the bill. Clause 6 in the bill introduces new section 39A into the Family Proceedings Act 1980, and that new section 39A(6)(c) says that the matters in section 45 of the Family Proceedings Act have to be addressed, and those are the matters around the custody of children. Right—so there is protection for custody of children there.

That leaves only the property matters—good point, but I am concerned about the fact that this amendment would actually just defeat the entire purpose of the bill by ensuring that the ties to the abuser remain in the abuser’s control, and that, I think, becomes worrying. I’m looking forward to hearing what other members have to say to that when we return to this bill after the dinner break.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The time has come from me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 7.30.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the committee is resumed. Just as a reminder, the question is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): It’s always great to come together when there is unanimous agreement across the House. It always feels nice. Of course, today, we’re here because we are wanting to reduce the harm that family violence causes, and we all know how long these ramifications can go on for—trauma for a lifetime, in some cases.

I just wanted to ask the member the Hon Dr Deborah Russell if she had considered whether there are any specific procedural safeguards in place to ensure that the application process does not further endanger any party involved, and what measures are in place to protect the safety and confidentiality of individuals involved in the dissolution process, particularly if there are any concerns about potential retaliation or further abuse. Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I thank the member Kahurangi Carter for her question. I think the protections that are in place are the standard protections that are in place for a temporary protection order and a permanent protection order. If a dissolution is applied for on the grounds of having a permanent protection order, it is not so much the dissolution itself that is providing the protection, or the processes around that; it’s the processes around the permanent protection order.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that Jamie Arbuckle’s tabled amendment to insert new section 39A(10) in clause 6 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 8

New Zealand First 8.

Noes 97

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Amendment not agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I move, That the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I just want to take this moment to speak a little bit out of what I was expecting to, to acknowledge, firstly, Suicide Prevention Day yesterday, and also Mark Cameron’s son Brody and Mark’s speech earlier today in the House, which I think was timely and poignant and very much related to this bill.

Look, forgive me, all, for the start of this speech being quite dry. I think it’s necessary at a time when we’re responding to the report from the select committee. Of course, to all those listening avidly at home, I just wanted to share that this bill, obviously, amends the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022 to better enable the long-term planning and delivery that is required to improve mental health and addiction outcomes. Currently, this Act doesn’t adequately provide for a mental health and wellbeing approach. This bill strengthens the commitment to mental health and wellbeing by requiring the Minister of Health to consult with the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission in the preparation of strategic documents, including health strategies, the New Zealand Health Plan, and the Government policy statement, and to prepare and determine a mental health and wellbeing strategy.

I’ve been really proud to be the member in charge of this bill since the beginning of this term. I want to again thank Minister Matt Doocey, the now Minister for Mental Health, for introducing this amendment bill to the House. It was done because the previous Government didn’t feel it necessary to have a statutory strategic plan to better address improving mental health outcomes. We are lucky to now have a mental health Minister—the first of its kind. I know that the Minister has already done great work to address the mental health crisis, and I hope that this amendment bill, when passed, serves to support him in his work.

I want to thank the Health Committee, chaired by Sam Uffindell, for their careful consideration of this amendment bill. I appreciate the detailed report from the committee, and I’m grateful to the organisations that submitted their thoughtful feedback, as well as to the ministry officials who provided advice. It’s buoying to read that the submissions were largely in favour of this amendment bill.

I just want to address the recommendations of the committee. Regarding the proposal to amend clause 8 to insert a new Part 3 into Schedule 1 of the principal Act, the committee’s amendment would state that section 46A, pertaining to the making of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy, would not take effect until 12 months after the date on which the bill came into force. I feel strongly that the quality of the strategy is the most important aspect, and if a delayed commencement date is what is required, then I am supportive of that—and I appreciate the advice that was given on this.

Regarding the treatment of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission as a health entity and the committee’s recommendation that that not be the case, I agree. The intention of the bill was for the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission to be consulted as an independent body, and I feel that it’s important to maintain this. If it were implied in the bill’s drafting that the commission should be a health entity, it was an error, and that wasn’t the intention.

Regarding the advice from the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, the committee agrees that the commission has a role to play in providing advice in this area when it thinks fit but that it shouldn’t be required to participate in the usual Government consultation processes. It considers that the Minister should be required to have regard to any advice from the commission when preparing the Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy. Accordingly, it recommends inserting a new section 46A(1A) to prescribe this. Because of the proposed change, the committee has recommended removing clause 6 of the bill, which would have required the Minister to consult on the commission in the preparation of the Government policy statement. It then proposes a new section that would include a broader requirement for the Minister to consider advice provided by the commission. My view is that if the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission can contribute and their advice can be considered, then we are ensuring that its experienced voice is heard.

Regarding the title of the strategy, the committee has reported that some submitters observed a discrepancy between the focus on addiction outcomes in the provisions relating to the purpose and requirements of the strategy, and the title “Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy”. It considered whether the name of the strategy should be amended, but were advised that the term “wellbeing” is typically used to refer to the holistic concept of wellness and the factors that affect mental health, and is well understood across the health sector. I support the committee’s consideration that the name for the strategy as set out in the bill as introduced should be retained.

Regarding the committee’s recommendation of making some amendments to clause 7 for greater consistency, it has recommended amending new section 46A to replace the reference to “addiction” with “wellbeing”, and it also recommends amendments to new section 46A(3) to include a reference to wellbeing outcomes, rather than addiction outcomes. I appreciate that it doesn’t wish to preclude a focus on addiction and, as a result, it has also recommended specifying in new section 46A(2) that a minimisation of harm from addiction is included in the long-term improvements in mental health and wellbeing outcomes. I appreciate the committee’s recommendation here, and it’s very important that addiction is given weighting in this strategy, as mental health and addiction and the treatment of them go hand in hand. I am confident of this recommendation, if it doesn’t diminish the inclusion of addiction in the strategy.

The committee has also raised that the principal Act sets out requirements for further health strategies, including provisions requiring a focus on workforce development. It has recommended amending new section 46A(3)(c) to bring the Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy in line with the other strategies. Its amendment would require that the strategy sets out priorities for mental health and addiction services, and health sector improvements as they relate to mental health and wellbeing, including workforce development. I’m supportive of this recommendation for the reason of having consistency with the rest of the Act, as well as reinforcing the importance of workforce in achieving the outcomes of a strategy.

I want to give thanks to the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission for their ongoing advocacy and support. When the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill was introduced by the previous Government, the commission advocated for the inclusion of a mental health and addiction strategy. As they so rightly pointed out, the purpose of the strategy is to provide a framework to guide health entities for the long-term improvement of mental health and addiction outcomes. I talked about this in my speech in the first reading of this bill. We must have a strategy to inform the decisions we make around directions, funding targets, and, of course, workforce development. While there might be strategies in place by choice, when they aren’t a statutory requirement they don’t hold the same weight when it comes to funding bids, policy development, and—most of all—the work of related agencies that are further removed from the central health system.

Finally, I want to take a moment to acknowledge some important work closer to home. Making a difference in mental health is what this is all about, not just cycling around the same reactive approach. An organisation that is doing something different is Mates4Life. They created a suicide prevention programme in Hawke’s Bay to work with workplaces and organisations to provide free mental health first-aid training for their staff. It’s innovative approaches like this that will make a difference in preventing the demand on the health and emergency system.

Hawke’s Bay has had a wild four years with COVID and Cyclone Gabrielle. In the case of Cyclone Gabrielle, the impact on mental health has been immediate and ongoing. I want to acknowledge those we have lost in the months and years after 14 February 2023, and particularly Rob Poulton from Pātoka, a farmer, volunteer rural firefighter, husband, and dad.

My hope is that the Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy will see our health system put as much focus on preventing addiction as we have on preventing type 2 diabetes. I hope that this strategy sees mental health conditions treated more like physical health conditions. While stigma is one of the biggest barriers to treatment of mental health issues and addiction, access, capacity, and capability are also factors. I am excited to see a health system in five to 10 years’ time that, because of a good strategy, will have addressed these barriers and will see less Kiwis taking their own lives and more Kiwis living with good mental health and wellbeing.

I have cried too often over lives unnecessarily lost or attempted to be taken to do nothing. My friends, my friends’ families, and my friends’ neighbours—good people who needed help with an invisible condition. I am pleased that in the first reading of this bill it was supported unanimously, and I hope that this continues to be the case.

In closing, as I commend the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill, I want to touch on the different te reo Māori definitions of “ora”: “ora” is to be alive, well, safe, healthy, fit, and healed; “ora” is also to survive or escape; “ora” is also to be satisfied or satiated; “ora” is also to recover or revive; and “ora” is also life, health, and vitality. I hope that the future for those suffering with poor mental health or addiction is all of the above.

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

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too wish to acknowledge Suicide Prevention Day yesterday as the granddaughter of somebody who committed suicide in my family, but also to acknowledge my very good friend Louise Gizzi, who was a great Labour supporter from the trans community, who took her own life earlier this year and is in the group that represents the highest number of people who commit suicide in this country—between five or six times that of the general population, depending on which research you read.

We are going to support this legislation but with a challenge, really, to the Government members, because everything I’ve heard opposite makes sense; that sounds great. To have a strategy is good news, but without a workforce plan, without funding, without transparent procurement, without localised solutions to mental health, the strategy is at risk of sitting on the shelf gathering dust as we continue to experience this really shameful crisis in our country that is the mental health crisis, particularly of our youth.

We are supportive, but we are also sceptical because we are now, what, nearly nine, 10 months into the electoral term and we know that the biggest challenge facing our mental health sector is workforce. Yet I have yet to see a workforce plan. Where is the workforce plan and where are the workers that are going to bring about the changes that the strategy will, hopefully, bring to the front line? We haven’t seen that. We know that we are desperately short of workers across the board. We know that despite assurances from the Government that there is no front-line freeze, there are hiring freezes, certainly in my electorate in Taieri, in Southland, where advertisements for mental health nurses have disappeared, where pregnant women who are in the mental health sector—nurses that I door-knocked on the other day—said they could not, as a fulltime-equivalent, get somebody to take over part of their shift because there is an effective hiring freeze. These are the nuts and bolts, or the devil in the detail, of a strategy that will make the difference.

It’s good to have a strategy, and I’d just like to clarify that the reason the Labour Government didn’t include one—originally—is because the other population strategies are around population groups, and the landscape of mental health provision is at risk of becoming cluttered if every single group has a strategy. On this side of the House, we believe that mental health is cross-cutting. It impacts on every part of ora, as the previous speaker Katie Nimon has said. There was no need to carve out a specific strategy, but we have listened to the submitters; we agree that a focus on mental health and a strategy is a good idea. What we are waiting for now is the workforce strategy and the funding to support it and funding to the front line so that the community groups that are so desperately waiting for funding so they can continue the work they’ve been doing at the coalface for the last several decades can continue rather than them fold.

My challenge is to the Government members: thank you for your words, thank you for what sounds good; when are you going to back it up with action? When are we going to see funding? When are we going to see a workforce plan, and when are we going to see an end to the mental health crisis that so many of our rangatahi in particular are calling for? I commend it to the House.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on this bill. Just wanting to acknowledge the previous speakers and also acknowledge the Minister and congratulate him for getting his bill drawn. I also acknowledge—as Ingrid Leary has already said—that it’s really great to work together on issues like this in a cross-partisan way if we’re able to. I think one of the most special moments that I’ve had in the admittedly brief period of time that I’ve been in this House for was yesterday with the tributes to King Tuheitia and how we all came together as a House and all came together to sing the waiata. After, I think I literally had tears in my ears.

I’m going to talk a little bit about what this bill does, and then I’m going to talk about what actually makes up components of good mental health, because I think it’s really fantastic that we’re moving towards a strategy that this bill amends the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act to better enable the long-term planning and delivery. That’s important to mental health and addiction outcomes. It’s really important to take the long view when you’re dealing with issues—particularly with mental health issues. There are things that you might invest in that will take a long time to bear fruit. Sometimes you might want to invest in things that won’t obviously bear fruit for another couple of political cycles, and it would be a terrible thing, I’m sure we would all agree, for long-term investments to get attacked on the basis that they’re not delivering immediate outcomes. I think when it comes to thinking about issues like this, we need to make sure that we are thinking of the long game.

This bill does strengthen the commitment to mental health and wellbeing by requiring the Minister of Health to consult with the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission in the preparation of strategic documents, including health strategies, the New Zealand Health Plan, and the Government policy statement. It’s really important that when the Government and the Minister of Health is actually preparing plans that they consult with the wider sector and that they consult with the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, particularly when it comes to preparing those strategic long-term documents, because it’s really important to get that kind of grassroots perspective.

There’s a lot of work on this that’s actually being done on the ground by volunteers or community groups that aren’t necessarily resourced to do so. I just want to acknowledge all the great mahi that goes on in this space, particularly from members of the community to prepare and determine a mental health and wellbeing strategy. I think that one of the things that will make a really big and substantial difference is actually having a strategy—having a sense of direction about where you might want to go in the future—because if you don’t have a strategy, if you’re not planning for things, if you’re not trying to plan in a kind of cross-partisan way, you’re kind of setting up the process to be disjointed. You’re setting up the process so that there’s no coordination between all the kind of different arms of Government, and you’re setting it up so that it can get chopped and changed across the different political cycles—so that’s fantastic. The Green Party has supported this to select committee and there were no significant issues identified at select committee. So we’re going to continue supporting this bill.

I want to talk about what makes up good mental health now, because I want to acknowledge Ingrid Leary’s contribution to this. I do think we definitely need to have a good workforce plan. We definitely need to ensure that the kind of pipeline issues are being resolved. But I think—and I know the Minister will be thinking about this—a lot of strategies just fail at the strategy phase because there’s no implementation plan behind it. So we definitely—

Hon Matt Doocey: Yes—dead right. That’s exactly it.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Exactly, Minister. And we definitely want to see resourcing behind it. We want to see an acknowledgment of the kind of holistic things that make up health, including secure housing, including making sure that we’ve got a well-resourced public health system that can deal with people and pick up people when they’re down. We want to make sure that there are jobs for young people and, well, jobs for everyone, really—that everyone can end up in secure, well-paid, well-remunerated employment where they’re supported by strong unions and employers that recognise and value the contribution that they make.

I think one of the things that is most important is that we need to have a future worth belonging to so that our mental health can be in a kind of safe and stable way, because there’s a lot of things out in the world that are alarming young people—well, alarming everyone across the board. There’s the genocide that’s ongoing in Gaza, there’s the climate crisis that’s ongoing, and we need to be actually working to resolve those issues, because, otherwise, it’s just band-aid solutions after band-aid solutions.

Thank you so much for acknowledging my call and thank you so much for all the previous speakers in the House. The Greens are looking forward to working with this Government and continuing to work with a cross-party group on mental health to continue advancing mental health solutions in a cross-partisan way. Thank you.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m proud to rise on behalf of the ACT Party for the second reading of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill, in the name of Katie Nimon. Well done to you, Katie, on having your bill read in the House, but also to you, Minister Doocey—fantastic work on introducing this piece of work to the House.

I am on the Health Committee and I was hearing submissions on this bill and what it will mean in mental health and wellbeing, and healthcare more broadly, and the impacts that people were concerned about and the impacts that people welcomed. I think it’s great to hear the member in charge of the bill referring back to what the select committee came to when talking about health entities. It was obviously something that’s been taken into account.

The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission should really maintain its independence—that was a core concern of many submitters. It has been addressed by the member—I’m glad to see that. This independence led on to discussions that many submitters had about who’s out there supporting mental health in New Zealand. What’s the rallying cry? Where can we actually look to, to be guided in the way we address mental health in this country? So, again, I commend you—adding a mental health and wellbeing strategy to the list of health strategies already in the Pae Ora legislation is clearly a good outcome.

Look, earlier in the House, we heard from my colleague Mark Cameron about mental health in the farming industry, the rural industry, contractors and alike. Now, I can speak to that as a farmer for years in a beautiful place in the country called Galatea, Kuhawaea Plain. Now, we’re an isolated place with not a lot of amenities. It’s very important that we have things like mental health and wellbeing strategies to make sure we can address what is faced by many people in rural communities who feel isolated, not just physically and geographically but also very often from broader society. Making sure that we speak about people in a way that is uplifting and not tearing them down on any kind of characteristic, be it rural or urban alike, is very important. Having a strategy that will start addressing these things, I hope, is also going to be a huge contributor.

I’m also from the building industry. Now, that’s another industry that has got more than its fair share of problems with mental health. Earlier this week, I attended the MATES in Construction launch of their research in Auckland. We had a great presentation from Minister Doocey on the big screen talking about the importance of people talking about—and mates; talking to mates on construction sites, making sure that you’re actually checking in. This is something that’s come ground up. It’s been brought in from ideas overseas. This is a great thing to bring into the industry.

It’s also going to be incredibly helpful to have a mental health and wellbeing strategy that will help collate and organise these ideas across a broader sector, and a building and construction industry which is open to the plagues of the business cycle. No matter how much certain entities in New Zealand try to mitigate that, they never seem to time it right, so we end up with things that compound upon us in the building industry. In the same way, you’ve got scarcity of work; very often, surplus of work, which actually creates its own stresses—when you mistime things and start pumping activity into an industry, and people feel like they can’t cope, they stop spending time with their family. They just work as much as they can to get it done while it’s there because they know that this mistime is going to mean that there’s going to be a low point that probably didn’t need to happen. The building industry is a prime place that is not really addressed. Mental health and wellbeing hasn’t been addressed in the other strategies; the building industry, farming—I guess you could say the rural health strategy addresses it—but having that mental health and wellbeing approach that can go across industries and across sectors is going to be a huge benefit.

I’d like to finish this up and just say I appreciate, Mr Speaker, you giving me this opportunity to expand on something that isn’t talked about. You know, we’re bringing farming forward in this House, and I think it’s time that the building industry and the challenges it faces are also addressed. Thank you, Mr Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a privilege and an honour to speak to the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill, and I’d like to begin my contribution this evening by acknowledging the member Katie Nimon. Well done; congratulations. I look forward to the progress of this bill through the House, acknowledging also Minister Doocey for writing up this bill in the first place, previously. He gets to speak on your bill as well, so congratulations to you.

As part of the Health Committee, we heard a number of submissions on this bill, and I’d just note also that the member Katie Nimon has spoken to the number of amendments that were recommended by the committee. I’d like to, following hard on the heels of fellow Health Committee member Cameron Luxton, talk about FirstMate. FirstMate is in the seafood sector, and this is a charitable organisation for those in the fishing industry—the seafood sector. There are a lot of challenges being out at sea, and this organisation supports people by providing free counselling sessions for those that are facing mental health challenges in the seafood sector.

I do rise to voice New Zealand First’s support for this bill. This addresses an issue of critical importance to New Zealand: mental health. The rationale behind this bill’s introduction is admirable. We are, in New Zealand First, committed to improving mental health outcomes in this country and are very proud to have been part of greater funding being secured for the I Am Hope Foundation, for Gumboot Friday. We’ve heard a range of useful submissions on this bill through the committee and agree with the recommendation to remove the classification of the commission as a health entity. This recommendation allows for the commission to maintain its independence, which is critical for it, and, therefore, the effectiveness of its oversight role.

Mental health is an issue that every New Zealander must deal with, whether for themselves or maybe someone close to them, a colleague, or even someone in the community that they’re part of. Mental health is at the core of every person. We have a nervous system and a brain and a capacity for decision making that’s guided by really powerful internal forces that are part and parcel of biological life. There are fears and desires that unconsciously guide us—the neurochemicals that power through our brain, which cause pleasure or pain or boredom or despair. The design of our internal motivating systems are essential features of our human nature and, without it, our species would not survive. But, whether we like it or not, we’re all subject to the feelings that we experience, and there are only a few ways to escape from them.

People who do try to escape from their unwanted feelings often get stuck either in drugs, alcohol, or risky behaviour of some kind to dull their pain or, worse, in attempting to end their lives. We do have too many acutely and chronically unhappy citizens and too few with the skills and understanding to care for them. The challenges to mental health come at us from every direction. Everything can become a mental health issue, especially when we have depleted our reserves and are at the limit of our capacity to continue. It’s in our own interest to reexamine our thinking about how best to care for and restore people to functional mental health.

It was a privilege, in the 52nd Parliament, to be part of the initial cross-party mental health and wellbeing group, and it was really there, through that group that we established cross-party, that we were really able to raise the issue of, in particular, suicide. I just would like to note our member of Parliament colleague who spoke in this House today about his own son’s passing—very moving, and aroha to him and his whānau.

When this bill was first drawn, the Mental Health Foundation made a couple of statements which I think are really important for us to note. They said—and I quote—“We simply cannot help one person at a time through services. We need population mental health and wellbeing approaches to help all New Zealanders to be well and to stay well, and without a mandated strategy decisionmakers could simply revert back to using outdated but deep-rooted deficit models around mental health and addiction and focus on solely expanding services, an approach that can’t and hasn’t solved our wellbeing crisis.”

We heard from around 57 interested groups and individuals through the submissions process, and hearing those submitters—19 oral evidence hearings that we held in Wellington. There was a number of recommendations that were put forward. I won’t traverse those, but just a couple of the submissions I’d like to mention: one was from Women’s Refuge, and their feedback—obviously, Women’s Refuge has specific data, research, and evidence as well as decades of experience of our senior practitioners in supporting women and children who experience family violence, because family violence is a hidden cause of poor mental health and health outcomes. Half of all women patients accessing mental health care are victims of current or recent family violence. Childhood exposure to family violence is implicated in one-fifth of youth suicides. One in nine women victims sustains a brain injury related to domestic violence, which then doubles the likelihood of developing mood disorders and exponentially increases the risk of suicide.

Federated Farmers—and we have been talking about our rural partners here and poor mental health—submitted as well in great support of this bill, along with the recommendation that geographical considerations form a requirement of the mental health strategy’s preparation, so as to ensure that rural communities’ outcomes are considered distinctly from those of urban populations, and I think we have heard that message very clearly today.

Save The Children also spoke about Government being obligated to uphold the rights of children under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the development of a new health and wellbeing strategy presents an important opportunity to fulfil this commitment. They believe that the most important issue affecting young people is mental health, and they really support a holistic approach to mental wellbeing. These are just a couple of the submissions we heard from and read through the process.

So, really, in conclusion, there are a number of ways that we can support people, whether it’s developing more workforce, whether it’s developing a new strategy, but I think it’s something we all in this House agree is important work for all of us to consider, and that we are able to work in a way that is bipartisan to make sure that the wellbeing of all the people in our communities is at the forefront. Therefore, I’m pleased to commend this bill to the House. It lays a strong foundation for a comprehensive and effective mental health and wellbeing strategy. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. First of all, I stand for Te Pāti Māori to support the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill. What I have to offer to the discussion is as an electorate MP for Te Tai Hauāuru, which spans from Tokoroa all the way down to Porirua, around about a 9½ hour drive straight, if you don’t stop for chips. One of the things that we’re continuously being contacted about by constituents is the mental health system—how frustrating it is to navigate, how there is no system, how our w’anau are struggling for support, how they’re struggling to be diagnosed, how they’re struggling to have any advocacy. And if there’s anything that I would absolutely stand 150 percent in support of, it is a Government that can get this right.

For four years now, I have had to stand and talk to different parts and different Ministers well intending on the mental health system and the changes and, indeed, the improvements that they want to make. But the reality is, for many of our w’anau, including in my own, you have to have some of the biggest navigational skills to actually get your w’anau member seen to. In fact, you end up with not just one family member who is unwell and needing support, but the whole w’anau, and then it becomes the whole community. And I see the Minister wearing the 1757 badge. I was a director in that entity for the sole purpose of hoping that I could make a difference and a change for rangatahi, who are shamelessly, on us as a nation, experiencing some of the worst suicide rates, and I reflect back home to some of our w’anau that are all in grief as w’anau pani, for the loss of many of our rangatahi tāne.

The circuit breaker for us as a community regionally hasn’t, in Te Tai Hauāuru, from anyone who I can speak to, been realised. And w’anau are struggling, not just struggling because they can’t access or even see anyone on the front line, more or less a back line—there are a whole lot of other social factors that are exacerbating the desperation of our w’anau on a day-to-day basis. I’ve heard some of it mentioned over here—the poverty, the w’anau struggling to pay bills; the uncertainty in sectors; the housing; the abuse; the trauma; the addictions. But the reality is, we all have an obligation.

There are many solutions that we’ve seen on the ground but there’s not enough of them. For some, Whānau Ora, Māori health providers, iwi, hapū, and marae are starting some of their own initiatives. I’m in real awe of what’s happening with our farmers and the surfing initiatives that are happening, because these are things we were actually addressing and connecting our w’anau to our environment, because it is an environmental issue, a physical issue, as much as it is a mental issue. I think what’s really, really frightening is we’ve had some amazing kaupapa like He Arotake and Te Akai Whai Ora and the suicide prevention, and I think the six recommendations—they are all really good initiatives—but the reality is, as much as we resource and target, we also, within ourselves, have a role and responsibility.

I heard earlier the kōrero of ora. Currently, our w’anau aren’t feeling ora coming out of any of us and particularly this House. There’s a whole lot of attacking going on, which isn’t helping the grassroots situation. I guess what we all need to be thinking about is what our role in this is, and it’s not just the Minister and the legislation. The reality is that we are contending with an environment that is affecting our people, whether it be an anti-Tiriti, an anti-environment, a fast this or a removal of that. We are all responsible for the wellbeing of each other and our communities. While it’s important that we get this right and we resource everyone right and we find services that are able to be accessible, we also have to remember we’re responsible for the wellbeing of each other’s ora, and how we behave and what it is we do outside of just this amendment impacts on our communities.

I cannot think of a better message to use right now: we all deserve to live well and we have the ability to influence that and use our sphere in a responsible way. Nō reira, tihei mauri ora! Kia ora rā.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to acknowledge the kotahitanga in the House today, the unity and the support for each other, and the people we know in our communities and our own whānau that suffer from mental health and their families that suffer with them, and the difficulties that workplaces and schools have when one or more members suffer from bad mental health. Mental health is not something we can vaccinate against. Mental health is not something that is always biological or genetic or predetermined. Mental health is also something that is a bigger social society issue.

I’m really pleased that we’re talking about men’s mental health. Whether it’s professions of farmer, builder, fishing—yes, those—it’s great that that’s able to be recognised and talked about, though I still think that individuals in those areas have great difficulty realising that it’s not just them, that they are able to ask for help whether it’s from their whānau or from the professional support.

I’d like to acknowledge the mention of family and sexual violence as a causal factor in people’s mental health. Often poor mental health is a natural response to pressures, and I’d like this House to consider to what extent we are adding to those pressures from time to time. And, yes, that is a thing across the House—how we behave to each other—but I’m more meaning in terms of the legislation that we produce and the way we talk about groups of people. One of the most vulnerable groups to poor mental health is people who are non-binary, not just when they are adolescents finding their identity but also as adults. Nominally, they’re much more accepted, but if you look at the statistics, they often feel oppressed and not part of mainstream society. I think we need to think about when we’re producing legislation that discriminates, what are we actually doing for mental health. Mental health is much bigger than just the professionals and the funding in the health sector.

While I acknowledge, and I’d like to acknowledge, Minister Doocey and his work in clearly setting out some of the issues in mental health, let’s not forget some of the more traditional issues of mental health that may be temporary but may lead to permanent tragedy: postnatal depression, menopausal changes, and, of course, the effects of dementia and ageing. There are a huge number of issues and I think it’s going to be very interesting to see how this strategy can possibly prioritise across them. That’s not to say it shouldn’t be done; I just think it’s going to be extremely difficult.

My colleague Francisco Hernandez did also mention some of the issues that press upon, again, particularly young people, which is what kind of a future they’re going to have—are they going to have a future? Some people might think of it in terms of can they buy a house, but I think there is some more existential issues at play in whether they actually feel they have hope. I think that that is not necessarily a criticism of other parties. When our party paints a dark picture of something like climate change, we also need to talk about how people can actually have agency and hope as well. There’s some pretty wide ramifications to mental health.

I look forward to better access to diagnosis, appropriate medicines, support at school and, later on, and—above all—a less divisive and more inclusive society. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure and a privilege to rise on behalf of the Government in support of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill in its second reading.

Look, it feels a long time ago that I sat on that side of the House, watching the then Labour Government putting together their big flagship reforms of the Pae Ora health reforms, and going and listening through their strategies and understanding that there was going to be no mental health strategy. It was interesting at the time; the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission and the Mental Health Foundation came out and said that mental health was invisible in those reforms. It felt the right thing to do at the time, to put in a Supplementary Order Paper, which the then Labour Government voted down, which made me more determined to put forward as a member’s bill what we’re getting back today from the select committee.

I probably did the easier part of putting an idea in a biscuit tin, but I just wanted to acknowledge the fantastic work of Katie Nimon in sponsoring this bill through the stage of the select committee. I want to acknowledge her speech in leading off the debate tonight—the tone of the speech, how parliamentary it was, talking to the issues that we are debating tonight. I want to thank her for her sponsorship, which, I think, has made this bill clearly turn up in a better shape than it first probably started when I wrote it. There were a few drafting errors, so I’ll hold my hands up to that, but that’s the reality of why we go through a select committee process. What I do know from reading the departmental report: there were 56 submissions. There was an ability for people to have their say, to come and have their oral submissions, and to be heard.

One clear theme that came through the submissions is those with lived experience who wanted their voice to be heard, because, of course, when there was no mental health strategy in the original bill, people did not feel heard, they did not feel listened to, and they did not feel valued. We can come up with all the apologist excuses we want of “Oh, it was supposed to be around population groups.”, but, sadly, when you look at the life expectancy of people with lifelong and enduring mental illness, it’s one of the greatest reductions we have out of any grouping of people. Quite rightly, it’s fair that we prioritise them today with this mental health strategy.

It was important to hear those with lived experience being able to give their view through the select committee process. That’s why one of the first things this Government did when it came in was to announce a new peer-support and lived-experience service based out of emergency departments. We know that is an under-utilised workforce that can connect with people in a time of crisis and allow that person to be listened to and heard by someone who’s been there themselves. It was great to hear that lived-experience voice come through the select committee as well.

I do want to acknowledge some of the other speakers tonight. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer spoke about the inability to navigate through the services, which is exactly the issue we have. Our services are fragmented. They need to be joined up, and, quite often, people under mental distress or mental illness don’t have the literacy to engage in services that maybe others just expect people to have. It is important—and I hope through the strategy—that we do look at how we join up our services, because I’m actually one of optimism that I’m in a privileged position to see, as I travel around the country, that we have a great range of services out there. The problem is they’re very disconnected, very fragmented, and people don’t know how to navigate their way through them.

Also, Francisco Hernandez from the Green Party—a new member of Parliament to this House, but I think he nailed it very quickly. The last thing we want is another strategy. We got that after the last Government’s mental health inquiry—58 or so recommendations that sit on someone’s shelf somewhere. It isn’t about a strategy. What Francisco Hernandez says is that it’s about an implementation plan. That’s why I value the amendment that’s come back around the commencement date of 12 months, which gives time to understand and put together that implementation plan, because when you look at the current mental health strategy, Kia Manawanui, you read it and you don’t disagree with any of it. It all makes sense, but the problem is it can’t tell you what’s going to happen by what date. That’s what the sector is calling for as well—a clear plan, how we’re going to join up the services, and how we will implement and deploy them as well.

I just want to acknowledge Jenny Marcroft from New Zealand First, who talked about the conception of the cross-party mental health group. It’s brilliant to hear some of that coming through in the debate today as, fairly, most speakers are coming together in support, because that’s where the genesis of this happened.

I acknowledge the Health Committee chair, Sammy Uffindell, for the great work he was doing. It was Jenny Marcroft, Louisa Wall, Chlöe Swarbrick, and myself on that Health Committee. When we started working more collaboratively together and getting together to talk about the issues, then we started saying, “Hey, there’s something here. Shall we go off and look at joining our first cross-party mental health and addiction group?” It’s great to see that that group has continued under the chair of Chlöe Swarbrick as well. That’s why this is important, because I think the public expects us to take cross-party support.

What I do hope for this bill, once it’s passed, is for the fruits of it to be an implementation plan. Quite clearly, what we need to do is increase access to timely mental health and addiction support in New Zealand. We need to grow the mental health and addiction workforce. The biggest barrier to timely care in mental health and addiction services at the moment, in my view, is the workforce vacancy rates that have ballooned over successive years. The Labour Opposition can crow that we don’t have a workforce plan, but the reality is the Auditor-General, who I wrote to in Opposition to investigate mental health after the failings that come out of the Mental Health Commission’s report—that actually turned up at the start of this year, saying we did not have a workforce plan. It beggars belief that in the six years of the last Government, we had no plan. So, fair challenge in our first nine months, where is the plan? But have some reflection of why you didn’t have one in the six years when you had a chance to make a difference.

Of course, we need to strengthen the focus on prevention and early intervention and improve the effectiveness of our services. One thing—and the Prime Minister sets this from the top—is that this Government will hold itself to account. We will be accountable, and we will quite rightly be accountable to the New Zealand public over this term. I’m very aware as New Zealand’s first mental health Minister—and let’s be very clear—that nothing has changed, because someone has a job title. But, hopefully, with what we use this role for, there will be a high level of expectation where I will be accountable.

That’s why there’s nothing more accountable than setting very clear targets, and that’s what this Government’s done—the first time ever in this country for mental health: 80 percent of people to access primary mental health and addiction support within one week; 80 percent to access specialist mental health and addiction support within three weeks. The Scottish target is 18 weeks. We’ve just set a target of three weeks, and we’re not going to settle for the national average. It might say we’re reaching 80 percent, but I guarantee if you scratch the surface and go into an area like Northland, it won’t be. We’ll have to go in and raise Northland to 80 percent. We’ll have to go in and raise Māori to that target of three weeks as well, to young people and other population groups and distinct groups. Think of rurality. That is holding ourselves accountable. We’re going to set very clear targets around one-week access to primary support, three-week specialist, six hours wait time in the emergency department. We’re going to train 500 new mental health professionals every year, and we’re going to ring-fence 25 percent of the mental health and addiction workforce budget on prevention and early intervention.

We’ll hold ourselves accountable, the performance reporting will be for New Zealanders to see, and they will make their decisions on whether we drove mental health forward in this country over this term. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on the second reading of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill. Can I, like others, also join in congratulating member Katie Nimon on bringing this bill, and I want to thank you, Ms Nimon, for the way in which you engaged with the Health Committee. I felt that all of our questions, no matter which side of the committee chair we sat on—or committee table—were heard openly and considered fairly in your consideration of your bill. There was no self-indulgent engagement in chipping around some of the history of this issue, so congratulations to you.

I want to focus my remarks on some of what, I guess, we might see in the future as this bill progresses to a strategy. Firstly, it’s to remind colleagues of the structure in the Pae Ora (Health Futures) Act, that surrounds strategy. Strategies don’t exist in isolation. The statutory strategies are required to be consulted on, as is this one, and I was lucky to be able to see the results of the consultation of the original strategies, and really heartened by the interest that members of the community took in sharing their views with officials, that were then presented to me on how they want their health and health services to be. That opportunity is really precious. I learnt a lot about how people see our health system through that process, and, no doubt, we’ll see the same when we do that engagement again.

The purpose of the strategy is then to inform the Government policy statement (GPS). The Government policy statement has already been released by this Government; that’s the first one that’s existed because the pae ora legislation is new. That sets out what the Government wants done, based on those strategies in the health system. That GPS—it’s then the responsibility of Health New Zealand—Te Whatu Ora to use those expectations set by the Government to write a health plan, and that health plan lasts for a three-year term. It’s funded through the three-year Budget that was also set out by the last Government—and good to see continued by this one, though at an insufficient level of funding.

The result of that is that this strategy should have really strong connection to the decisions about service provision in our health system. That is the underlying function of the pae ora Act. It means our health system stops going from one-year initiatives to the next; one Budget, one single-year Budget, to the next. It means we’re finally able to plan and get on top of some of the long-term health system challenges. So this is a positive step to have a strategy. But how will the strategy impact the GPS if it’s already been published? That is a question of mine from select committee that has not been answered. Will the GPS be rewritten in light of this strategy, and, if not, what is the point of the public coming forward and giving their perspective on the strategy?

Will the health plan, which is delayed—it has not been published on time by Health New Zealand—is that plan awaiting this strategy? That would mean it would be very delayed, or will it be amended in light of the strategy? That’s an important consideration, and Te Whatu Ora’s budget-setting—will that be altered in light of the strategy; if not, why are people putting all their effort into submitting on a strategy where the fiscals won’t change around it? So those are important questions and, no doubt, we’ll pursue them in the committee of the whole House stage for this Budget.

Colleagues in the House tonight have already mentioned the importance all New Zealanders place on being able to access services, and I’m very proud of the progress we made in Government, in the Labour Party, of being able to roll out the first primary mental health access and choice system, which, by the time I was Minister, had addressed its issues with understaffing and had already reached 1,000 visits. Now it has over 600 and perhaps over 700 sites nationwide. It’s available in primary care services, particularly for Māori, Pacific, and youth, as well as in general practice. It’s a real treasure and something special that was achieved in a short period of time and during a pandemic.

I’ve heard others talk about healthy environments of all kinds and how much that matters to mental health. That came through really strongly in the submissions we received as a committee. This means environments of all sorts: the housing environment—people’s housing security impacts mental health—their employment rights impact mental health; their experience of social inclusion, as has been discussed by others tonight in relation to the rainbow community, also, experience of racism. Those things impact mental health, experience of addiction, adverse child experiences. I frequently was given cause to think about that when I read the findings of abuse in State care and realised how much of a scar that left on the mental health of our nation.

Those are some of the themes that came through in submissions and I hope, despite the relatively narrow focus of the Government’s GPS, that we are able to have the inclusion of these very important influences on mental health included in the strategy.

Another thing that came through in the public submissions in the last set of statutory strategies was what I might call “health and human rights”. You could call it patient rights, but I think health and human rights is perhaps a more inclusive term. The human rights of people that they enjoy in our health system matters deeply to them. Nowhere is that more true than in mental health. Some of that is governed by the mental health Act, but some of it is also governed in how we operationalise the delivery of services. The pae ora framework, prior to this amendment, already requires health entities to report annually on how they are giving effect to the code on consumer engagement, and I am hoping to see that continues to flourish as we see more and more consumer voice and whānau voice in our health system.

By way of conclusion, I want to reflect on some of my recent experiences. It is humbling to grasp the enormity of some people’s suffering when they struggle with mental health conditions. In my life as a family member, friend, and as a doctor, I have had cause to feel that my efforts to comfort and alleviate that suffering are inadequate. It’s heartening that we can agree on this bill. Let’s go forward on these matters with honesty and sincerity and let’s make sure that our actions in relation to this truly have meaning.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Before I speak on this bill, I would like to acknowledge my parliamentary colleague ACT Party MP Mark Cameron for sharing his personal pain with us earlier today. Mark, as a father, my heart goes out to you. The loss of your son to suicide earlier this year serves as a reminder to everyone who sits in this House that mental health is a serious issue and there is so much more we need to do. As Mark mentioned before, mental health should always come before politics. Thank you for being so brave, sharing your story to help others. I would like to take a moment of silence to acknowledge both your son and your courage. [Moment of silence]

I stand in this House to support the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge my colleagues the MP for Napier, Katie Nimon, and the Minister for Mental Health, the Hon Matt Doocey, for all their hard work to bring this bill to the House. This bill amends the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022 to better enable the long-term planning and delivery that is required to improve mental health and addiction outcomes.

The pae ora Act 2022 currently does not adequately provide for a mental health and wellbeing approach. When the bill was first introduced by the previous Government in October 2021, we advocated for the inclusion of a mental health and addiction strategy under the legislation. The purpose of the mental health and wellbeing strategy is to provide a framework to guide health entities for the long-term improvement of mental health and addiction outcomes. These strategies can provide clear direction and a framework for the development of a holistic and transformative approach.

Whilst the other strategies were specific, mental health and addiction was not included. It is good that this omission will now be rectified. This bill strengthens the commitment to mental health and wellbeing by requiring the Minister of Health to consult with the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission in preparation of strategic documents including health strategies and the New Zealand Health Plan and the Government policy statement, and to prepare and determine a mental health and wellbeing strategy. This means the Act will be amended to better enable the long-term planning and delivery that is required to improve mental health and addiction outcomes. Because we believe that our people deserve better and we must do better.

Mr Speaker, let me remind you why this bill is so important: because over half of the people living in New Zealand have experience with mental illness and addiction challenges at some point in their life. Nationally, one in five people have experienced some kind of mental illness in the last year, and 3 percent experienced a serious mental illness. Half of those who developed a mental health disorder have problems evidenced by the age of 15 years old. People diagnosed with a mental disorder have a reduction of life expectancy of approximately 15 years, raising to 20 for those diagnosed with a substance use disorder. Earlier this week, Tuesday marked World Suicide Prevention Day. Here in New Zealand, 565 New Zealanders took their life by suicide in 2022 and 2023. However, the true impact is so much more than the 565 people: each and every one of them is someone’s son or daughter, brother or sister, friends or colleagues, taken too soon in devastating circumstances.

I genuinely believe this bill is a step in the right direction towards ensuring mental health outcomes improve in New Zealand. This is why this Government employed New Zealand’s first Minister for Mental Health. I need to acknowledge the work that Minister the Hon Matt Doocey is doing to fix a broken system, often trying to help broken people.

Earlier this year, Minister Matt Doocey announced five key targets for mental health. They are, first, faster access to specialist mental health and addiction services; second, faster access to primary mental health and addiction services; third, to shorten mental health and addiction - related stays in emergency departments; fourth, to increase mental health and addiction workforce development; last but not least, strengthening the focus on prevention and early intervention. We try to target 25 percent of mental health and addiction investment to be allocated towards prevention and early intervention. I believe the Minister, for setting such an ambitious target, will make a real difference to New Zealanders who need help.

Also, I would like to acknowledge the work Minister Matt Doocey is doing with our Minister of Police, Mark Mitchell, to transition to a stronger mental health response for people who need crisis mental health support. I agree with the Ministers: for too long, those seeking crisis support have often been met by a uniformed officer, which can cause further distress. People in mental distress are not criminals. Those seeking assistance deserve a mental health response rather than a criminal justice response. This is why it’s extremely disappointing the mental health call response service was cancelled by the Labour Government. The previous National Government had announced $8 million to trial sending mental health workers on crisis call-outs, but, unfortunately, under Labour that funding was cut. We are prioritising mental health, and this is clear in the action being taken now alongside works under way to implement a five-year transition plan to a multi-agency 111 response.

Before I conclude my speech, I would like to draw everyone’s attention to this upcoming New Zealand Mental Health Awareness Week. It will be held from Monday, 23 to Sunday, 29 September. This year, the theme is “Community is ... what we create together.” We need to raise awareness. I encourage every one of you to start the conversation, because every conversation contributes to a supportive and understanding society and creates a better culture of support.

Finally, to all New Zealanders, but especially my constituents in Mt Roskill: this bill will pave the way to a brighter future and ensure more New Zealanders have access to mental health care when they need it. This bill, along with other measures this Government is undertaking, will save lives. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill. And can I also join with colleagues in the House tonight on congratulating the member in charge of the bill, Katie Nimon, on guiding the bill through this process.

Other members have also just acknowledged our colleague Mark Cameron today and just recognising the loss that he and his family have had with the loss of their son. I don’t think there’d be a single member in this House who hasn’t been touched by mental health in some way, whether that be someone who has suffered in their family, a friend of a colleague, or has lost a person. I was 18 years old when I first lost someone to suicide—one of my closest friends—and sad to say not the first person and probably won’t be the last. I think it’s a shared experience that all of us have in this House and why these matters are ones where we do take real care in the comments that we make and do our best, I would hope, as a Parliament, to work together to ensure that the strategies and services offered by Governments are those that all New Zealanders can benefit from. I thank members for what has been a considered debate tonight.

I wanted to touch on a couple of things around, I guess, the impact of the bill. The bill specifically looks at ensuring we have strategies around mental health. But, as my colleague Ayesha Verrall touched on earlier, what is also important is that those strategies lead to policies and outcomes for people. While the Minister is in the House, I did want to take the opportunity just to share a couple of recent reflections that have been raised with me from members of the sector around services that are being developed where I think there’s feedback that probably needs to be shared. I do this, I hope, in a constructive way.

I hold the arts portfolio for the Labour Party. A couple of weeks ago I had the benefit of attending the Arts Access Aotearoa conference and met with a large number of providers who provide art support to people with disabilities and, actually, a large number of people with mental health. We have one service provider in Nelson called Magenta, who are an amazing service provider that provide art and mental health support to people with mental health and disabilities.

One of the concerns raised was around the recent mental health innovation fund—and a good fund; it’s a good programme. One of the concerns raised was that the requirement to have matching funding sitting in bank accounts was actually prohibitive, particularly for rural, regional community-based organisations that actually do exactly that—they innovate. We see people who go and are able to express themselves through art, and, actually, it significantly helps their mental health. I wanted to take the opportunity, just in the short contribution I have, to raise that we need to ensure, as Mark Cameron said earlier today, that the services we are providing in these areas do actually reach into rural and regional and provincial areas that often have different and unique needs to how we may deliver services in the major centres.

I had the opportunity on Friday to visit our mental health unit at the hospital, Wāhi Oranga, and meet with some of the staff there. What was really good to see was a refurbishment that’s happening at the unit where we have new rooms and the whole design of the unit has been changed to actually assist with where people arrive and how they’re treated when they first arrive. I’d love the Minister to actually go and view that. I think it would be a good change for him to go and see in Nelson at the hospital there. I was also really pleased to see and to hear that the use of seclusion, which had been very high in this unit, has dropped, and, actually, the number of assaults on staff has dropped—two things that had been raised with me.

I also just want to acknowledge that Nelson was actually one of the first centres to introduce peer support at the emergency department a few years ago, and we also rolled it out to young people as well. The next step that we took a couple of years ago was to roll it out to young people. I think it would be great for the Minister to come and see some of the amazing innovations we’re doing in Nelson that I know have been rolled out around the rest of the country. Congratulations again to the member, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to join with the rest of my colleagues in acknowledging colleague Mark Cameron in his loss and the profound sense of, just, bewilderment and the tragedy that it is.

I’m very much in support of this amendment bill. It was an interesting position being the deputy chair of the Medical Association when the pae ora bill was first going through, and we recommended in our submission that if you’re going to do a whole lot of different strategies, you need to include all of them. Maybe we just needed a health strategy instead of all of these different ones, because, otherwise, everybody wants to have their own strategy. Anyway, here we are.

Other colleagues across the House have acknowledged the wide contributions and the very complex nature of the causes of mental illness. I think that the more we understand, the more we see that there is no such thing as any difference between a physical condition and a mental condition; they are all interwoven and are all connected.

I’d like to acknowledge my friend and colleague Katie Nimon for shepherding this bill through the House, and congratulate her on this great work—and also Minister Matt Doocey, the first Minister for Mental Health. Yes, one person doesn’t change everything, and it’s very important that we acknowledge that. I’d also like to acknowledge the wider Health Committee for their progressing this through, and all of the people who made submissions throughout the process.

The Minister really nailed it when he said it’s about implementation, so, for all that, it’s really important to have the strategy and to outline things. The really fundamental thing that people care about is how we deliver that, how we implement, and then, also, how we hold ourselves to account—how we use the information that we have to be able to show that the investment that we’ve made has been worthwhile.

I highly recommend members read the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission’s recent report into how the $1.2 billion was spent—

Katie Nimon: $1.9 billion.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Sorry, $1.9 billion. Thank you for your correction. That is really useful information. But part of the challenge is that it doesn’t address—it can say where the money was spent but it doesn’t say the impact that it had. For example, one of the key things that needed to be addressed was access to specialist mental health services, and one of the ways that we can address that is to look at the workforce and the number of fulltime-equivalents (FTEs), and so forth. What this report was able to show was where the spending had occurred, but it wasn’t able to tell us how many more FTEs we’d had for that availability. In some areas, we were able to say how many people had been seen and how many appointments people have progressed through, for example, the Access and Choice programme, but there’s little explanation of what impact that has on reducing people’s anxiety or depression symptoms. I think that we’ve got a long way to go.

Strategies and targets are really important, and the Minister has outlined a very, very ambitious target of access to specialist mental health services within three weeks, which will be a massive change from the current situation—and also to have that be similar across the country, because, at the moment, we have huge geographical disparities in access. For example, in Canterbury, the wait time for some of the children’s mental health services can be anywhere between eight and 18 months, depending on the underlying conditions.

Really, this strategy, for me, is going to be about how it helps the people who are served by this, but also the people who are working in the sector. I just want to do a quick shout-out to all of my colleagues in general practice who are doing the bulk of the work of diagnosing and treating psychiatric illness in this country; my very under-the-pump psychiatrist colleagues as well, who are very challenged; and all of the Allied and nursing workforce that also support them. I commend this bill to the House.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to rise and take a call on this bill, the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill.

I first want to acknowledge, like many of our colleagues across the House, the sponsor of the bill. I also want to acknowledge our colleague on the other side, Mr Mark Cameron, for him and his whānau and aiga’s loss quite recently; it is a very tragic matter when one loses a valued member of your family.

I’d like to acknowledge and take the time to also acknowledge the Health Committee, and in particular the submitters and the opportunities that submitters have to bring forth their circumstance or their experience. I’d also like to acknowledge—just very quickly—Ingrid Leary, who is the spokesperson for Labour and continues to remind us, on this side of the House, of our many citizens across the country that deal with mental health.

Labour supports this bill with caution, and I have questions for the House that I’d like to bring from a more local perspective. I’ve heard colleagues right across the House tonight raise a number of those who are vulnerable in our communities, and I want to focus my comments particularly on my local community in Māngere, particularly the youth. I’ve spent the last 4½ months speaking with vulnerable youth who are facing mental health issues that the current Government may not have a good understanding of, or officials.

It is important that the wellbeing strategy that is being talked about and that is being offered are the mental health and addiction services. They’ve got to get it right, particularly for Māori, Pasifika, and ethnic youth who—in my community, poverty is an example where sometimes those young people are the very ones that the system or strategies or papers comment on. But, for the real-life factors in our local communities, the mental health issues are really important. They have a lot of questions, our young people. Māngere has a very high population of young people in our community, and one of the things that many of our young people face is the vulnerability of suicide, because when they cannot get answers for questions from the adults that they rely on, they turn to each other, and they sometimes just do not have those resources.

I want to raise that when systems or strategies do not adequately provide or understand the language of our young people who come from vulnerable backgrounds, then we, as a society—or we as a Parliament in this House—have got to get this right and we’ve got to work together. Labour did a lot of work, and I’ve already heard some criticisms, however, in Government—and that’s that side over there. It is important that we, as members of Parliament who have the privilege to speak in this House, continue to raise those issues on behalf of our community.

In the talanoa that I’ve had in the last—that’s kōrero; that’s meeting with young people and also those from the disability sector. They are very alarmed that the people in Wellington or those in different ministries like the health ministry do not understand some of those issues on the ground. They look to their local representatives to come into our offices to voice what they find in terms of the vulnerability—whether it’s poverty, whether it’s housing, whether there’s just not enough pūtea in their kete week to week. This bill focuses on that in terms of the long-term planning and the delivery.

I’ve heard colleagues on this side of the House talk about the workforce. I want to stress that the workforce has to have the ability to understand our young people from different parts of society and different parts of the community. At the youth talanoa in Māngere, what they’ve said is there’s three issues that are really important to them. Less than 100 young people from different parts of the community in Māngere—they talked about three issues that they are contending with. The first issue is mental health; that’s right up the top of their list in terms of trying to cope as a young person here in Aotearoa. Mental health is not just for them as an individual, but mental health—there are issues in their whānau, in their aiga, and just not being able to reach adequate services or talk to a qualified social worker around those issues—the issues that they face in terms of poverty and not having enough, or just their housing, their wellbeing. I wanted to raise those things on their behalf.

It is important for the workforce to be trained, and, in particular, I just want to say to you, the Minister, that is really important in terms of getting that strategy right, because those citizens in my local community have the lived, day-to-day experience of the things, and the early intervention for the young people in my community is really important.

I just wanted to finish my comments on the solutions that are offered to the young people: that we need to have a really good workforce who are able to connect, who are able to listen, and who are able to offer really good solutions because they understand our communities really well. Thank you.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise as the final speaker on this bill. I am speaking in support of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill. This legislation represents a really critical step forward in prioritising mental health and wellbeing for all New Zealanders, and the core purpose of the bill is relatively straightforward yet quite profound: to amend the Act to require the Minister of Health to determine a mental health and wellbeing strategy. This may seem like a relatively small change, but its implications are far-reaching and vitally important for the future of healthcare in our nation.

For too long, mental health has been treated as secondary to physical health in our policy frameworks and healthcare systems. This bill seeks to correct that imbalance by enshrining mental health and wellbeing as a key priority at the highest levels of our health strategy. The need for this focus could not be more urgent. According to the New Zealand Health Survey, in just the six years leading up to 2023, there was a staggering 92 percent increase in Kiwis reporting unmet mental health needs. This is a health crisis, and this is a crisis that demands our immediate and sustained attention. This bill builds on the groundwork laid by the report of the Government inquiry into mental health and addition and Kia Manawanui Aotearoa, our long-term pathway to mental wellbeing. It provides the legislative framework to turn these aspirations into concrete action.

I also want to acknowledge the broad support this bill has received from mental health advocates and organisations across New Zealand. The Mental Health Foundation, Emerge Aotearoa, and the Mental Health Advocacy and Peer Support trust have all emphasised the critical importance of explicitly prioritising mental health in our health legislation. The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission in particular has noted that mental health was “almost invisible” in the original Act. This amendment corrects that oversight, ensuring that mental health and wellbeing are given the prominence they deserve in our health strategy. It’s also worth noting that this bill represents a bipartisan commitment to improving mental health outcomes. When the Act was first going through Parliament, in 2022, the National Party, through Minister Matt Doocey, proposed a similar amendment. While it wasn’t accepted at that time, I’m pleased to see that we now have cross-party recognition of the importance of this issue.

Let me outline some of the key provisions and changes recommended by the Health Committee. Firstly, the committee has recommended that the mental health and wellbeing strategy provisions come into force 12 months after the bill receives Royal assent. This gives the Ministry of Health and other relevant bodies time to prepare for implementation. Secondly, the committee has wisely recommended removing the provision that would have designated the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission as a health entity under the Act. This change preserves the commission’s crucial independence, allowing it to continue in its vital role of monitoring and holding the system accountable.

Thirdly, the bill now requires the Minister to have regard to any advice from the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission when preparing the mental health and wellbeing strategy. This ensures that the expertise and insights of the commission are formally incorporated into the strategy development process. Fourthly, the committee has recommended expanding the scope of the strategy to include wellbeing, not just mental health and addiction. This holistic approach aligns with a modern understanding of mental health as part of overall wellbeing. Finally, this bill includes workforce development as part of the strategy. This is crucial, as we know that a skilled and supported mental health workforce is essential to delivering better outcomes for New Zealanders.

I want to address the importance of the consultation that was undertaken by the Health Committee and the inclusion they took in developing this strategy. The Health Committee received 57 submissions on this bill, demonstrating the public interest and engagement on the issue. One submission that particularly stood out to me was from Save The Children New Zealand. They emphasised the need to meaningfully consult with children and young people in developing mental health strategies. Given that mental health is consistently identified as a top concern for our youth, their voices must be heard in this process. This bill now requires consultation with key stakeholders, including Māori and other population groups, in developing the strategy. This inclusive approach will help ensure that the strategy addresses the diverse mental health needs of all New Zealanders.

This bill is not just about creating another Government strategy; it’s about sending a clear message that mental health is a priority, that mental health is on equal footing with physical health, and that mental health is part of our commitment to long-term, systematic improvements to mental health outcomes. By requiring a comprehensive mental health and wellbeing strategy, we’re creating a framework for accountability. Future Governments will need to report on progress against this strategy, ensuring that mental health remains a focus regardless of changes in political leadership, regardless of who sits on the Government benches and who sits on the other side of the House.

In conclusion, the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill represents a significant step forward for mental health in New Zealand. It addresses a glaring omission in our health legislation, provides a framework for long-term planning and improvement, and sends a powerful message about the importance of mental health and wellbeing. Our fellow New Zealanders struggling with mental health challenges deserve nothing less than our full commitment to improving the system and outcomes for all. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): I move, That the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a real pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on this very important bill in this House tonight. This bill is a simple bill. It’s a bill that addresses a problem currently in our society where those who are most vulnerable are often subject to crimes of theft. But, unfortunately, the perpetrators of those crimes go unpunished. As the first mover of this bill, Ibrahim Omer, said, “This is a tough on crime bill.” This provides greater sanctions than those that are currently in our Crimes Act and it creates new offences to hold to account employers who owe wages to their employee and intentionally do not pay them.

Now, most employers in New Zealand are good employers and would never intentionally do anything wrong with payroll or intentionally steal from their employees. Of course, this is a small minority of employers that we are talking about here. But, regretfully, there are some employers who do intentionally steal from their employees and currently are not being held to account in New Zealand. This includes actions to unlawfully withhold wages, salaries, and other monetary entitlements. We all know that this is wrong, but in an unusual quirk of history, this is one area in society where we know this type of theft regularly occurs but there are no criminal sanctions.

I want to acknowledge my colleague Ibrahim Omer, who first brought this bill to the House, actually over one year ago in the last Parliament. His first reading speech was very compelling, and the reason it was so compelling was because the nucleus of this bill and the reason he decided to bring it to the House was because of his own experience. I want to just briefly touch on some of his experiences because he is not here in the House to be able to do so himself.

When he introduced this bill, he talked about how it arose from his own experience. He said, “I came here as a refugee, and I was told that New Zealand was a paradise, compared to the country from which I originated, and a place where the rule of law will apply to everyone and where it’s there to protect the most vulnerable.” He then went on to tell a story about when he had worked in New Zealand, he’d gone to work in a farm in the Wairarapa, and he’d been bussed out there from the Hutt, and, unfortunately, at the end of doing one week’s work, he was told by his employer that his work wasn’t good enough and he wouldn’t be paid, and, in fact, it should be him who paid the employer for all the travel costs to get him out there. Now, at that stage, he didn’t know what his rights were. He said he just walked away without any pay for that week. Unfortunately, that is an all too common experience of migrants in New Zealand and vulnerable workers who do not know what their rights are.

He also said that he found out after this that the problem of intentional wage theft by employers is rife in low and casual sectors that rely on migrant labour. It’s very common for these workers to have the hours that they work underreported, leading to lower pay, or employers to argue down the work that the employee has done. It’s already against the law in almost all circumstances to withhold pay and deliberately underpay staff. But the law is regularly flouted and there are no criminal sanctions in New Zealand for wage theft.

I want to just acknowledge the story that we’ve heard today in the House and the story that Ibrahim had, where he came to New Zealand as a refugee, suffered from an injustice, which in this case was wage theft, and then became an MP in that country, only our second refugee MP to do so, and then brought a bill to this House—which, hopefully, will become law if we have the support of members of the House—in order to stop other New Zealanders from experiencing that same thing. It’s quite an extraordinary story, and I’d just like members of this House to consider that if we are like-minded in wanting to stop the practice of wage theft, we can make it an even more incredible story by passing this bill tonight.

I want to go over, briefly, what the bill does, because I think it’s important to understand why this bill is needed. Currently, the most common way that wage theft is dealt with is through civil enforcement pathways. That means no criminal conviction is ever applied to an employer who engages in wage theft. There are, in New Zealand, interestingly, some criminal penalties that apply under the Immigration Act for an employee who’s on a temporary visa. In some instances, people who are here on a temporary visa will have more rights to have criminal action against the person who conducts an unlawful theft of their wages than most other New Zealanders. We can all agree that that’s a bad situation and we’re glad that the Immigration Act provides for that, but we should also acknowledge that when those people go on to different types of visas and when they become permanent citizens, they don’t have the same rights, and this is an important right for all New Zealanders to have when they are stolen from, which is what wage theft is, and to have serious repercussions for the people who undertake that intentionally.

Additionally, often these days, people who suffer from wage theft from their employer often can’t take action against it because they don’t have the ability to afford to take civil action. Taking civil action is actually really difficult. Filing papers in a court is not something that comes easily to most people. Even a disputes tribunal is often quite difficult for people to do by themselves. So often we have a situation where wage theft is only addressed if someone is a member of a union and they can do so on a basis where they don’t have to pay for that litigation to take place. While the union should be commended for taking that action, I think, as a matter of public policy, it should be that all New Zealanders are able to hold people to account for theft that is committed against them. I think that’s an important issue.

It’s also an issue that other jurisdictions have already dealt with, such as Australia, Norway, and California. They’ve all introduced laws to combat wage theft. There are so many different cases that you can refer to in relation to wage theft to show that it’s an ongoing problem in New Zealand. A 2019 study commissioned by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) found that wage theft was one of the most common forms of migrant labour exploitation in New Zealand. Ibrahim, in his first reading speech, mentioned about three or four different cases where wage theft had been challenged through civil remedies and there were significant penalties associated with those, but, of course, no criminal penalties for the employers involved in that. It’s a very important issue and one that we can prove is ongoing

In terms of the select committee process, this bill was referred to select committee just before the last election. We had about 13 submissions, and about 84 percent of those were in support. There were some changes that we made at select committee as well. One of the main changes that we made was making sure there was consistency between this piece of law and also the Employment Relations Act. Also, we did look at a few other things to do with penalties. You’ll see in the select committee report that there’s a recommendation that if the House takes this further, maybe we can look at a stepped penalty regime, which is consistent with what’s in the Crimes Act. A stepped penalty regime is a regime where if you were to steal a lower amount of money, then you would have a much lower term of imprisonment or fine that would relate to that; and if it was a higher amount of money, it would step up higher. That’s currently what’s in the Crimes Act, in relation to the general crime of theft.

The select committee process, I think, was a useful process, and I want to thank members of the select committee who are here today who participated in that process. I think it was a respectful process, and although some of the Government members decided not to support this bill, I felt that there was an openness to make sure the bill was in the best possible shape going forward to the House. You’ll see that, in the report, we unanimously say that there were no legislative issues with the bill and also that we unanimously agreed to the changes, although the majority did not support the House passing it. I want to thank everyone for doing that and also the Ministry of Justice and MBIE for their very good, I thought, advice on this particular bill. I thought their expertise was really excellent.

In conclusion, I would encourage all members of the House to, please, support this bill. This bill does strengthen criminal sanctions against theft. It does protect vulnerable people, and it will lead to a greater sense of justice for more New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I rise today to speak on the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill, which has obviously been brought to the House by Camilla Belich but, to acknowledge, it was first put in the ballot by Ibrahim Omer—and obviously the process that it has gone through and your participation in that. Thank you very much, Camilla.

Just to speak to the process that we’ve gone through with the select committee: hearing from people and robustly discussing and debating the merits either way does really do justice to the process. Of course, just to speak to the bill and what it does, it’s proposing to criminalise the failure of employers to pay wages. Look, while the intention behind this bill might be well meaning—and not to discredit that—we’ve got to carefully examine whether it aligns with the principles of what are some strong National Party values, which are limited government, competitive enterprise, and personal responsibility—values that are central to a prosperous society.

Of course, this bill seeks to criminalise wage disputes by introducing harsh penalties, which is exactly what they are, for employers who allegedly withhold wages—and “allegedly” is an important point to make. While protecting workers’ rights is essential, we must not be so quick to bring the heavy hand of criminal law into areas that could be governed by civil agreements and mutual trust. That was something that was brought up a number of times when we heard from submitters—and, obviously, talking to officials. This is something that can be covered by civil agreements and then, of course, the establishment of the contract and the relationship between the employer and the employee.

One of the cornerstones of a free society is limited government. This means that the role of the State is to provide a framework for law and order but it shouldn’t interfere in every aspect of our lives—certainly not in areas where civil remedies and free enterprise can provide solutions, and in this case, they already do.

The current framework of employment law under Acts such as the Employment Relations Act and the Wages Protection Act already offers clear avenues for resolving wage disputes. Civil Courts and specialised employment tribunals are better suited to handling cases aimed to be addressed by the proposed bill. Turning wage disputes into criminal cases adds an unnecessary layer of Government involvement, one that this side and this Government would not support, in what is often a private and contractual issue. We have long upheld the principle that criminal law should be reserved for the most severe forms of wrongdoing. The criminal justice system is designed to punish intentional malicious acts that cause significant harm to society. Is an error in payroll, perhaps caused by administrative oversight or a system failure, really something we want to criminalise?

Now, to address what the member opposite has said in her speech prior: while the intention is malicious, that does not always have the outcome. The outcome is often perverse. Criminal law is a blunt instrument, and its overuse in areas better handled by civil law will lead to unintended consequences, not justice. I will speak to this now.

Our economy thrives when businesses are free to operate without excessive Government regulation. Competitive enterprise is driven by innovation, efficiency, and trust—trust between employers and employees, between businesses and their customers. This bill threatens to undermine that trust by introducing the spectre of criminal liability into what are often honest disputes over pay. In a competitive economy, businesses—especially small businesses—need flexibility to manage their payroll systems, hire workers, and navigate the complexities of running a company. This bill would burden employers with the constant fear of criminal prosecution, potentially paralysing their ability to operate freely and effectively. We are introducing a system where an honest payroll mistake could lead to a criminal record or a substantial fine.

How does that encourage a competitive, dynamic business environment? Consider a small-business owner, the backbone of our economy. Many small businesses operate with limited staff and resources, relying on simple systems to manage their payroll. Mistakes can and do happen—

Camilla Belich: It doesn’t apply to payroll mistakes. It doesn’t apply to mistakes.

KATIE NIMON: —errors in calculation, miscommunications, or delays in payment. These issues are often resolved quickly and amicably. But, by introducing the possibility of criminal sanctions, this bill discourages the very entrepreneurship and risk-taking that fuel our economy.

Glen Bennett: We’re talking about theft.

Camilla Belich: It’s the intentional theft—intentional—not a mistake.

KATIE NIMON: If we want a thriving competitive marketplace, we need to encourage business owners, not criminalise them for mistakes.

Now, members opposite are talking about the fact that this is not in relation to mistakes. The point is, this actually comes down to the interpretation of the employee in the way that they put this to police when they make the complaint. It may well not be picked up by the police, but the process exists. It is a game that can be played by employees, and we cannot diminish that. By introducing the possibility of criminal sanctions—and I’ll repeat it again—it discourages the productive and entrepreneurial economy that we want to promote and support. If we want a thriving, competitive marketplace, we need to encourage business owners. Excessive Government intervention, which I have mentioned before, will stifle innovation. It’s all going to lead to higher costs, and it aims to protect by reducing job opportunities and discouraging investment.

Personal responsibility is important in this situation. It applies to employers and employees. Employers have a responsibility to pay their workers fairly and on time and in accordance with the law, but criminalising wage disputes removes the personal responsibility of both parties to resolve these issues through dialogue, mediation, and, when necessary, civil action, which already exists.

We must also consider the impact this bill will have on the culture of employment relations in New Zealand. Rather than fostering collaboration, trust, and accountability, it would create an environment of fear and suspicion. Employers worried about potential criminal charges may resort to rigid, overly bureaucratic policies that make workplaces less flexible and less responsive to employees’ needs. Let’s not forget that wage disputes are often complex. They arise, as I have said, from misunderstandings, from errors, and from differing interpretations of contracts. It is the personal responsibility of both employers and employees to work together to resolve these issues. The introduction of criminal penalties undermines this personal responsibility, and it also adds cost to our justice system, taking disputes out of the hands of people involved and placing them in the bureaucratic machinery of Government.

What we need instead is a culture where employers and employees do resolve these issues in good faith, and where we give them the opportunity to go straight to the police, how many would? If an employee believes that they have been wronged, they already have the avenues to pursue justice, and this is something we talked about at length in the select committee. The existing Civil Court system provides fair and balanced mechanisms for resolving these kinds of cases.

The proposed bill introduces unnecessary Government oversight and places undue weight on criminal punishment for what is often administrative. The Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill seeks to address the serious issue of wage theft, but its solution is heavy-handed and flawed. We have heard from officials that this is already something solvable by civil action. It is complicated by taking it through the justice system, there is too much room for interpretation, and it is very much in line with what we believe as a Government to be an overextension of Government.

By criminalising wage disputes, we undermine competitive enterprise, and I have made this a very clear part of what I’m sharing. We diminish personal responsibility, and we are ruining employer and employee relationships. We have to be very careful not to create a society where every mistake or misunderstanding is treated as a crime. We must trust in the principles of limited government, allowing the free market to function without excessive interference. We must encourage competitive enterprise, providing businesses with the freedom they need to innovate, grow, and hire workers, and we cannot be ignorant in thinking that this would not stifle them further. We must uphold the value of personal responsibility, and we need to make sure that this is dealt with through civil, not criminal, means. Let’s focus instead on fostering trust between employers and workers, something we stand by strongly. With that, I do not commend this bill to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to support this bill tonight. As I was going through the Education and Workforce Committee report, I could see the work done by the select committee. They’d kind of come to some agreements on clarifying the employment arrangements and entitlements and trying to get the legislation into a good place, and I acknowledging the words of Camilla Belich—the work of the select committee, there.

What I did want to hear was the reasons why the Government parties—well, I’ve only heard from one Government party so far—are not supporting this bill. We heard that one of the reasons they don’t want to support this bill is because it could compromise a thriving, competitive market place; it’s an afront to personal responsibility and competitive enterprise. My first submission tonight is: you can have all of that without ripping people off—you can have all of that without ripping people off.

There was some talk also, there, around accessing civil law and using those processes in order to find justice for workers as well. But that’s expensive—those processes are expensive. If you’re a low-wage worker, a migrant worker—and some of us around the House come from some of those families—and you get here, maybe your English isn’t so flash, maybe you don’t have access to all the lawyers and all that other kind of stuff, what is your pathway to justice? What is your pathway to make sure that you get to keep the money that you’ve worked for? I think that’s something that people across Aotearoa would support, right? You work a hard day, you get your dollars, and that’s your money, that’s your pūtea, those are your wages.

I do want to just backtrack and acknowledge Ibrahim Omer from the last Parliament, who, in the first reading of this bill, detailed and talked about his own experience, his lived experience, of being exploited—his lived experience shared by many migrant workers and many low-wage workers, where there is definitely that imbalance. I do want to acknowledge Ibrahim Omer, and also Camilla Belich, who is shepherding this bill through the House at this particular time, because this is an attempt to actually rectify that imbalance—to rectify that imbalance.

One of the other phrases that I heard, there, that we need to encourage—I think the words were “the culture of employment and employee relations”. I might have got that wrong, but it was around that kind of thing. Well, you can do that by making sure that there’s stuff in place so that people can get their pay. That’s something that we also need to think about right across what’s happening around Aotearoa right now. If the culture of employment and employee relations is something of focus for the Government parties, they’ve really got to work at it. You can’t just be focusing on the whole enterprise brigade; you’ve got to be thinking about the workers.

I’ve been watching the number of jobs that have been lost just here in Wellington, around about 5,000 or 6,000 now. That’s the brain drain. They’re going to be jumping on planes and going overseas. That speaks to the lack of trust in terms of that culture. We just had Woolworths workers walk out on strike as well. That points to that lack of trust in that culture. The way that you improve that culture is by supporting bills like this. As Camila Bellich said earlier, it is a simple bill—it is a simple bill—particularly for those low-wage workers. They don’t have access to flash lawyers and civil law and all this other kind of stuff.

I want to acknowledge the differing view of both the Labour Party and the Green Party in the select committee report. At least there are some opinions that we can think about and dissect as we walk through this bill. Here, it acknowledges that there are many similar jurisdictions to New Zealand, such as California, Victoria, Queensland, Norway, and, most recently, the Commonwealth of Australia, who have in recent years passed legislation criminalising wage theft by employers. Additionally, this bill received 84 percent support to the select committee. It’s not like this is a new thing that has been pulled out of the ether; it is happening in similar-sized jurisdictions.

My question, in terms of the contributions which will follow from me tonight, is—we need to acknowledge that this is actually an issue, that there is a power imbalance between employers and employees, particularly low-wage workers and migrant workers. We need to hear, clearly, from the Government benches what is going to be done to reconcile that. What is going to be done to make sure that that balance is brought into balance?

We will be supporting this bill. There needs to be more work done around job security, around making sure that job security and all of those other sorts of issues—and part of that is, of course, supporting the Labour Inspectorate, making sure that they’re fully resourced. If there is exploitation happening, we need to make sure that the people that go out to check on that, actually finding out whether the exploitation is happening, are actually resourced to be able to do that. That is a solution that I would like to see from the Government benches in terms of addressing the imbalance between employers and employees. The Greens support this bill.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT, and we are not supporting this bill, the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill, but I would like to acknowledge the member in charge of the bill, Camilla Belich. She worked diligently on this bill in the select committee.

As a member of the select committee—the Education and Workforce Committee—that considered this bill, I saw that she worked really hard on the committee for this bill. I also want to acknowledge all submitters. There were 13 submissions, out of which five submitters were heard, they presented their submission—this is by being there in person and also some via video conferencing. I want to thank them and I want to say that their contribution is highly valued. In this select committee process, it is very important for all select committee members to give consideration to each and every point that is raised by all submitters, and that was duly done. The whole select committee worked very sincerely on this bill to improve this bill. The evidence of that is that this bill has come back as an amended version of the bill.

Still, the ACT Party believes that we cannot support this bill because there are enough provisions available for the issue that this bill is trying to address. I want to acknowledge that, yes, there are some employers who exploit employees. It’s a very small number of employers and there needs to be a very strong message sent to them, but the strong message is being sent through a lot of legislation which already exists.

I know that as an immigrant myself, I hear a lot of stories from migrant people, migrant workers, those who come here having that hope of coming and working hard and making a better life here in New Zealand and end up getting exploited. That is why I want to highlight that in the Immigration Act, the penalties that are there for employers—those who exploit these vulnerable migrant workers—are quite harsh, and that is very important that we acknowledge that those kinds of penalties are already there. But, then, we have heard before from the member in charge of the bill about the difference between migrant workers versus those workers who are on other visas. So, yes, overall if I want to classify workers into two groups, that can be migrant workers and others—those who are on permanent visas here in New Zealand.

The issue here is that we are trying to solve a problem that we already have a solution for. Yes, I acknowledge there is a problem. A very, very small number of employers do have the tendency of exploiting their workers, but here it’s very important to note that generally employers are conscious of their reputation. Any kind of reputational damage is not something that any good employer would tolerate. They’ll do anything to ensure that they have a good reputation, because if their reputation is not good, then their employees will know that. The environment there will be quite toxic. Nobody would want to work for that employer if it has been found out that that employer has not paid somebody when the person should have actually been paid. The reputation of that business is really important because, if that reputation is not maintained, not only the staff that are already there in the business will leave but they will also fail to attract any more. I’m not talking about skilled; even unskilled people will not be wanting to work for that business if they hear that the reputation of that business is not good. We need to keep that in mind. Any kind of unethical, illegal activity we do not support. We want to see that all businesses are complying with all the employment legislation that we have.

Keeping that in mind, I also want to see what the member is wanting to do. What the member is wanting to do is take this issue to the next level. Instead of it going through civil court processes, the member wants to see that it goes through the criminal process, but it’s not going to make it easier for those employees, because both processes are going to be equally tedious. It’s not like the criminal process is going to be easier. If a complaint is laid with police, that doesn’t mean the police are going to give priority to this case—they have so many serious criminal issues to deal with.

As this bill is presented as being tough on crime, I must highlight that the member and the Labour Party, in the previous Government, had a very lenient approach towards criminals: they wanted to reduce numbers of prisoners in prison. This is presented as being tough on crime. Yes, it is crime if somebody’s wage is not paid the way it should be paid, but then we have legislation which is already dealing with it.

I also want to say that in this legislation, it does give consideration to when there is an individual who is an employer versus an organisation. For individuals, it says that the penalty can be of one year’s imprisonment, a fine of $5,000, or both. In other cases, the maximum penalty is a fine of $30,000. It’s not like the penalties are not imposed currently—penalties are imposed—and I have some information that I would like to share with the House here. In the 2022-23 financial year, 112 direct enforcement actions were taken. Around $1.13 million was awarded in penalties by the Employment Relations Authority. Penalties are already imposed on those employers; those who don’t comply with employment legislation. In 2021-22, 212 investigations into serious breaches of the law were completed with breaches found and enforcement action taken—$685,000 in penalties awarded by Employment Relations Authority from Labour Inspectorate cases.

It’s also important to highlight that in 2020 and 2021 there were 1,548 interventions made. These were interventions; 117 employment standards complaints positively resolved without enforcement action being required to ensure compliance. There are two levels of non-compliance. One is of a very serious nature where we know that penalties are imposed, but then there are low-level non-compliance issues which are resolved by providing advice and providing some additional information—so this is basically providing some guidance to resolve that issue. Both parties, the employee and the employer, actually would like to take up that part because ultimately what the employee wants is to get that money that they should be paid and the employer, if there is a mistake, gets the opportunity to correct that mistake. In 2022-23, almost 400 complaints were resolved in this way.

What I’m saying here by presenting this data is that the system that we have is already working and also the types of cases that the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court have looked at. This is about paying less than the minimum wage, making unlawful deductions, not paying wages for all hours worked, not paying for all the hours guaranteed under an employment agreement, not paying entitlements under the Holidays Act 2003, not paying employer KiwiSaver contributions, and not paying for the full notice period at the end of employment.

The question is: what is lacking? What is lacking? The system is already working, and if employers are in breach of their obligation, then there are systems available; there are provisions available. What we need is more awareness for these vulnerable employees to take up these options and to go out and seek justice. That’s why the ACT Party is not supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I rise to speak against the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill. Just before I do, I’d just like to acknowledge my fellow Northland colleague Mark Cameron for his very emotional and touching speech today in the House—great; thank you, Mark. I’d like to also acknowledge Camilla Belich on the other side of the House for her work on this bill, and, of course, the original member who brought the bill forward, the Labour MP Ibrahim Omer. When you come into this place, it’s a great privilege to then get a bill drawn and get the opportunity to present and debate and discuss it, and you take the result as it comes. So well done.

I’d like to begin by saying that the purpose of this bill is to suddenly start turning some employers into criminals. Now, for those of us who have actually employed people and run small businesses, I’m just thinking to myself that it’s a real—when you go out to go into business for yourself, you go out there, you risk your own capital, you mortgage your house or your business—up to the eyeballs, often, to get started—and you put yourself on the line. This is something that always frustrates me. I find that those on the other side of the House seem to struggle to really accept what that brings, and the stress and strain that—

Hon Phil Twyford: So stealing is OK, then? Is that right?

GRANT McCALLUM: It’s interesting; they’re saying that theft is OK. No, we’re not saying theft is OK. But criminalising people in business, right, because they might make a mistake—and you say that that’s not the intent of the bill, but, then again, you see, this is the issue here: you talk about intent. Intent becomes, then, a debating point, right?

You’ve got this employer here who’s risked everything, they’ve employed people, and if you’re a small employer, which most employers in New Zealand are—97 percent are small-business people, right, and I can speak as one of these myself—you’ve got to be in charge of health and safety, you’ve got to be in charge of all your wages, in charge of all your compliance, running your business, and dealing with everything that comes with it, right? And you may make a mistake, and then someone says, “Well, actually, I think that was intentional.” So, therefore, you find yourself potentially caught up in the criminal justice system, right, right?

Hon Phil Twyford: Do you apply that logic to shoplifting?

GRANT McCALLUM: Christ, they really are desperate over there, aren’t they? Well, I suppose it’s nearly the end of the night; they’re allowed to be desperate, you know? Imagine the stress of that: you think you’ve been doing everything right. Suddenly, you find yourself with a knock on the door and there’s a policeman standing there. Can you just imagine how you’d feel about that, and your family is there seeing the policeman or policewoman knock on the door and say, “Actually, we think you’ve been stealing from your employees.” The stress and strain that that would bring to that small-business owner would be something that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy, right? That is what really frustrates me with this whole thing.

There are solutions. You see, the people on the other side, it always seems to me, start from the position of “the employer is bad”. It’s almost like it’s another war on employers. It’s never-ending with this lot. It’s a war on employers, and, quite frankly, those of us who have risked our capital, and so forth, just get really frustrated by this—right?

Hon Phil Twyford: “They should be allowed to steal.”

GRANT McCALLUM: “Allowed to steal”—don’t you know there’s a law against stealing, and there are solutions?

Hon Phil Twyford: “They’ve worked so hard.”

GRANT McCALLUM: Oh, they’re very vocal on the other side of the House tonight. Am I saying something that’s upsetting them? I’m not really sure, but anyway.

Look, I just think it’s really important to say that we already have solutions here under the law. We don’t need to create more red tape, because all that’s going to do is just make it harder to be an employer—much, much harder to be an employer.

Actually, it’s interesting that the New Zealand Law Society even had some concerns. They actually had some concerns. They said that the use of “intentionally” could inadvertently lead to capture situations where employers are genuinely withholding paying employees—

Camilla Belich: They said that was unfounded.

GRANT McCALLUM: Well, this is the actual problem—right?—and that is that we do not want to—

Camilla Belich: Officials said that was unfounded.

GRANT McCALLUM: It comes down to a matter of interpretation. You see, at the moment, our court system is clogged up enough. If we’re going to put, potentially, more and more people into the criminal courts—so you’re that employer. You think you’ve done everything right. Suddenly, the police are knocking on the door, you then find yourself caught up in a criminal process, and you’ve got to wait and wait and wait, and the stress of having to deal with that and live with it is—

Katie Nimon: And what that does to your reputation.

GRANT McCALLUM: Exactly—as my good colleague here says, there is your reputation in the local community. You then go out to the market place to employ someone else. You go out to employ someone else, and, believe me, people talk, obviously. Are employees going to come and work for you if they think that you’ve been stealing from somebody else—and particularly when it’s all not proven and you’ve made a genuine mistake and you find yourself in front of the judicial system, waiting and waiting and waiting while having to deal with running a business? It’s just not good enough. That is why we are very much opposed to this bill. We actually trust employers on this side of the House.

As a farmer, I’ve had to put up with the fact that the regulators and the people on the left just don’t trust us. They haven’t trusted us for years. They keep on saying, “It’s all your fault.”, and this is another example of it where the left just do not trust employers.

Hon Member: The blame game—they blame everyone.

GRANT McCALLUM: Exactly—they blame us for everything. Well, actually, I’m sorry, but that is not the case. Employers in this country are the backbone of this country. They risk their capital. They make the difference and we are the ones who are about to turn this country around, and we will not be held up to be criminals because you might make a mistake which might be interpreted as a criminal activity—and that is what the problem is. That is why we are completely against this bill.

With that, before I finish, I’d just like to thank all the members of the select committee who were part of that process. In particular, I thank Camilla Belich, who read the motion, and I’d also like to thank the Hon Phil Twyford and a number of people who weren’t there at the time. There were my fellow colleagues on that select committee Parmjeet Parmar—[Interruption]—thank you for that—Mike Butterick, and it’s great to see you here this evening. But, actually—jeez, I just about forgot the chair. I’m in trouble now! I’ll have to get the afternoon teas for the next week or two or three. There was also our colleague Carl Bates, who was also on that select committee. Anyway, thank you. Therefore, I do not commend this bill to the House.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe, e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and greetings to the House.]

Before I talk about the legislation, I just want to give my sincere mihi to you, Mark. Our thoughts and prayers and karakia are with you.

I’d like to mihi to Camilla Belich for bringing this bill in. The Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill amends the Crime Act 1961 so that if an employer refuses to pay their workers what they are owed, it is treated as theft. I’d like to also mihi to the many kaimahi throughout the motu and throughout our country who work tirelessly throughout the motu. It is already against the law for an employer to withhold wages. However, legally defining this as theft sends a clear message to any employer wanting to exploit and rip off their employees. Refusing to pay your employee what you owe them is no different to stealing money from their pocket, and it will be treated as such under the law. It also provides a clear direction for employees that they have a right to be paid what they are due and that that right will be enforced in law.

I take a short call today on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to say that Te Pāti Māori fully supports this bill. It would be a win for workers’ rights and undermine capitalist notions that the employer is above the law. Being able to charge employers with theft may have some benefit, but morally this just makes sense. Nō reira e tautoko ana a Te Pāti Māori i tēnei pire. [And so Te Pāti Māori is in support of this bill.]

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to acknowledge the originator of this bill, Ibrahim Omer. I think he is much missed in the House, and even though I was glad that Tamatha Paul won, his absence is still noted.

Just wanted to acknowledge the words of the previous speakers from National and ACT. I think they’re trying to create an impression—and I’d love to live in the New Zealand that they seem to think exists, in the kind of Platonic world where there is no kind of power imbalance between employers and employees. You know, most employers are good people; most employers do the right thing, and this is why this bill is so important because it’s the bad employers that don’t do the right thing that bring a bad name to the other ones. By not policing hard against those employers, we’re actually creating incentives for a race to the bottom.

The ACT speaker Parmjeet Parmar said that we were trying to solve a problem that we have a solution for, but that’s not really the case. In 2018, there were 20,000 cases of just migrant work exploitation; that’s not even covering the broader workers. That’s just migrant workers, alone. There’s been a kind of rhetoric from the other side that “Oh, well, we’ll just deal with the civil court system, OK? We’ll just deal with the normal processes; the civil court system will kind of fix this problem.”

Did the Government increase the legal aid funding so that people who are being exploited could take legal aid cases against employers? Did they increase the legal aid funding in the Budget? No, there were $3.1 million of reprioritisation, and one of the speakers quoted the Law Society earlier—I think it was Grant McCallum, the member from Northland. Let me quote what the Law Society said about the so-called reprioritisations: “We have been [very] clear about this with successive Governments now, and this year we [have] provided further evidence to show that the costs of providing legal aid are increasing, … Without fair remuneration, we will see a continuing reduction in the number of lawyers willing to provide legal aid. At a time when the judiciary is working hard to clear case backlogs, insufficient lawyers to assist the public will result in poor outcomes for families, individuals, and victims.” In the media release, they go on to talk about how legal aid is likely to be further stretched by the introduction of new offences such as those proposed in the gang legislation amendment bill.

I think that just goes to the heart of the issue, right? During question time we have Government Ministers kind of going with the rhetoric: “Oh, well, we’re the party for the working class, now, unlike you Labour, unlike you the Greens, unlike you Te Pāti Māori.” But, when it comes to bills like this, they actually expose the actual tension at the heart of their ideology and the actual reality beyond the rhetoric, which is that they’re not actually for the workers, you know? This is a very easy litmus test. Do we actually want to criminalise people who are exploiting employees? Well, the answer from the other side seems to be a chorus of, sadly, “No”.

We on this side believe in law and order—we believe in law and order. We believe in backing the blue and we believe in making sure that people who exploit their employees are rightfully punished with all the might and power of the New Zealand law. This is why I commend the bill to the House and I congratulate our comrades from Labour and Te Pāti Māori for supporting it.

Debate interrupted.

Obituaries

Brody Cameron

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Members, before we rise for the evening, one of our fellow members today, Mark Cameron, shared a very personal tragedy. That was reflected at the time by other speakers. It’s been reflected right through the night. It’s clearly impacted on the House. I have consulted with all the parties, and I think it is appropriate, now, that we carry out a minute’s silence on behalf of Brody Cameron and remember him and the impact of his passing. So, members, if we could rise, we’ll have one minute’s silence commemorating Brody Cameron.

Members stood as a mark of respect.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Thank you, members. All our best wishes, Mark, to you and your family.

Mark Cameron: Thank you very much.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The House will remain adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.