Tuesday, 24 September 2024

TUESDAY, 24 SEPTEMBER 2024

TUESDAY, 24 SEPTEMBER 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

NANCY LU (National): 全能嘅上帝，我哋多謝祢賜畀我哋嘅祝福。撇開所有個人利益，我哋向国王致敬，並祈求喺我哋嘅討論中指引我哋，另我哋能夠以智慧、公義、仁愛同謙卑處理呢個議會嘅事務，為咗新西兰嘅福祉同和平而努力。阿門。

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.

Motions

Release from Captivity—New Zealand Pilot Phillip Mehrtens

Hon TODD McCLAY (Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate on the successful release from captivity of New Zealand pilot Phillip Mehrtens.

SPEAKER: Very good. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Hon TODD McCLAY: I move, That this House welcome the release of New Zealand pilot Phillip Mehrtens on Saturday after being held hostage for 592 days in Papua, Indonesia; convey best wishes to Mr Mehrtens and his family and friends, as they recover from this deeply difficult experience; express deep gratitude to the Indonesian Government, including Minister for Foreign Affairs Retno Marsudi, together with community leaders, for the careful and patient approach taken to secure this peaceful outcome; commend the considerable effort of the wide range of New Zealand Government agencies, led by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which worked in cooperation and coordination with Indonesian authorities towards securing Mr Mehrtens’ release; acknowledge the New Zealand Government staff who have worked on the case in Jakarta and Papua, led by Ambassador Kevin Burnett; and note the cooperation and restraint shown by the New Zealand media in relation to this case.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

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

CLERK: Petition of Laura Ancell requesting that the House allow people whose parents were not New Zealand citizens by descent due to having been born out of wedlock to apply for citizenship.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK: 2023-24 annual reports for the Environmental Protection Authority and KiwiSaver.

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

CLERK:

Reports of the Environment Committee on the:

report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment A review of freshwater models used to support the regulation and management of water in New Zealand, and the

review briefing on the 2022-23 annual review of the Spatial Planning Board

report of the Justice Committee on the report of the Ombudsman Making a Difference: Investigation into Ara Poutama Aotearoa, Department of Corrections

reports of the Petitions Committee on the:

petition of Barnaby Todd, and the

petition of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions.

SPEAKER: The briefing and report are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Statutes Amendment Bill, introduction

Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill, introduction

Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to restore law and order. We have had a massive couple of weeks, delivering on our agenda to keep Kiwis safe in their homes, their businesses, and their communities. Last week, Police announced dozens more cops are set to join community beat teams, on top of the existing teams already making an impact in the Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch CBDs. We have fresh powers coming for Police to go after gangs, with our new gang laws being passed by Parliament last week—although, I note, not by the Labour Party—and set to take effect later this year. Today, Parliament will have the first reading of our sentencing bill, designed to impose tougher sentences on violent and repeat offenders. I hope Labour will support that. Kiwis deserve to feel safe, and after years of the soft on crime approach from the previous Government, we have finally taken action to make sure they feel safe.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why did he reject officials’ advice that $3 billion a year is needed to achieve child poverty targets but was all too willing to give $2.9 billion in tax breaks to landlords, and who does he think needs that money more: landlords or children living in poverty?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, if spending more money was actually the answer to child poverty, it would have been solved under the last Labour Government, because they increased Government spending by 84 percent. That previous Labour Government spent tens of billions of dollars more, and yet child poverty went backwards in the last year of that Government to the tune of 23,000 more kids in poverty.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he concerned that he has overseen 22,000 more people on the jobseeker benefit since he took office when he has set a target of 50,000 fewer job seekers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, we have rising levels of unemployment because—why? The previous Labour Government spent 84 percent more, drove inflation through the roof, drove interest rates through the roof, put the country into recession for the last two years, and as a consequence, if you’ve been lucky enough to survive all of that, as a business, yes, you end up with rising unemployment. But we are doing everything we can to get people off welfare and into work. What we won’t tolerate is 75,000 more people being added to unemployment benefits at a time of low unemployment, as we saw in the last Government.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How will this Government be able to meet targets of shorter stays in hospital emergency departments and wait times for elective treatment, when hiring for clinical staff has been frozen and Health New Zealand has not been funded to keep pace with inflation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I totally reject the characterisation of that question, because this is a Government that cares about health. We put almost $17 billion more into it. We’ve funded $2 billion into Pharmac, $600 million more into cancer drugs, and, actually, we’re making some good progress. We’ve got a lot of work to do to clear up the mess that’s been left behind, but, on workforce, the good news is we have more nurses working in the healthcare system—29,000 of them—than we’ve had at any time in New Zealand’s history, and this year we’ve got a record intake of GP registrars; 230 of them doing their registrar work right now.

SPEAKER: I’d just remind members that interjections should be rare and reasonable, and while it might be interesting to make your comments, it doesn’t particularly add to the public information.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he concerned that there are now 104 fewer police officers than when he became Prime Minister, as at 24 August, particularly when his Government had promised 500 more police, or is it not about the “frickin’ targets” after all?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, this is a Government that wants to restore law and order in New Zealand, and we are doing a fantastic job. It is a big job, but we are off to a good start. We have seen the Comancheros gang completely disbanded and taken out—fantastic. We’ve got brand new gang legislation coming in to give Police more powers and tools to fight back against violent crime. Gang members are one-quarter of 1 percent of New Zealand’s population and yet they drive up to one-fifth of all the violent crime, and that party didn’t support that legislation last week.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How does working from home affect the Government’s ability to provide services to the public when compared to the effect of disestablishing over 6,000 roles in the Public Service?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we have big expectations of the Public Service. We want them to be highly productive, and we want them to be firing on all cylinders, because we’ve got a lot of problems to fix and we’ve got a lot of opportunities to realise. So we want people to know that they can have some clear expectations from this Government, which is very simply: it’s not an entitlement; it’s actually by agreement. That’s how it gets done.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When will he take responsibility for his Government’s actions and stop blaming public servants and the Opposition for his own inadequacy and lack of leadership?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we take full responsibility on this side of Government. That’s what we do each and every day to rebuild the economy, to lower the cost of living, to restore law and order, and to deliver better health and education. I’d just say, after six years of Government, I understand the bitterness, because you didn’t achieve anything.

SPEAKER: It may make members feel better if they do yell out some interjection, but I’d just ask you all to think carefully about how that is perceived publicly.

Question No. 2—Public Service

2. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister for the Public Service: What recent announcements has she made on Public Service working arrangements?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for the Public Service): Yesterday, the Prime Minister and I announced that the Government wants to see more public servants come into their place of work each day, and we are taking steps to make our expectations clear. Guidance to the Public Service will be updated to make clear that working from home is not an entitlement and must be agreed and monitored. While I acknowledge carefully defined working from home arrangements can benefit workers and employers, there are significant downsides that need to be recognised as well. Many good employers have been taking active steps to ensure their working from home policies are fit for purpose, and it’s time the Government did the same.

Nancy Lu: What are the specific expectations she announced yesterday?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Updated guidelines will reinforce the Government’s expectation that (1) working from home arrangements are not an entitlement and should be by agreement; (2) working from home arrangements should only be agreed to where they will not compromise the performance of employees and agency objectives; and (3), importantly, where arrangements are agreed to, there must be comprehensive oversight arrangements in place so that managers can be clear the arrangements are working as expected and productivity is not being compromised.

Nancy Lu: Why did she make yesterday’s announcement about working from home?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There are good reasons why employees have traditionally been physically brought together for work, as members in this House know. It allows for face-to-face conversation, the sharing of skills and experiences, and relationship-building. I think about the new grad who is starting out in an organisation. They need to observe, learn from, and form connections with their more experienced colleagues. Zoom and Microsoft Teams have significant limitations. Getting people back into the office will support those younger employees and mean managers can monitor team dynamics, including whether people are disengaged, struggling, or at odds with their colleagues.

Nancy Lu: What does this announcement mean for public servants?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Public servants can still work from home if arrangements are agreed and expectations around productivity and performance are met. Having some flexibility in working arrangements can be beneficial for employees and for employers; however, the Government is making its expectation clear that working from home is not an entitlement and that safeguards need to be in place.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes—in particular, the action we’re taking to support Māori education. Last week, the Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, announced that for the first time—the first time—schools actually can use a purpose-built tool to check actually how a child is progressing in reading te reo Māori. That tool will be available to all kura and schools where students are learning te reo Māori from term 1, 2025. Our Government is committed to lifting educational achievement for all young New Zealanders—Māori and non-Māori. Thanks to Minister Erica Stanford, we’re making that happen.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does he agree with his statement that “acknowledgment feels hollow without the recognition that comes with redress. I regret that it is not something that we can give you today, but I assure you it is a priority for the Government in the coming months.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, our Government is taking very seriously the findings of the report on abuse in State care, as you well know, and we’re shaping for an apology for 12 November.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does he agree that his decision to subject survivors to a ballot system to attend their own apology is “hollow”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree. We will have lots of demand for people to be present at the apologies—we’ll make them as available as we can in many cities across New Zealand. We want as many people to attend as possible, but there will be limits, obviously, with respect to physical spaces.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Considering that giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi is one of the core recommendations in the abuse in care report, why has he decided to give his apology at the same time that the Treaty principles bill is set to be introduced?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t think that is the case.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does he remain committed to the removal of section 7AA despite the fact that over 800 Ngāpuhi mokopuna are in care, and 12,500 in the churn of care, and the Waitangi Tribunal noted that the removal of 7AA will cause “actual harm” to tamariki in care?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of your question, yes.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Ni hao. Does she stand by her statement, “We are focused on supporting our economy to grow”; if so, how much has GDP per capita changed since she took office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, we are focused on supporting the economy to grow because New Zealand has, essentially, been in recession for two years and we recognise that the best way to improve the living standards and experiences of New Zealanders is to grow our economy faster. Since the September quarter of 2022, GDP per capita has fallen 4.6 percent. Since the December quarter last year, when we took office, it has fallen 0.8 percent. In other words, breaking that down, the GDP per capita fell 3.8 percent from the third quarter of 2022 through to the final quarter of 2023, and a further 0.8 percent from the final quarter of 2023 to the second quarter of 2024.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does having our skilled Kiwis who are leaving the country in record numbers affect GDP per capita?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, obviously what GDP per capita is affected by is two things: on the one hand, how many people there are; and, on the second, how much the economy is growing as a whole. Our goal, as I have said, is to grow the economy not just in the generic sense but on a per capita basis as well.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she worried about the drop in the Westpac McDermott Miller Consumer Confidence Index, which is now at its lowest rating since the country was emerging from the first COVID-19 lockdown in 2020?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do want to see both business and consumer confidence increase; that is why our Government is focused on policies that will ensure that is the case. That includes ensuring we have inflation under control so that New Zealanders can look forward to stable prices, having interest rates falling so that their mortgages and borrowing is less expensive, and ensuring we have real, tangible policies that will grow the economy faster—such as fast-track consenting, and many others. But my answer is going on a bit long.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she worried about the trade deficit, with the monthly trade balance being in deficit of $2.2 billion?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do want to see our current account deficit reduce, and that is partly why our Government is so focused on doubling exports over the next 10 years. It is also why we are very reluctant to impose extensive new taxes on the economy, which could get in the way of growth and investment.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What role will her Government play in minimising the output gap?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Every day, I get up, I think about how we progress our agenda to grow this economy. Along this front bench and behind me and over there are a lot of MPs who have always recognised that you don’t make this country wealthier by having endless conversations about how to divide the pie; you do it by growing the pie. That’s why we are focused on sensible policies, on infrastructure, on regulation, on overseas investment, on trade, on innovation, on capitalisation. It’s why we know you can’t tax a country to prosperity.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What advice has she had, if any, on the benefits of rail-enabled ferries for the GDP of the South Island?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: None.

Question No. 5—Health

5. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Health: What actions has the Government taken to restrict the sale and use of nitrous oxide for recreational use?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you. The proliferation of nitrous oxide—commonly referred to as nangs, laughing gas, or NOS—presents a significant public health issue with potentially serious consequences. Young people in particular have been targeted by this proliferation. That is why, last week, we announced that the Government was taking action to restrict the sale and use of nitrous oxide for recreational use. This action enables police to prosecute the sale and use of nitrous oxide for recreational use, with a breach of this regulation being punishable with jail time or a fine. This move will help keep New Zealanders safe and halt the growth of an illegal industry around the supply of nitrous oxide for recreational use.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What impact has recreational nitrous oxide use had on communities such as Ilam?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This is an issue that the member has raised with me. As I said earlier, the proliferation of nangs has been particularly targeted at young New Zealanders both in Christchurch and nationwide. Given the significant risks and the potential for long-term health impacts, such as nerve damage, it was important to move swiftly. Our approach comes off the back of reports that the recreational use of nitrous oxide is on the rise, so we could not stand idly by.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What impact will this restriction have on those who provide nitrous oxide for recreational use?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This announcement clarifies the law for suppliers and users of nitrous oxide. As no products containing nitrous oxide have been approved for use under the Psychoactive Substances Act, this change makes it illegal to sell nitrous oxide or products containing nitrous oxide for recreational use. As a result, companies who are found to be in breach of this regulation by selling, offering to sell, or being in possession of nitrous oxide for recreational purposes could be convicted of up to two years jail time or a fine of up to $500,000. However, for those who use nitrous oxide for legitimate reasons, there will be no change.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What other steps is the Minister taking to ensure people are safe from recreational nitrous oxide use?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This is a step in the right direction to protect New Zealanders from a harmful product. I have heard from many of my parliamentary colleagues that the recreational use of nitrous oxide has been a serious issue within their communities. However, we are still aware that more may need to be done. That is why I have directed the Ministry of Health to monitor the effectiveness of this change and provide ongoing advice about whether further restrictions are necessary. Our ultimate goal is to keep New Zealanders safe, so I’ll continue to monitor this issue.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, I do.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will he commit to no changes under his fast-track legislation to the legal protection status afforded to Queen Elizabeth II trust, or QEII covenants, which protect private property in perpetuity for conservation purposes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, that’s right.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How can we have confidence in the Prime Minister’s answer that QEII covenants will remain untouched when the fast-track approvals bill overrides up to 10 laws which all have some form of environmental protection?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It doesn’t override QEII covenants.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister admitting that the fast-track legislation overrides other environmental protections and laws?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m admitting is the fast-track legislation is designed to get things built in this country, and we are prioritising development because that’s what we need to do: we need to make sure that we actually get things built. We want more wind farms, we want more renewable energy, and I just encourage that member to support fast-track legislation—a great idea from the potential leader of the Labour Party David Parker; we just built on it.

SPEAKER: Just before the member speaks, I’m sure the Prime Minister appreciates support from the Government side of the House, but that loud noise does limit the way in which the rest of the public hears his answers.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister’s fast-track legislation enable more coal mining in this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This fast-track legislation is going to enable us to grow our economy, and that’s so important, because that’s actually how we keep low and middle income people in employment, and that’s something that, frankly, the Labour Party and the Green Party used to care about—workers. We’re the party of workers now.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When will we see the list of fast-track projects made publicly available, given that his Government has kept those secret throughout the only opportunity for public consideration and participation of this legislation at select committee?

Hon Shane Jones: Taihoa. Taihoa.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Yes, I’d ask Mr Jones not to interrupt the question when it’s being asked.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Shall I ask it again, Mr Speaker, or shall we go to the Prime Minister?

SPEAKER: You should start again.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When will we see the list of fast-track projects made publicly available, given that the Prime Minister’s Government has kept those secret throughout the only opportunity for public consideration and participation in this legislation at the select committee stage?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Soon.

Question No. 7—State Owned Enterprises

7. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Ni hao, Mr Speaker. Are negotiations for the exit of the contract with Hyundai for new Interislander ferries still ongoing; if so, when can New Zealanders expect an announcement from the Government on replacement ferries?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): In response to the first part of the question, yes. In response to the second part of the question, announcements will be made once Cabinet has made decisions.

Tangi Utikere: Who is correct: finance Minister Nicola Willis, who said on 1 July that an announcement about replacement ferries is expected within the quarter, and then, yesterday, by the end of this year; the Prime Minister, who this morning said end of this year, early next year; associate transport Minister Matt Doocey, who said in August that an announcement was “imminent”; or himself, who couldn’t confirm that a decision would even be made this year?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I can only repeat my answer to my first question, which was that the announcements will be made once Cabinet has made decisions.

Tangi Utikere: How much have Government agencies, including KiwiRail, spent so far on the negotiations to withdraw from the Hyundai contract, and what is the final cost of scrapping the contract going to be?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, obviously, we’re in the course of a negotiation and it wouldn’t be in the interests of anybody to publicly comment while that is still going on. One figure that is not in dispute, however, is that the overall cost was heading towards $3 billion if we’d stayed with the arrangement that we were bequeathed from the previous Government, and this Government was not prepared to spend that much money.

Tangi Utikere: How is it that nine months after the Government’s rash move to scrap the replacement ferries, he still doesn’t know how much it would cost to get out of the contract or what the replacement ferries would even look like, let alone their cost and when they will be delivered?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: In relation to rash moves, I think that starting off a project costing $775 million in November 2018 and leaving office with it at somewhere around $3 billion is my definition of a rash move.

Tangi Utikere: Is it true that no alternative ferry plan has been announced yet because the prematurely scrapped replacements with no plan by this Government for new ferries, and now disagreements are becoming apparent within the coalition, who simply can’t get their act together?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’m not quite sure what the question was. Was there a question in that? Could I ask him to repeat the—

SPEAKER: I did hear a question in that. It was vague, but I did hear it.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, no.

Tangi Utikere: Does he agree with Nicola Willis’ statement that Bluebridge “take passengers and freight safely across the Cook Strait every day, and I say, well, look, they’re doing a good job.”, given the Connemara’s loss of power incident on Thursday night; if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, I agree with her statement at the time. Of course, New Zealand has robust transport arrangements and it’s up to the regulators to ensure that safety remains, and that is very much a high priority for this Government and all New Zealanders.

Question No. 8—Education (Partnership Schools)

8. LAURA TRASK (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools): What recent announcements has he made in relation to charter schools?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools)): Well, many. Just last week, I announced a set of performance standards for charter schools. Charter schools represent a swap of extra autonomy for educators to ply their trade and educate children in return for additional accountability. This announcement showed that there will be additional requirements for charter schools to hit targets relating to attendance by students, achievement by students, and financial probity by the school.

Laura Trask: What recent reports has he seen regarding the number of charter school applications?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, we’ve actually been overwhelmed. There are some who say that this policy is not required; however, we’ve seen 78 entities put together applications which are quite detailed, to run charter schools, with only a few months’ notice. I think that speaks to the fact that people know that while we have passionate educators, while we have a great desire for education, what we’re doing is not working for too many children, particularly those that are disadvantaged. I’m very proud to be part of a Government that is doing something about it with new options in charter schools.

Laura Trask: What reports has he seen in support of charter schools?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I’ve seen a report from Matua Nathan Durie, who said he believes the current educational system has had its chance and failed for some students. He said, “For 100 plus years now the teachers union and the Ministry of Education and all the other official groups have had an opportunity to deliver educational outcomes for Māori and the results have been horrible”. He said, “We’re excited about it and I think the primary reason to turn to the charter school model”—

Tākuta Ferris: Is it a Māori initiative now?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —“was the flexibility it enables.” And I say to the heckler from Te Pāti Māori, it’s not a Māori initiative; it’s an initiative for all people who want more choice to determine their future. Te Pāti Māori is going to have to decide, are they on the side of giving every child a chance to succeed on their own terms or are they going to keep heckling from the sidelines, spewing division and hate.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. We acknowledge your guidance earlier that interjections should be short. Surely that should also apply to responses to interjections.

SPEAKER: Well, it should. Except that where an interjection is a direct attack on the answer the Minister’s giving, it’s not unreasonable that the Minister might respond to it. There are other Standing Orders that enable responses in that nature, but I would ask those who are engaging in those sorts of cross-House interchanges to desist from that.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does the Minister stand by his statement regarding charter schools that he “could quote extensive research”, and, if so, how much of this extensive research wasn’t funded by pro - charter school groups?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: First of all, yes, I absolutely stand by that statement. Second of all, yes, I can. However, it’s kind of difficult because, you see, once people look at the evidence, they become strongly pro - charter school. I think, if the Minister and her party was to look at the evidence, they might become in favour of charter schools too. But here’s the problem: that member put in a minority view on the charter school legislation, and it was three pages about the unions and the sob stories from the adults working in the schools, and half a page about the children’s learning. Those are the Labour Party’s priorities. We don’t share them over here.

Laura Trask: What is the time line for opening charter schools?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Those applicants are currently having their applications worked through by the charter school authority. The authorisation board, as soon as legislation passes, will be empowered to further assess them and look to sign contracts with the successful applicants in order for the first schools to open on the first day of term 1, 2025. It’s going to be a very exciting day for New Zealand—a tangible impression of charter schools being backed to give opportunities to those students.

Question No. 9—Police

SPEAKER: Question No. 6—Cameron Brewer.

Hon David Seymour: 6?

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): My question is to the Minister of Police—

SPEAKER: Sorry—apologies, it’s question No. 9, for those who are watching. Cameron Brewer—start again.

CAMERON BREWER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Police and asks: how are Police delivering on his priorities of disrupting gangs—

SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member but the mike was off, so please start your question again.

9. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Police: How are Police delivering on his priorities of disrupting gangs and organised crime and strengthening policing in our communities?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Last week, Police announced the deployment of 77 staff to the National Gang Unit and gang disruption units around the country, as well as 70 more officers added to the community beat teams. This work that the Police are doing builds on the outstanding work that they’ve already done to crack down on and disrupt gangs and strengthen policing in our communities, providing communities with a sense of safety and showing gangs and organised criminals that police control our streets, not the gangs. I want to acknowledge the work of Commissioner Coster in responding to my priorities and in my letter of expectations. He has served with integrity over the course of a long career with the Police, and I look forward to working with him in his new role.

SPEAKER: That’s good—just the last part of that answer was important but not necessarily relevant to the question.

Cameron Brewer: Where are community beat team staff going?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: In total, there will be 160 new staff on community beat teams: 11 in Northland, 63 in Auckland, 18 in Waikato, 17 in the Bay of Plenty, seven in Eastern, eight in Central, 17 in Wellington, four in Tasman, 10 in Canterbury, and four in Southern, with one national coordinator.

Cameron Brewer: How many new staff will be in each gang disruption unit?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Seven staff will be deployed to Northland, 14 to Auckland, seven to Waikato, 10 to Bay of Plenty, 10 to Eastern, seven to Central, seven to Wellington, and 10 to the South Island.

Cameron Brewer: What other work has Police done recently that delivers on his priorities?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Police announced recently that nearly every member of the Comancheros is now facing charges. The approach to policing gang runs has changed significantly, with the public no longer seeing their towns taken over and held under siege by gang members. Community beat teams have been extremely popular, with members of the public regularly telling me how much safer the increase in foot patrols makes them feel.

Question No. 10—Workplace Relations and Safety

10. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she agree with Christopher Luxon, who said modern slavery is an issue for which he would “march in the streets”; if so, how does she reconcile this with the disbanding of the Modern Slavery Leadership Advisory Group?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I agree that modern slavery is a concerning issue, and it should be appropriately punished where it has occurred. However, I would also like to point out that there are many measures in the justice system that are already in place to combat modern slavery practices. The Modern Slavery Leadership Advisory Group was established by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, who recommended that it be disestablished—and I agreed with their recommendation. I do not have a view on what issues other political party leaders would march in the streets for, but I believe Chris Luxon when he says it. But I can share that my priority is to ensure New Zealanders have access to more and better jobs, and businesses have the certainty and confidence to innovate and grow. I know that there are still a lot of New Zealanders doing it tough right now with the cost of living, which is why I’m focused on doing my bit within Government to support a thriving economy so every New Zealander can reach their full potential.

Camilla Belich: Does she agree with Grant Bayldon, national director of World Vision, who in a letter on 4 April 2024 to the Prime Minister, said, “Disappointingly, Minister van Velden has not responded to communications or accepted invitations to discuss the issue, either from World Vision or the Government-appointed Modern Slavery Leadership Advisory Group. Consequently, Rob Fyfe, chair of the advisory group, resigned yesterday, citing that the situation was untenable.”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I don’t agree. I don’t personally know this man. I’m sure he’s entitled to his opinions. However, I think it’s really important that my office does a fantastic job responding to correspondence that comes in and out of it, and we have received a fair amount of correspondence on modern slavery, and we do our best to respond to each and every issue.

Camilla Belich: Does she agree with Rob Fyfe, who in his resignation letter to her said, of her, “Modern slavery legislation is neither a priority for her or a topic that she has a genuine interest in or passion for.”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Rob Fyfe is entitled to his opinion, but his opinion doesn’t mean anything more to me than the tens of thousands of small-business owners in New Zealand who are struggling right now. We get correspondence from them too, and we listen to all of them equally. Modern slavery is a concerning issue for me; it’s one of many concerning issues. But every Minister and every Government must prioritise their issues.

Camilla Belich: Does she agree with the Modern Slavery Leadership Advisory Group who emailed her stating that, “New Zealand has now fallen further behind our international trading partners, many of whom have increasing expectations of New Zealand to have frameworks in place to ensure modern slavery does not take place in global and domestic supply chains. This includes commitments set out in our recent free-trade agreements with the United Kingdom and the European Union.”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: New Zealand’s free-trade agreements include a range of commitments to address modern slavery and promote human rights in supply chains. New Zealand has guidance and policies in place to encourage businesses to address modern slavery in their supply chains, and it’s my view that the guidance and policies the Government already provides would satisfy our free-trade commitments so businesses can get on and trade with confidence.

Camilla Belich: Why, given she has accepted the importance of this issue, has the Minister’s only actions when it comes to modern slavery—an issue that the Prime Minister said he would march in the streets for—been to stop all work by her ministry and refuse to meet with subject matter experts?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I have outlined at length that I have priorities, as a Government Minister, of getting this economy moving, of making sure that businesses have confidence and certainty of the laws so that they can employ more people and have better jobs for them. That’s a priority that every Government should have. We always need to prioritise; modern slavery is important, but there are so many issues of importance.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister tell the House what those other priorities she’s outlined are, and perhaps how they benefit New Zealand workers?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I have many priorities in this term of Government. Firstly, replacing the Holidays Act. There are so many businesses who want to do the right thing but are struggling to comply with the law and make sure that workers in New Zealand get paid their right entitlements. We want to reform health and safety so that people don’t feel like we’re doing tick-box exercises but New Zealanders and workers aren’t actually safer at work. It has to be clearer and simpler. We need to ensure that people in contracting arrangements and employment agreements are actually clear about the intention of that agreement when they sign up to it—that is really important for both businesses and workers in New Zealand. I want to make sure that everybody knows that WorkSafe and other areas under our employment relations system are working effectively and efficiently for the betterment of taxpayers and levy payers.

Question No. 11—Housing

11. GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent updates has he received regarding the Government’s target to reduce households in emergency housing by 75 percent by 2030?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): 午安and kia ora, Mr Speaker. The number of houses in emergency housing has dropped by nearly 60 percent from our starting point of 3,141 households in December 2023 to 1,365 households as at 31 August this year—blue shoots. This milestone reflects various factors, including (1) having a target to reduce the large-scale and long-term use of emergency housing to bring it back to its original intent; (2) get the policy settings right, such as establishing the Priority One pathway to prioritise whānau with tamariki into social housing; and (3) focused investment to both continue emergency housing support services for two further years and to back community housing providers to deliver 1,500 social housing homes. We are committed to making sure emergency housing is being used for individuals and whānau who have genuine need for short-term stays in temporary accommodation.

Greg Fleming: How much is the Government spending to deliver emergency housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: More good news to report. In each of the four previous financial years, the cost to taxpayers was roughly $1 million a day. As at the end of August 2024, emergency housing is now costing the taxpayer around half a million dollars a day. We’re heading in the right direction.

Greg Fleming: How many whānau and tamariki are benefiting under the Priority One pathway?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Priority One pathway fast tracks whānau with tamariki who have been in emergency housing for 12 weeks or more into social housing. The fast track implements our focus on getting tamariki out of emergency housing, giving them stable accommodation, and, from there, they can focus on more things like attending school regularly and structured literacy, and taking part in the opportunities that living in Aotearoa New Zealand can provide. Since Priority One started on 30 April 2024, there’ve been a total of 645 households housed under the Priority One category, and, of those 645 households, 1,311 are tamariki—every single one of those 1,311 tamariki have been placed into social housing homes.

Greg Fleming: Outstanding. What real-world impact is the Priority One fast track having on whānau and tamariki?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Several weeks ago, I visited a whānau in Tauranga Moana who had recently moved out of emergency housing and into social housing under Priority One. I met a young, single mum in her early 20s with four young tamariki. Her tamariki had been cycling their whole lives in and out of emergency housing with mum since they were born. She was eligible for Priority One and transitioned into social housing. When I spoke to her, she was overwhelmed and thankful for how quickly she was housed once Priority One had started. She told me that for all the time in emergency housing, it was just her and her babies sleeping in one bed. Our immediate focus is to get whānau and tamariki out of emergency housing, and it’s changing people’s lives for the better.

Question No. 12—Children

12. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) to the Minister for Children: Does she agree that Oranga Tamariki has a role to play in preventing abuse and harm before tamariki and rangatahi enter care; if so, how does she reconcile this with cutting $18 million to Oranga Tamariki prevention-focused contracted services?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): In answer to the first part of the question, yes, alongside other agencies as part of the wider children’s system and the community as a whole. That is why Oranga Tamariki spent over $500 million with community services providers last financial year and will do so again this year. In answer to the second part of the question, the first point I would like to make is that a large proportion of the $18 million the member refers to will be made up from the money Oranga Tamariki has recovered or will recover from where a social service provider has not delivered services that have been paid for. There can’t be a cut to a service if that service has not been delivered. The second point I would like to make is that we know from previous years that just spending more money does not get better results. This is a Government that’s focused on getting value for taxpayers’ money and making sure that when we are spending money, we’re actually getting the outcomes we’re paying for.

Kahurangi Carter: If she agrees that Oranga Tamariki has a role to play in preventing abuse and harm before children enter care, why did she say of Oranga Tamariki that “The funding they provide is for care and protection of children in State care. Nothing more, nothing less.”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I believe I have said that Oranga Tamariki’s core purpose is to take care of children in the care of Oranga Tamariki that come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki. I’ve also said that there are many ways that children can come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki, from many organisations.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she stand by her statement about Oranga Tamariki funding nothing more, nothing less than care for children currently in State care, “That’s what New Zealanders want their dollars spent on, and that’s what they’re getting, finally.”, and, if so, does she think that New Zealanders wouldn’t accept her spending their money on prevention so children aren’t at risk of going into care?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: A large amount of Oranga Tamariki’s money is spent on prevention. Everything they do is around prevention. Yes, I do stand by my statements that Oranga Tamariki needs to concentrate on the children that are in their care to make sure they’re meeting the national care standards and children get what they deserve when they are in Oranga Tamariki care.

Kahurangi Carter: If, as she says, supporting children in State care is the core function of Oranga Tamariki, whose core function does she think supporting children at risk of being placed in State care is?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: This is an all-agency approach across Government with many ministries that have a role to play when it comes to kids in New Zealand. Ultimately, Oranga Tamariki is responsible for young people who come to their attention when they’re at risk of harm or when they need to be taken care of.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she agree with the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, who said to social service providers, “when the child protection system gets involved in a child’s life, it is usually because those who were meant to protect and care for them, have failed … This is one of the reasons I’m [focusing] on strengthening the local and regional responses”, and, if so, how does she think cutting funding for services that have no comparable local alternatives, like Presbyterian Support South Canterbury’s free counselling and Kia Puāwai functional family therapy, helps achieve these goals?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: In regards to the first part of the question, absolutely I agree with that. Children do come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki when those who are supposed to care for them have failed, and Oranga Tamariki has to come in at a child’s worst moment and actually make sure that they are taken care of. It is disgusting that Oranga Tamariki has to exist. People need to step up and start taking care of their children.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Can the Minister confirm that she has a commitment from other Government agencies that they will fund these prevention services she is cutting, or is the Government simply ignoring or deprioritising their statutory obligations to children?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I can speak to what Oranga Tamariki is doing around their contracting, and that is making sure that they are focusing on their core purpose, which is children and young people in their care and young people that come to their attention, so that we are doing what we need to do to meet national care standards. Other Ministers are in charge of their portfolios, and if you would like to ask them that question, feel free.

SPEAKER: That concludes questions for oral answer. If those who have to leave could leave quietly. Other than that, I’ll call on—

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Sorry, is there a point of order somewhere?

Question No. 12 to Minister, 8 August—Amended Answer

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to 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 be none.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: On 8 August 2024, in response to a supplementary question on oral question No. 12 from Kahurangi Carter, in regards to savings Oranga Tamariki is making from getting money back from providers where services have been underutilised, I stated that the money is not going back into the main Budget and that this money would be redistributed back into front-line services. This answer was technically incorrect. What I should have said is that this money would be returned to the centre; however, Oranga Tamariki is receiving new money and this money will be reinvested into front-line services. It was not my intention to mislead the House; I was attempting to convey the overall picture of the funding Oranga Tamariki will have for front-line services and that Oranga Tamariki received more money than it returned in Budget 2024.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Mr Speaker, should that personal explanation not have been delivered before the question asked to the Minister? It is entirely possible that the questions asked of the Minister today may well have been different if that clarification had been made before the question.

SPEAKER: I take the point and recognise the opportunity that may have been lost, but I have to say it was my advice to take the point of order after question time. My apologies if there has been an opportunity lost; that wasn’t at all intentional or otherwise. The House will take 30 seconds to allow people to move to wherever they need to be.

Committees

Select Committees

Parliament Bill Committee—Establishment

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That the House establish a committee, to be called the Parliament Bill Committee, to consider, and report on, the Parliament Bill and any associated business that may be referred to it; that the committee consist of eight members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand National two, New Zealand Labour two, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand one, ACT New Zealand one, New Zealand First one, and Te Pāti Māori one; and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

This motion establishes a special select committee called the Parliament Bill Committee to consider and report on the Parliament Bill. It consists of eight members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker. National has two, the Labour Party has two, Greens one, ACT one, New Zealand First one, and Te Pāti Māori one, as well.

Look, this reflects the fact that the Parliament Bill is something that is a very important constitutional bill and it speaks to the importance of having a degree of bipartisanship and consensus around making sure the bill is well supported across the Parliament. It’s been discussed with the Business Committee and other parties in advance of this motion, reflecting the fact that it would be appropriate to have a special select committee with equal membership from the Government and the Opposition to make sure that we can work in a bipartisan way.

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

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just, really, speaking in support of the motion. I’m excited to be meeting on Fridays in a week in which the House has been sitting. It is a standard carve-out, but it’s good to see that we’ll have the flexibility to meet where appropriate. I just want to recognise the cross-party work that’s been done at the Business Committee and elsewhere in respect of this bill and this committee. I’m looking forward to it being chaired by the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe, who I think will do an able job. Kia ora.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I’m rising to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party to support this motion. We believe that an ad hoc committee to consider the Parliament Bill makes a lot of sense. We acknowledge that, because of the constitutional nature of this bill, we do need a committee with members that are able to also amply communicate with their caucuses, as this has an impact on, basically, how all MPs’ work is carried out. We acknowledge that we were consulted about this piece of legislation about three years ago, and we also just want to acknowledge that this is a bill that is really significant.

Because of the nature of the bill, we would have liked more than eight months to actually consider this bill, just to make sure that, actually, whatever comes out of the select committee is enduring, because, at the end of the day, issues that relate to, for example, entitlements of MPs can be really controversial, and we do want to make sure that we have the public’s backing and that we iron out any political tensions, because what we do in that select committee will have an impact not just on this Parliament but on future Parliaments to come.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Parliament Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I present a legislative statement on the Parliament Bill.

SPEAKER: The legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That the Parliament Bill be now read a first time.

The Parliament Bill has had a long gestation, as has been adverted to by members in their contributions on the precursor motion. It brings together four different Acts to provide a modern legislative framework for Parliament and the agencies that support it. The Acts are the Parliamentary Privilege Act, which was passed in 2014; the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013; the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988; and the Parliamentary Service Act 2000. The first two Acts are relatively recent, but the last two Acts, the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act and the Parliamentary Service Act, are now quite out of date, and it is fair to say that the legislation that affects this place is scattered across a variety of different Acts. The purpose of the Parliament Bill is to consolidate it, clarify the independence of Parliament from the executive, protect the privileges of Parliament, and specify the funding arrangements and set out the relationships between the parliamentary agencies.

The legislative statement sets out the main policy changes in the bill, and I want to highlight a few of them for the House, but before I do that, I want to just acknowledge the very professional and collaborative way that other parties have worked on this. Clearly, this was a bill that started life under the previous Government, with Cabinet decisions around the policy instructions for the bill and then the drafting instructions. I acknowledge that we have inherited this as a Government from the previous Government, but I also acknowledge that the previous Government had reached out to the then Opposition to discuss the bill. This is genuinely something that has carried forward in a collaborative and professional and collegial way between the parliaments, and I think that’s entirely right, because getting this legislation right is extremely important, and that’s exactly why we set up a special select committee.

I wasn’t going to mention it in my contribution, because it’s actually ultimately over to the committee, but Dr Duncan Webb did mention, so I will repeat it, that the Government will be nominating the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe, former Speaker, to chair the committee, and I think that’s very appropriate and look forward to his erstwhile chairmanship of the committee. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Chirstopher Finlayson KC, who is a member who has been a long-time advocate for the Parliament Bill, and, hopefully, in time, the Parliament Act. This does go back quite a long way.

I want to draw the House’s attention to parliamentary security, which has been a topic of discussion in recent weeks and months, and I want to acknowledge the dedicated team of parliamentary security officers—or PSOs—who are here around the clock safeguarding the precincts and the people who go and work in these buildings and visit people here. They’re expected to intervene to protect people and assets on the parliamentary precinct until the police arrive, but they don’t have specific statutory powers to carry out their duties. We are now giving them some legislative authority. The bill sets out the statutory basis for security arrangements on the precinct, including introducing limited search and seizure powers—most of the relevant provisions are in Part 7 of the bill. It gives the PSOs powers of consent search, denial of entry, temporary seizure of specified items, and temporary detention. It also provides immunity for good-faith execution by PSOs of their functions and powers. These provisions are based on the legislation that empowers court security officers, so we picked up the legislative framework there and are repeating it here.

It’s very important, I believe, that we uphold Parliament’s level of openness and accessibility to the public as far as practicable, in light of the threat assessment at any given time. The bill’s been developed in consultation with the police, who will continue to attend where necessary. One of the great things about this Parliament is how accessible and open it is to the public—it’s free to enter, it’s free to attend. Every day, I’m astonished at the number of people who come and watch the bunfight that is question time, but speaking as someone who did that when I was a wee 18-year-old myself, I acknowledge how wonderful it is that this parliamentary democracy enables that. I won’t speak any more about parliamentary security, but I’m sure that that is an issue that the committee will want to be examining.

In terms of funding, another important theme in the bill is the funding of the two parliamentary agencies—the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service—and, of course, they support all of us here in this Parliament and the people who work in the building. The agencies are independent, and that’s entirely appropriate, but under current law, their funding’s, effectively, determined by the Government, and from a constitutional point of view that is suboptimal, as it weakens the separation of powers. The bill strengthens the autonomy of Parliament by establishing a model for the House itself to put forward the funding for the parliamentary agencies. This is in Part 8 of the bill, and it, basically, is the pre-Budget process used for the Officers of Parliament—so the Auditor-General, the Ombudsman, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Under the bill, the agencies will consult the Treasury and submit proposed funding to the House. This will involve providing the proposals for a select committee to consider seeking advice as they see fit. The committee will then recommend funding to the parliamentary agencies for the House to commend to the Crown as appropriations for inclusion in the Estimates.

The objective is for Parliament’s funding to be determined in a way that upholds the House’s right to control its own affairs while being fiscally responsible. In due course, the House will need to consider amendments to the Standing Orders to implement this funding process and to ensure that agencies continue to be covered by the House’s financial scrutiny procedures.

The bill incorporates the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013, which ensures that the House and its members are properly supported in a way that maintains the confidence and integrity of Parliament. Arrangements for the Remuneration Authority to determine members’ salaries are carried over into the bill. There are some policy changes relating to expenses and services. The bill carries over the guiding principles for the Remuneration Authority, the Speaker, and the Minister Responsible for Ministerial Services when determining expenses and services. There’s a variety of other changes around the definition of “dependent child”, there’s expansion of the definition of “family member” to enable a caregiver to accompany a member’s dependent family to members in Wellington. The objective is to make members’ travel and accommodation services more accessible by having a single decision maker who issues all determinations on members’ travel, accommodation, and communication services. At the moment, I think it’s fair to say it’s a bit of a dog’s breakfast how all this stuff is worked out. I’m not sure that many members of Parliament in the House would be able to explain to the public how the various different salaries and allowances and travel allowances are worked out, and this will bring a degree of clarity around it all and a single decision maker.

There’s a variety of other changes, some of which are a bit rats and mice, but, none the less, important: consistent arrangements for when functions, powers, and the duties of the Speaker may be carried out by the Deputy Speaker; adjusting the mechanism for appointing the members of Parliamentary Service Commission, a little known but important body; and—this is one that I found particularly intriguing—transferring to the Electoral Commission the Clerk’s functions under the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993. People listening with long memories will know that we’ve had a variety of citizens initiated referenda—from memory, you need 10 percent of registered electors to trigger it in the country, which, of course, is a number that varies, and we’ve had some over the years; the last one was the asset sales referendum, but we’ve also had the anti-smacking referendum and that somewhat confusing question back in, I think it was, 1999, which was a four-part question around tougher sentences and different things like that. We’ve had a few over the years, and, somewhat weirdly, the function of determining whether or not the threshold has been met is currently a function of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, whereas, in reality, it should be the function of the Electoral Commission—that’s their job—and so it’s just a hangover from the legislation back in 1993, so we’re tidying that up, and that’s sensible.

There’s some modernisation of the statutory functions; there’s making the Parliamentary Library a standard business unit in the Parliamentary Service. So there’s a variety of different things which are all in the legislative statement.

I would like to commend the bill to the House, and, no doubt, the special select committee will want to get into some of the detail, and I fully expect Sir Geoffrey Palmer to make a submission on the bill. I’m not going to be on the committee, but I’m looking forward to reading his, no doubt, long and august contribution. I suspect the Law Society will make a submission. I’m counting on Graeme Edgeler to make a submission, so that’s three I know we will get, and the question is whether or not we’ll get to 10, and I hope that we do, because too few people in New Zealand take an interest in our constitutional arrangements, and this is one of those rare occasions when Parliament is considering constitutional legislation, and it’s important that we get it right. I commend the bill to the House and look forward to its passage later on. Thank you.

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

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I endorse the comments of the Leader of the House on this bill, especially those which point out how constitutionally important it is. In some ways, it’s strange that one of the most important bills we have and that we’ll see arguably in this term of Parliament and one that will, I hope, be enduring is one which in this House at least will spark the least debate—or at least the least vociferous debate. However, I’m sure that, in select committee, things will go otherwise. I’m confident and I would take odds that there’ll be more than 10 submissions to select committee on this.

I guess the main point of this bill, to my mind, is making very clear the independence of the legislature of this House of Parliament from the executive. The most obvious kind of tie is the financial tie that it is conceivable under the current—unlikely but conceivable—framework that the Government of the day could make Parliament’s functioning and make the Opposition’s functioning more difficult by limiting the funds or not increasing the funds appropriately to support members of Parliament—the work that goes on in this House. This makes a small step away from that in the sense that it will take the funding of this House away from the normal appropriations process and make it a question for this House itself.

In one of those quirks, perhaps, of the constitution, this House and the Government—the will of this House and the will of the Government—are pretty closely aligned because the Government has the majority here. So, in fact, in practical terms, the Government could still exercise it, but it would have to do so in the full light of day and under a great deal more scrutiny than might otherwise be the case. I do think that’s an important part of this. I would also say that although for those who might be looking on from the galleries or on telly it appears a very arcane bill—one that is kind of lost in dusty law books—in fact, this is a really important constitutional bill. It’s a really good example of us needing to approach these questions carefully and diligently, given the fact that it is just this unicameral system, this unicameral Parliament that we have, where we can make changes which fundamentally shift how lawmaking and Government is done. Those shifts that might look small—such as how Parliament is funded, such as the powers of our security staff, such as how citizens initiated referenda are managed—actually do go to the heart of how we operate as a democracy.

I’m sure the members of the committee will take their role seriously, and I’m quite confident that there will be some very thoughtful submissions coming in. I know a lot of work—as the Leader of the House acknowledged—has gone into this bill already. Having said that, I’m pretty sure that the select committee process will again refine and improve this bill. On this side of the House, the Labour Party absolutely supports this reading of the bill and look forward to working constructively on improving it where possible. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The honourable—sorry, I call Ricardo Menéndez March.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Happy to get the upgrade. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just do your time.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Look, we’re in support of this bill and we’ll be voting in favour of it. We want to acknowledge the contribution from other people, who have acknowledged how this has been a long time in the making, started by the previous Government, and that overall, the process to getting here has been quite constructive.

The bill, in and of itself, will modernise four existing Acts that relate to the operations of Parliament. I think most of this modernisation will enable our democracy to be more accessible and it will also, hopefully, better support the entities that allow Parliament—and, therefore, actually, the democratic system that we have—to be better resourced and for its resourcing to be better scrutinised as well. It will also make other changes around citizen initiated referendums, etc., which I think will also pass some of those responsibilities to better and more adequate entities.

I want to begin by making some reflections initially on some of the changes that will make Parliament more family friendly, enabling more flexible travel arrangements, particularly for caregivers of dependents. I think this is an important proposal because, basically, one of the things that we’ve got still in this parliamentary system is that, actually, if you don’t come from a place of wealth or privilege, there’s a massive sacrifice that sometimes people have to make to even consider standing for Parliament, let alone imagining themselves being in Parliament. People who have caregiving responsibilities, who may have disabled children or may be disabled themselves, face additional barriers to performing their duties as an MP. Having greater flexibility when it comes to, for example, travel arrangements, will break down those barriers so that you don’t have to imagine coming into Parliament from a position of privilege and wealth to then be able to make your caregiving and family arrangements work. Those proposals, in and of themselves—what they will do is they will broaden the ability for people to be able to see themselves in this place, and it is absolutely a really positive thing.

The other thing that I want to comment on is around the proposed changes to the funding model for parliamentary agencies. If we look at the legislative statement, I think it’s really well summarised that the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk are not part of the executive Government but are the agencies that directly support the operations of Parliament. When we talk about the operations of Parliament—I go back to my earlier comments about how they’re the operations of our democratic system—they enable, for example, the members of the public to submit on important pieces of legislation. A lot of the time, they’re the conduit between ourselves and the public when it comes to pieces of laws that we are passing. Having a better funding model that has more scrutiny, that is more removed from the executive, can only be a good thing, because, actually, we are really strong believers that the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk need to be better resourced to adapt to what are more complex needs and demands from constituents, and also to be resourced to be as accessible as possible to the public, particularly as we strive to make sure that a wide range of constituents are able to have their voices heard. I think this is really important. I think it’s also in the interest of the public, not just us MPs, to make sure that we have a well-functioning Parliamentary Service and Office of the Clerk and that they’re really, really well-resourced.

One area that I do hope we get a chance to unpack more in full at the select committee stage, and it’s one of the few points of tensions that we have, is around how parliamentary security will operate, and particularly the additional powers that parliamentary security officers will be granted. I think there does need to be some scrutiny at the select committee stage to make sure that increased security powers—you know, when it comes to the extent of these search, seizures, and detention powers—are appropriate and that there’s necessary safeguards. Once again, we want to make sure that we create a safe place for people to participate in our democratic systems, but also that we don’t, in the pursuit of safety, make our parliamentary spaces feel unwelcoming or accidentally target specific groups. That is one area that I do think deserves a bit more scrutiny and that I would welcome members of the public who have had engagement with our parliamentary institutions to give fulsome submissions so that we can consider those properly. If we need to make changes, then we will just go ahead and do so.

I want to mihi to the workers in this Parliament that make this place run, who provide us with the labour to ensure that we have a relatively functioning democratic system. I look forward to debating this bill in full at select committee. Kia ora.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am proud to rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak in favour of this bill, which is the Parliament Bill, which is seeking to consolidate and modernise the way our Parliament works. The bill provides for stronger powers for our parliamentary security officers to keep us safe, and it is doing much-needed improvements to the way that the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk receive funding. It also includes an update to the provisions of members’ work-related expenses.

The bill proposes giving the parliamentary security officers statutory powers to carry out a consented search, a denial of entry, a temporary seizure of specified items, and a temporary detention. These are all very important powers, and they’re going to require a lot of scrutiny. These powers will apply to the parliamentary precinct and in respect of any other parliamentary meetings, including select committee meetings, that take place off the precinct. These powers may also apply to electorate and community offices in certain circumstances, which in the modern world, unfortunately, is becoming more required.

Another major change that is being made in this bill is to the funding available to the parliamentary agencies. It’s going to allow a lot more clarity when it comes to the separation of power between the executive and the legislature.

The bill also provides greater parliamentary control over parliamentary funding arrangements, and the review which took place in 2020 includes a few changes that would make Parliament more family friendly, such as expanding the definition of a “family member” so that a caregiver can be funded in certain situations, and expanding the definition of “dependent child”. Now, that is going to include a child over the age of 18 as long as they are still attending a secondary school. We hope and I hope that this provides a much more transparent process for MPs and their families, as well as clarity for the taxpayer.

I’m looking forward to the select committee process of this bill. In ensuring that our Parliament is running as effectively and transparently as possible, constitutional change is important, and when it moves us closer to a stronger democratic process, that can only be a good thing. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Thank you. I call on—

Andy Foster: Mr Speaker—oh, are you going to do it?

SPEAKER: —the Hon Casey Costello.

Andy Foster: I thought I was going to do it—OK, away you go.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): We’re just fighting for it, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: That’s all right. It’s very good of Mr Foster to call you!

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I’ve very sure he couldn’t see me. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Parliament Bill and to commend the process of establishing a separate select committee, which, I think, will be very important moving forward to ensure we continue with this clear bipartisan approach. There are some important aspects of this constitutional arrangement that the Parliament Bill will achieve, and I think that, in the long term, this is about improving our democratic processes and systems, and the independence around the financial funding will be highly well received and simplify a lot of the complexity that currently exists.

I would like to speak briefly around the protection of our open and accessible Parliament and the importance of our democratic process. It relies on our public having accessibility to this House, and I would commend, and I have a high degree of respect for, the security services that are provided in this precinct. Having had a previous role, many years ago, running security in this precinct, I was warmed by the fact that when I returned, some nearly 20 years later, I was greeted by familiar faces. That continuity of service and professionalism that is delivered by security services is important, but I think the key point which is needing to be emphasised is that, in order to protect our open and accessible democracy, we need to ensure that the public who enter this place and the people who work here are assured of a level of protection and assurance that they will be safe and that they will be able to be heard.

Unfortunately, the nature of our changing times is that we do need to step up the security presence, and we know we have a very commendable model that has been introduced in the courts and has been highly successful, and I think that model will continue to be a guide to this way forward. I know there will be a lot of important, complex discussions as we go through this debate, but, foundationally, this is an important piece of legislation with, of course, constitutional implications but, I think, to the benefit overall of our democracy, and I take pleasure in commending it to the House.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. This institution—and in my time since entering this very building, I have learnt some of its inner workings, including the likes of what we are to discuss today. While we support the establishment of a select committee—we think that’s a very good idea and we should do that—we oppose the increase of power to Parliament security. You’ll appreciate what I mean as I go into my kōrero.

Māori experiences in Parliament are different to those who may get to walk these halls freely and without prejudice. This is just not good enough. For us as a party, it is always concerning when more power is afforded to those who may subconsciously or consciously seek to position themselves above. This is achieved in many ways, and certainly through job title. While I respect the efforts of the staff here, including my nephew who is a security staff member—our safety is paramount—I must, in the same breath, question what safety looks like and who the so-called safety is truly benefiting. When racial profiling is our reality, what does it really mean when we afford more power to security? These are discussions I look forward to having following the establishment of this select committee.

Another concern raised revolves around ensuring that Parliament is a family friendly environment and that’s an important piece of discussion and an important part and aspect of this bill. Māori settings are not the same. It is not “two parents and a single child”—the dynamics of being Māori and the way in which we have our whānau settings are quite different. Of course, more recently when Hana, who is one of our newest and youngest—there had to be some adjustments to the way in which that was considered because she is so young. That’s a good thing, but there were some adjustments that had to be made to enable her to have her whānau come with her.

I think that kind of discussion and debate—I’m looking forward to that happening because I think it’ll throw up more than just that particular situation, but others in the way in which we understand and appreciate what family actually looks like. For Māori particularly, whānau is so much more than just a mother and father. Government definitions of “whānau” don’t work for us; whānau stretches wider and is never restricted to only shared toto.

If this institution is committed to also being culturally safe, then we need more than the changes that are being discussed today. While we support the establishment of a select committee, which we do, we demand discussion on how those will truly impact our staff who have numerous accounts of racial profiling and continued experiences that limit our whānau and their ability to stand alongside us.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I rise to support colleagues from around the Chamber in support of the introduction and the first reading of this Parliament Bill. We, as New Zealanders, are fortunate to live in a stable democracy, one that has an unbroken democratic tradition going back more than 160 years. We’re one of only a handful of countries in the world that can say that with pride and with dignity. For that democracy to function as it does, it needs to have a Parliament that administers itself in a way that is relevant, that is modern, that is timely, and that is appropriate for the society and the evolving nature not only of Parliament and the administration of it but the evolving nature of society as well.

I’ve noted the comments that other members have made in this early stage of the Parliament Bill debate. I’m also looking forward to watching closely the special select committee that has been, or will be, established to guide this piece of legislation through our Parliament. I’m delighted—and I think it’s very appropriate and fitting—that it will be chaired by an Opposition member, a respected former Speaker of the House, the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe. I know that he and the committee will do a very thorough job.

Like the Hon Chris Bishop, I’m looking forward to some of the, what I think may be, quite academic pieces of submission that are made from a range of people. I’m not going to go through the list that the Hon Chris Bishop went through, but those are people who, like many of us, take this place seriously. Sometimes, I think it’s too easy to sit on the sideline and say, “Well, what happens in Parliament doesn’t matter. It’s not important, it’s not relevant.” Well, actually, it is important and it is relevant. It is something that we, as New Zealanders—whether we are members of this Chamber for the time that we are here or whether we are not—should take seriously and we should take appropriately.

Ours is a small, intimate, and sometimes imperfect little democracy, but it’s our democracy. I think it’s something that we should cherish, something that we should honour, and something that we should respect, but that doesn’t mean that it has to always stay exactly the same. This piece of legislation seeks to modernise and update a number of pieces of existing legislation that govern and administer the operations of this place on behalf of all citizens in our country, and I think that’s appropriate. Modernisation is something that we all have to confront from time to time, and that old saying that “There is nothing more certain than change itself” is, I think, appropriate when it comes to thinking about how our Parliament operates.

We have a kind of almost unique unicameral system: we don’t have an Upper House, we don’t have a Senate. We make our own rules, but we do so considering those that will follow us in years to come. We hope, I think, that as we go through this process the Parliament and the operation of our Parliament will be made better for the benefit of those that are involved in this place today and those that will follow.

On that note, I’m looking forward to the process of the special select committee, and I’m looking forward to the progress of the legislation, and I know that there will be many people outside this place that will be following it as closely as we are here. Thank you.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I first heard about the Parliament Bill in an email from the Hon Christopher Finlayson, and I had occasion to hear about it quite often while I was a Speaker of this House. Can I just join with colleagues around the House in supporting this in its first reading to go to a select committee. I think it is very important. Can I just touch on the security issues, as a former Speaker having to deal with the consequences of not having some of the powers that this piece of legislation will give. I can tell the House that it’s incredibly important that we consider that very carefully, because the consequences of not having those powers actually impact on everyone’s safety—MPs, staff and those who visit Parliament—and it should be a place where everyone should feel safe.

I note that the drafting of the legislation has been done, I consider, in a very careful way. I’ve read other commentary as well that states that this has been drafted in quite a particular way that, in my opinion, does not overstep a mark where police should take over. It’s to a point that our security here in Parliament should be able to act until police arrive, and I think that’s entirely appropriate. I support that.

I also support the proposed changes to the way that Parliament is funded. I think perception in politics is really everything, and if there’s a perception—and this is not an accusation—that the Government is interfering with the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the Government, then that will be the narrative.

I want to acknowledge both the Leader of the House for his leadership in getting this to first reading after a very long gestation. I want to acknowledge, as I said before, the Hon Christopher Finlayson—he was a strong advocate of this—and also the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard when he was Speaker as well. I think it’s important that we do the very best as a select committee to make sure that Parliament can scrutinise effectively the executive. I think, through this bill, that will happen. I won’t go into all the other parts of the bill, but I just want to let the House know I look forward to participating in that select committee. Kia ora.

SPEAKER: I call on Dana Kirlpatrick—Kirkpatrick.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker—“Kirkpatrick”, yes. I get called all sorts of different names. Look, I just rise to speak on this bill here, the Parliament Bill, and it’s an honour to do so. I’d like to just first acknowledge all the people who have worked so hard on this over a great deal of years and acknowledge the work that’s gone into it. You can see that there has been a huge amount of effort. I think it’s important because it relates to our constitution, and we need to evolve and we need to change as society moves along. Some of the changes in here are worthwhile.

Just to recap, of course, the Parliament Bill is designed to bring together those four different pieces of legislation in the desire to give greater clarity to rules around MP expenses, to give consistency to the duties, functions, and powers of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, and align provisions relating to appointments and conditions of the Clerk of the House and the Chief Executive of the Parliamentary Service.

One of the areas of change relates to our approach to parliamentary security, and there would be no one here in this building who doesn’t appreciate the efforts of our wonderful parliamentary security officers. They’re here all hours of the day and the night and they’re looking after the MPs, the staff, and the visitors, but the landscape has changed, as we know, and the way MPs, in particular, are now targeted has changed as well. I’m the co-chair with my colleague across the House Cushla Tangaere-Manuel for the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians and we have a particular focus on security. Some of these changes are extremely interesting for us, and we are pleased to see that they’re in place because we have been discussing this very issue in our committee meetings.

The changes set out in the bill give the security officers the powers of search, the powers to deny entry and ability to seize items as specified, and temporarily detain people, if necessary, similar to those used by court officers. This also extends to them using those powers where select committees might be off site around the country. I have attended some of those in different parts of the country, which didn’t need security officers, I should say—but, you know, if they do—and at an electorate office, in case of appropriate threats or things that might not be going well. So we would support that. Those were some of the things that we have talked about as well.

In terms of members’ funding and services, there’s always scrutiny of these areas and rightly so, but it is time some changes were made. I in particular am pleased to see a couple of things happening in there along with all the other changes, but I’d just like to point out, members often have to be away from home in Wellington, and their dependent children, under these changes, would be able to travel with their parents as a key way to support members. I think that is to be commended. The definition of a “dependent” also will be amended to include any child over the age of 18 who’s still at secondary school, or anyone over the age of 18 for that family who is, due to a disability, dependent on the MP for their daily care or as a member of their family.

For me, it’s about balance, about MPs needing to be able to use these tools to maintain balance between the relentless nature of the job, the need to be present in their families, and ensuring that public funding is used appropriately. We on this side of the House are about efficiency and pragmatic solutions. I’m pleased that we have support across the House, largely, for this and we recognise that while there are updates required and the bill provides for those, this is a very welcome piece of legislation. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be able to take a call on this Parliament Bill at its first reading. This is a very important bill. Some members have said that the public is not going to necessarily find this very interesting, but I think, once they get into it, they’ll see that there are a number of elements there that I personally think are interesting. I’m probably maybe not the best barometer of what’s interesting in relation to legislation, but I find it interesting and I wanted to touch on a few things which I do think are particularly important.

I also want to acknowledge the concerns raised by Te Pāti Māori in relation to security guards. Labour supports this bill and we do support the powers as they are currently in this bill at the moment, but I don’t think that means we don’t recognise that giving significant powers of search and seizure and temporary detention—which is what this bill proposes—are significant, and we shouldn’t go into those types of discussion without making sure that they are proportionate to the need. I think we can all recognise, unfortunately, that we do need to have security in Parliament and also I support the provisions that allow that security to travel around the country as well, but we do need to make sure that we’re not overstepping the mark in relation to civil liberties, and those are proportionate too. I acknowledge those concerns and I hope that the special select committee chaired by the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe will be able to look into that and give that the consideration that I do consider it deserves, regardless of the submissions that may be made on this bill.

I wanted to also talk about the family friendly—as has been referred to—provisions in this Parliament Bill. Now, these might seem like minor changes, but they actually have arisen in the past in relation to members of Parliament. It’s only relatively recently that I think we can confidently say our Parliament is one of the more family friendly Parliaments in the world, but there are still barriers. For example, for those with young children who do not reside in Wellington, who do not have family in Wellington, it is a very difficult situation to know how they’re able to keep that proximity with their young children and also be able to perform their duties as a parliamentarian. I think these changes will help that. I still think it’s probably more difficult for those particular people to decide to become members of Parliament. I think it’s an ongoing conversation that we should be having around accessibility and the representative nature of this House to make sure that there aren’t barriers for people. I think we’ve done a lot of good work, and I think this continues on a lot of good work done by previous Parliaments as well.

Also the definition of “dependent child”, as well as the definition of “caregiver”, is also really important. Members in this House, there are a lot of diverse families, a lot of diverse personal situations which I don’t think the public are often aware of. I don’t think they necessarily need to be aware of those, but people who have different family situations need to be able to participate in our democracy, regardless of their family situations. I think that this does go some way towards allowing people who have different needs of their family members to allow them to also meet those needs of their family and also participate as parliamentarians. I really do support those particular provisions and I hope that the special select committee is able to interrogate those and make sure that they are properly fit for purpose.

Another area that I think is really important in this bill is the definition of “parliamentary purpose”, which is covered in this as well. Members of the public may not know what that means, but for us and for those of us in this Chamber who really want to make sure that they’re doing the right thing and being transparent and accountable, it’s something that we think about a lot. What is the purpose of our particular function that we’re doing? Is it sufficiently connected to our parliamentary role? How do we best use taxpayers’ money in order to perform our function as a parliamentarian while still being accountable? I think that’s a really important aspect of this bill, and I think the select committee should look at that.

The other thing I think is the point around separation of powers, which I’ll just touch on briefly. It is really important and I think, probably, in my view, maybe the single most important aspect of this bill: the fact that this entrenches a greater separation of powers, because it does not allow a situation where a future Government could defund the operation of Parliament, the operation of the Opposition, and, therefore, the function of our democracy. There can be very few things more important than maintaining our democracy, and I think this bill—although the changes are small—does go a certain way towards making that democracy stronger. Therefore, I’m really interested to see how it develops, and I commend it to the House.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a constitutionally important bill. It reflects a decade of quiet Government work spanning three Governments and five Prime Ministers. It’s an omnibus bill, and it consolidates the four separate Acts that currently regulate the operation of Parliament into a single Act. It makes the legislature more independent from other branches of government.

One of the key changes in the Parliament Bill is it sets out a funding model for parliamentary agencies, including the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk. They’ll no longer be funded by the Government of the day through the Budget process. Rather, they’ll receive their funding from Parliament, through a similar process, as independent officers, like the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman. I’d like to acknowledge the Clerk of the House, David Wilson, and the Chief Executive of the Parliamentary Service, Raf Gonzalez-Montero, and, of course, all of those who work for these vital agencies, without whom this place simply wouldn’t run and we wouldn’t be able to do our jobs as elected representatives.

Another notable change is to empower Parliament’s security team. At present, Parliament security officers have no more powers than private security guards hired to man the door of a downtown nightclub. While the changes would certainly have helped during the 2022 occupation of Parliament, they were, in fact, proposed before both COVID and the occupation, following a 2019 review of the precinct’s security. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge all of Parliament’s security officers, like Siaosi, who do an outstanding job working around the clock, looking after MPs, staff, and visitors to the parliamentary precinct. They deserve credit, and they deserve the tools to be able to do their jobs as effectively and as efficiently as possible.

Victoria University of Wellington professor of public law Dean Knight said of the bill: “It’s an exciting time for constitutional trainspotters, because we are seeing parts of our constitution being consolidated and built in a way which better reflects the separation of powers which lies at the heart of our governmental system. It’s the institutional recognition of Parliament and its infrastructure and apparatus as a single entity. You’re starting to see the gathering together of the important rules that make it work. You see an institution rightly shaping itself out as a really important and really independent institution within the constitutional frame.”

This bill, this omnibus bill, brings together four separate Acts of Parliament into one piece of legislation. It ensures the independence of Parliament from the executive, it protects the privilege of Parliament, and it streamlines the different functions of Parliament and its agencies. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Parliament Bill Committee.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the introduction and all stages of the Imprest Supply (Second for 2024/25) Bill and the third reading of the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill; the remaining stages of the Education and Training Amendment Bill; the interrupted debate on the instruction to committee for the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2), and the amendment proposed to it; the introduction, first reading, and referral to select committee of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill; the third reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to select committee of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill and the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill; and the second reading of the Contracts of Insurance Bill.

Members will be aware that the House lost a sitting day when we adjourned at the start of this sitting block. With tomorrow originally having been scheduled to be a members’ day, this urgency motion is required to get a variety of first readings off to select committee, as well as passing three important pieces of legislation. The alternative, being honest with the House, is that we would have been moving urgency on Thursday afternoon, going into Friday, and I suspect I have the agreement of the House in saying that people would not be keen on that because of the members’ day.

Under the Standing Orders, we’re required to pass the third reading of the Estimates bill this sitting week, which is within four months of its first reading. We’re also passing the Education and Training Amendment Bill to give charter schools enough lead time to open by term 1 next year. So there is some time pressure on having that bill passed. There are four first readings, two of which have shortened report-backs than normal, and we want to make sure that select committees with those bills have as much time as practically possible. We’ve also made a commitment to pass the Corrections Amendment Bill this quarter, and we want to proceed through the next stage of the Contracts of Insurance Bill, which does have quite widespread support across the House, and we want to see prompt progress on this.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Introduction of bills

Introduction of bills

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

CLERK:

Imprest Supply (Second for 2024/25) Bill, introduction

Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill, introduction

Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill and the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill are set down for first reading presently. The Imprest Supply (Second for 2024/25) Bill is set down for first reading immediately.

Bills

Imprest Supply (Second for 2024/25) Bill

First Reading

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2024/25) Bill be now read a first time.

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

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2024/25) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

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

Bills

Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill

Third Reading

Bills

Imprest Supply (Second for 2024/25) Bill

Second Reading

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2024/25) Bill be now read a second time.

There are two bills here for the House’s consideration, and I’ve taken the time ahead of this speech to consider how I communicate to the Parliament what these two pieces of legislation separately do. They are very important pieces of legislation because in New Zealand’s public finance system, Estimates bills, imprest supply bills, and Supplementary Estimates bills work together to ensure the Government, when it spends money, does so lawfully and with the authority of Parliament. That is, they ensure that Government can incur expenses and capital expenditure at any time during the year with the authority of Parliament, because it is not the executive that determines whether or not it can spend taxpayers’ money; it is the executive with Parliament’s support that is able to make those judgments.

The Estimates bill is the centre of that network of legislation. Of course, that’s the bill we call the “Budget”, which was announced in May—wasn’t that a great day?—and that is a very important piece of legislation. It is the way that Parliament approves the Government’s Budget and the changes that this year were very sorely needed to appropriations to get New Zealand back on track, to reduce the taxes that New Zealand working people needed to pay, to ensure that we got spending under control, that we took pressure off inflation, and set a path back to surplus, lower debt, and stronger economic growth.

As I say, the Budget, however, was delivered in May, and that is before the beginning of the next financial year, which doesn’t kick off until June. We’re now almost three months into the 2024-25 financial year, but the Budget has not yet passed. So then what happens in the interim in terms of the authority for the Government to spend money? To bridge the gap between the Budget bill passing and the time in the last three months, the House has an imprest supply bill. The House passed the first one on 25 June, and that bill provided financial authority in the interim for the Government to incur expenses and capital expenditure for the first three months of the financial year. That means that we can spend money before the Estimates bill has got to its third reading.

That first imprest supply bill has now done its job, and today the House considers the second imprest bill for 2024-25. This bill seeks interim parliamentary authority for expenditure decisions made or to be made by the Government through to the end of the financial year that are additional to the amounts in the Estimates bill. So what sorts of things are those? It provides for any operating or capital spending decisions which are things like pre-commitments against future Budget allowances and expenditure from the between Budget contingency, but, most importantly, it covers fiscally neutral adjustments from one appropriation through to another and is sufficient to cover any extra expenditure that may occur before the passing of the Budget. Put simply, it is the safety net of the public finance system to ensure that spending occurs lawfully. Today, in addition to that second imprest supply bill, we are dealing with the third reading of the 2024 Budget. Today marks the day that this Government’s first Budget becomes law, so I want to run through some of the highlights of our Budget for the House.

For the first time in 14 years, New Zealanders got to keep more of their own money through this Government’s tax relief. Households with children are directly better off by an average of $78 a fortnight; hard cash in their bank accounts, opposed by every member of the Opposition, who would have said that those households did not deserve that money. That tax relief was fully funded through savings and some revenue-raising measures such as a tax on online casinos, and, contrary to the reckons of some members, it did not add to debt and it did not create inflationary pressures. The best evidence of that, colleagues, is that since the passing of the Budget, not only have we seen inflation decline rapidly and be forecast to be back in band but we’ve also seen the Reserve Bank reduce interest rates a full year earlier than had been forecast, in recognition of the reduced inflationary pressures in our economy. Next time “Chicken Little” over the way says that the sky is falling and things are going to cause inflation, just remember what we said at Budget time, which was that our tax package would not put pressure on inflation. It did not. Inflation has come down, interest rates are coming down faster, and New Zealanders are better off in three ways. First, they have tax relief; second, inflation is lower; and, third, interest rates are lower, too.

Actually, the thing that’s very interesting, I think, about our Budget is that, yes, we were very careful about the way that we funded tax relief. We saw that it was overdue and we saw that working people were having to give away more and more of their hard-earned income in tax, but we also recognised that we needed to keep investing in more effective public services, and I think that a little-known fact is that two-thirds of the new spending in our Budget goes to three key areas: health, education, and law and order. Those are the three areas that our Government was elected to focus on and that we are funding as matters of priority.

There are other targeted areas of investment, including transport, defence, disability services, and others, but in order to sustain those investments we have taken a very responsible course, which is that we have recognised the unsustainable spending trajectory that the last Government left us on and we have chosen to carefully reprioritise money to New Zealanders’ highest priorities. This Budget delivers $23 billion of reprioritisation over the next four years so that we can make the sorely needed investments in more front-line police officers, in more funding for our health system, and in ensuring that our schools can deploy structured literacy.

That savings programme is significant. I had my office do some calculations to see what would have happened if we’d stuck to the spending plans of the last Government, and what that analysis shows is that New Zealand’s Government finances wouldn’t have got back into balance until 2030-31. That is how long the structural deficit would have been maintained. We had no choice but to rein things in, and in this Budget, we have taken very deliberate steps to do that, meaning that we can forecast the books coming back into balance and a surplus in 2027-28.

The reason that that matters, members, is because that is what will allow us to start paying down the significant burden of debt left to us by the last Government—a significant burden of debt that had been driven by an 80 percent increase in annual spending. The question that New Zealanders always ask me is this: where did all the money go? I think that New Zealanders might have some sympathy for increased spending if they’d seen increased results, but what we saw in health was growing waiting lists, we saw growing problems in education and we saw declining rates of achievement, and we saw soaring rates of violent crime.

The point I am making is a simple one: our Budget is not just about saying that we’re spending more money and issuing some press releases with big dollars on them; it’s about being careful and targeted and accountable for where money goes. The money that we spend is matched with targets with fair reporting on quarterly, and we take very seriously our duty to be good custodians of public money.

Before I finish my remarks about this Budget, let me be clear: New Zealand still faces many challenges. We are seeing green shoots in our economy. After a sustained cost of living crisis, inflation is coming down, food price increases are coming down, interest rates are coming down, and that’s reviving confidence in many parts of the economy.

We know it’s still tough for many New Zealanders, and that is why we are so focused on what we can do in this House to grow our economy faster. That is why we are focused on a programme of regulatory reform, on ensuring fast-track consenting, on delivering smarter infrastructure, on reforming our science and innovation systems, on lifting educational standards, and on ensuring more overseas investment and more overseas trade, because, together, those things will mean that there is more growth in our economy, we can have more prosperous families and communities, and future Budgets will make better choices for future generations. I am proud to commend these bills to the House.

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

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): Last year, the National Party and their coalition partners went into the election campaign with so many promises for New Zealand. They promised to fix the health system. They promised to fix the infrastructure problems that we’re facing as a country. They promised they were going to fix the economy. They were going to fix the education system. And all we have heard from them since the time they got elected is blame for everything that they haven’t been able to fix in the near-year that they have been in power. Every political party that goes into Government has choices to make. They make sure they are clear of what their priorities are, and the priorities of that Government have disappointed New Zealanders.

Nothing that New Zealanders were promised would be fixed has been fixed. In fact, we are going backwards. I could look at so many areas and, in fact, thinking about this speech, I didn’t even know where I should start. I thought I’d start with what is probably indicative of the priorities of that side of the House versus this side, and that’s even just the first 100 days. In our first 100 days, when we got into Government, we put $5.5 billion into a Families Package that was focused on reducing poverty, that was focused on supporting the lowest to middle income households in New Zealand. That meant a winter energy payment. That meant a Best Start payment. That meant doing something and investing in parental leave. That meant investing in Working For Families.

What did we see in their first 100 days? We saw them taking money off the poorest New Zealanders, reversing a change we had made to index benefits to wage growth instead of to inflation, because that would see it go up faster. What we saw in the first 100 days of that side of the House was them reversing that change. Now, that change was something that the Children’s Commissioner at the time had said would be one of the biggest things that we could do to address child poverty in this country. That side of the House decided to deprioritise addressing child poverty in this country. They decided to take around $500 million, $600 million off the poorest New Zealanders to help them pay for their tax cuts.

Then we see and hear that they were given advice that it would take about $3 billion a year if they were going to seriously address child poverty in this country. They decided, no, they wouldn’t do that. Instead, they would give $2.9 billion to landlords. Now, where do their priorities lay? Clearly in the wrong place. Who needed that money? Was it landlords or was it children living in poverty? It was children living in poverty. And families continue to struggle. I’m not going to listen to the Minister of Finance in this House try and make out that she’s made life better for New Zealanders, because she hasn’t made life better for New Zealanders. They are continuing to struggle. Yes, I acknowledge interest rates have come down a little bit, inflation has come down a little bit. That was already anticipated; had already been forecast whilst we were in Government. It’s not like that side of the House has done anything to actually assist with those things happening. In fact, I wonder whether or not it’s going slower, in some instances.

She talks about the fact that inflation has come down; it hasn’t come down for non-tradables. Everyone’s feeling the pinch with their energy bills. Households are feeling the expense of their energy bills. In fact, we’ve heard in recent weeks and months that, actually, businesses are feeling the bite with their increased energy bills and that is having an impact on exports. The Minister wants to take some responsibility or all responsibility for anything that might be going slightly OK, but she doesn’t want to take responsibility for everything that is going backwards, even though it is, clearly, under her watch.

They have made a mess. They came in with the intention, in so many instances, with so many sectors, just to turn things upside down: repeal all the changes that Labour had made to the health system, repeal the changes to the tertiary education; repeal, repeal, repeal with no plan—no plan to actually make it better for New Zealanders. And then what we end up with is just a huge gap and everyone standing there with uncertainty, wondering what on earth is going on in every sector that you can imagine.

On top of that, there were other changes and repeals that they made that have had a huge impact on New Zealanders: deciding to take free prescriptions off Kiwis, something that even the chemists across the country had said would make a huge difference. Here they are back to that situation that they had before, when Kiwis had to pay for their prescriptions with packages lined up at the back of their shop because no one has gone into those chemists—well, lots of people haven’t gone into those chemists to pick up those prescriptions. So stingy too: you know, they talk about wanting to give landlords a tax break of $2.9 billion, and then you have them diminishing the lunches in schools programme, wanting to take the option of healthy meals away from the poorest kids in New Zealand whilst taking that money and giving it to landlords.

We’re not going to stand here and say that we can support the Budget and the priorities of that Government, because, to be quite frank, they are taking New Zealand backwards in so many regards. I’ve already talked about child poverty, but I want to touch on housing as well. We put a massive investment into public housing. I think it was the most houses that had been built in the public housing space since the 1970s, and we needed it. We needed it so badly and we still need it, and yet we see in that Government’s Budget that $435 million has been cut from the Kāinga Ora house-build programme, over $1 billion from the maintenance fund, as if people in Kāinga Ora or public housing don’t need their houses to be maintained. We’ve seen reduced funding not only for public housing but also for youth transitional housing. They deny or seem to ignore that there is an issue with respect to youth homelessness. We’ve seen $40 million cut from Māori housing developments, and, to be honest, it’s not a surprise given their overall backward agenda for Māori.

That’s the other point I wanted to raise. It has been so disgusting and difficult to watch the divisive agenda from that side of the House when it comes to the Treaty of Waitangi, with regards to the treatment of Māori in general, with regards to respect for te reo Māori. When they stood in the House last week wearing their badges, an acknowledgment of Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori, I sat here shaking my head thinking, “How can you possibly stand up in this House and act like you are supporters of anything Māori?” I did say a few weeks ago, which seemed to hurt them, that they don’t seem to want Māori to do well in this country at all, and, in fact, would choose to turn different groups of New Zealanders against tangata whenua as a way to achieve whatever their political agenda is. It is a divide and rule agenda, and it is so familiar. It is not unpredictable. It is what they have done before, but it has been done worse through this Budget and under that Government than ever before.

On top of all of the Budget implications, we have things like the Treaty principles bill. We have Ministers on that side of the House unashamedly trying to wipe te reo Māori out of legislation, even out of correspondence that they send to other people. They have made choices and I’m really fearful for what their choices will continue to be. They are taking New Zealanders backwards and New Zealanders know this. There’s a real disappointment out there from the general public. They are not comfortable with the policy agenda, the narrative, or anything that is coming out of the Government’s mouths.

Finally, I want to end on how difficult this Budget must have been to pull together, given the absolute chaos they are experiencing with their coalition. One person says something; another leader comes out in the media opposing what has been said by the other political party. It is an absolute shambles. Luxon has no control. How could he possibly control David Seymour and Winston Peters, particularly when they don’t even like each other? You’ve got three political parties that can’t make a decision on anything, including ferries—but we won’t have enough time to go there. They are stagnating and it’s causing New Zealand to stagnate. It’s causing New Zealand not only to stagnate but causing us to go backwards. Their cuts are going too far and too fast. They are hurting New Zealanders. New Zealanders are feeling it. This is not what they voted for, and we will not be supporting this bill.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I know that this is, effectively, a Budget debate, but I did want to contextualise this within it being Mental Health Awareness Week. And I think that that’s really important in the context of a report that was tabled in this Parliament a few years ago now, called He Ara Oranga, tabled in, I believe, 2019. What that report detailed is reflective of a bunch of the contemporary research internationally. It, effectively, says that all of us have genetics which we’ve inherited from our parents and our grandparents before them, which can potentially predispose us towards more or less manifestation of mental ill health, but it is, effectively, the environment that we are in, the opportunities that we have access to, the socio-economic determinants that turn those things up or down a notch, that can be what are called the aggravating or mitigating factors.

This is particularly relevant as we debate a Budget, and this Government’s intentions with its public policy that flow from it, in the context of what I would say are really critical suicide prevention interventions that we could make as a country. So frequently we talk about it in terms of crisis support, but if we really drill down into it and what “prevention” actually means, then let’s talk about the fact that good, stable incomes are suicide prevention. Let’s talk about the fact that stable, secure, and affordable housing is suicide prevention. Let’s talk about the fact that people’s ability to belong and feel affirmed in their identity and exist within their community is suicide prevention.

Which is why it is utterly galling to be debating, effectively, the contents of this Government’s Budget in the context of this Government having come into power with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon foreshadowing at the end of last year that they were going to have to make some of what he called “hard choices”. We saw those reflected in even just their miniBudget before Christmas, where we saw that they were knowingly deciding to push tens of thousands more children into poverty in order to make a number of the cuts that they did. We saw that flow through into the Budget at the beginning or middle of this year. The hard choice that this Government is talking about are knowingly increasing our emissions and knowingly increasing inequality and child poverty in order to fund their tax cuts, which their own advice says will disproportionately benefit the wealthiest that already exists within this country.

Many before have said—and I’m sure will continue to persist in saying—that Budgets are values documents. What are the values of this Government as we can see reflected in this Budget? My old man raised me to believe not just what people say but to look at what they do. When we look at what this Government does—just for some numbers, given that we are going through this Budget—this Government has set targets for child poverty. They tried to do it quietly—which would mean an additional 24,000 children living in material hardship by 2027-28. They are spending $3 billion per annum—that is over $12 billion over four years on their trickle-down tax cuts. They are spending $216 million on tobacco tax cuts that seemingly nobody except the tobacco industry and New Zealand First asked for. They’re cutting over 6,200 jobs in the Public Service, yet what you hear from their rhetoric in the public domain—cruel and unusual and micromanaging rhetoric—is that the reason that the Wellington City centre is dying is because public servants are allowed to work from home. They’ve also cut $120 million from Oranga Tamariki’s contracted services, which includes 25 percent of Family Start funding, which will mean a loss of around 100 social worker jobs. They’ve also cut 332 front-line Oranga Tamariki contracted services, and we’ve seen that reflected in how one of the Ministers doesn’t seem to be across her brief in correcting answers earlier today.

We’ve also seen that this Government has chosen to double the price of public transport. For some more figures: they have slashed funding for better bus driver conditions by $47 million. They’ve also decided to spend a billion dollars to advance roads of what they call national significance. They have decided to cut $617 million over four years from the Ministry for the Environment; from the Department of Conservation, they’re cutting $45 million over four years; from Jobs for Nature, $55 million; from the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, $17 million; from Māori Development, they’ve cut $154 million in the 2024-25 Budget. And in health, they are also making astronomical, hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of cuts.

Now, I don’t think that you have to be a rocket scientist to look around at the infrastructure in this country, whether it be transport, whether it be our hospitals, whether it be our schools, whether it be housing, to get a really clear picture that things simply aren’t not working. One of the things that I will agree with this Government and its members on is that these things did not happen overnight, but one thing that I would point out to them is that, by virtue of the likes of the figures that I have just gone through, they are actively making the decision to make these problems worse. It is the case that we have had decades of successive Governments choose to under-invest in our collective infrastructure, which has made all of us more the poorer for it, but different decisions can be made.

This is where I think all of us in this House, regardless of whichever side we sit on, actually have to be honest with ourselves. If we want to do something meaningful about even just that infrastructural deficit, which is estimated to be approximately $100 billion for the last 30 years, and $100 billion looking forward over the next 30, we are going to have to pay for that infrastructure. The question for all of us is: how do we want to go about doing that? Well, we could do that through debt. Obviously, this Government is also taking on more debt, although the Minister of Finance is saying she’s not doing that to pay for her tax cuts. We could decide to fix our tax system, which is demonstrably one of the most unfair in the entire world. Or we could choose to privatise that infrastructure and, effectively, take a user-pays type of approach, which appears to be what this Government is on the trajectory of: selling off our country to the highest bidder.

These conversations and these reflections are happening on the backdrop of the data and evidence from the likes of the IRD High-Wealth Individuals Research Project Report, which was tabled in this Parliament just last year. What that report told us—

James Meager: What’s the co-leader’s salary?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —is that the top 311 households in this country hold more wealth combined, James Meager, than the bottom 2.5 million New Zealanders. That report also extolled that the reason for that is not an accident but a consequence of a tax system that intentionally is designed to see those at the top pay an effective tax rate less than half of that of the average New Zealander. I find that galling. Yet what we saw as one of the first moves from this Government in their mini-Budget, and alongside their rash of policies that they put through the shredder in their first 100 days, was actually to remove that requirement for IRD to do that reporting on the inequity of our tax system—nothing to see here! Don’t worry about it! It’s not unfair; it’s not unequal—we just won’t report on it!

Therein lies some of the many ironies and contradictions from this Government: the fact that, in their very own coalition agreement, they have a commitment to make policy decisions based on what they call “data and evidence”; meanwhile, they are intentionally cutting the jobs and not filling vacancies that would provide them with the data and evidence to make those decisions in the first place. Then, when they are handed that data and evidence, they choose to entirely ignore it, to neglect it, or to sideline it.

I’ve just heard from the Minister of Finance that her goal with these budgetary decisions is, you know, just to get us back to the good old place of economic growth. That, again, is where I think that we as parliamentarians need to look in the mirror. What is it when we’re talking about this thing called the economy? The economy is simply all of us and the things that we create and the planet that we live on and the rules that we put in place to govern those relationships. What the Greens would say is that, right now, the way that we are choosing to put those rules in place, and those systems of governance, do not reflect an economy that supports people and the planet but in fact the opposite—it actively exploits them. You see that—you see that—when you get out there and you talk to New Zealanders outside of these wood-panelled walls and you hear about the utter exhaustion.

This Government likes to talk a lot about hard-working New Zealanders and the debts that’s owed to them. Well, the debt that is owed genuinely to those hard-working New Zealanders is to meaningfully fulfil the social contract and ensure that we are meaningfully and properly investing in the infrastructure that fundamentally all of us rely on. It doesn’t have to be this way. Different decisions can be made. We can have an economy that supports people and the planet, we can have a fair tax system, and we can fix our infrastructure.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Finance): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start off with the voices of some of the people that I’ve heard from up and down New Zealand this winter, and I can tell you that they are doing it tough. You wouldn’t normally hear that from a Government. Usually, people on the Government side tell you it’s all fabulous and there’s nothing to worry about, but I can tell you that people out there are doing it tough.

I think what people are experiencing when they balance their GST late at night for their small business or when they gather around the kitchen table and look at when their mortgage rates have increased or may still increase coming off lower rates from two years ago—people sit there and they say, “Far out. I think things are tougher for us than is widely acknowledged in the public media or in public debate.” That is where we’re starting from: people just trying to get by. I think it’s actually time that we get a bit of realism and acknowledge that, but I also feel able to acknowledge it because I am confident that, while it is difficult, we have a Government that is prepared to confront the truth and actually make changes to solve the problem.

The problem, in a nutshell, is that we’ve had a Government that spent too much money for too few results. When a Government takes money—especially money that’s borrowed overseas—and pumps it into the domestic economy without producing extra goods, you’ve got more money and the same amount of stuff to buy, and that means prices rise, and that’s called inflation. None of this is complicated. Some people make it out to be more complicated than it is—we just heard someone like that, actually—but it is too much money chasing too few goods. That is what this Government has inherited. It’s also inherited the high interest rates that are punishing households, punishing small businesses trying to keep their working capital, and we have to do something about it.

Actually, what we have to do is very simple. We need a Government that’s prepared to tighten its belt, just the way that people and families and firms and farms have been forced to tighten their belt in the last three years, nearly, of a cost of living crisis. You will see in this Budget document a whole lot of measures to reduce what the Government spends and get more value out of it for everyday New Zealanders, so that, once again, Kiwis can fly, economically speaking.

To give you a bit of context of how we got there: this year, the Government will spend $138 billion. Now, if we were to go back to the pre-COVID era—it will be interesting to see if anyone on the other side knows how much money the Government spent in 2017. Does anyone remember that before they got into Government? Anyone on the other side? No? So $76 billion was how much the Government spent in the 2017 year; $80 billion in 2018—arguably, the last Budget of the previous Labour Government. The question is how much do we spend now? It’s $138 billion. That’s $62 billion extra spending. When I hear people on the other side carrying on like this is some sort of massive slash and burn, and “How will we have civilisation? It’s going to affect people’s mental health because there’s just no spending.”, my answer is: $138 billion—$62 billion more than was spent in the 2017 year. Those are the basic facts.

What this Government is doing is making sure that we’re getting value for money, instead of throwing money at every problem, because our country tried that. We borrowed $100 billion overseas. We pumped inflation into the economy. We forced up interest rates, hurting and harming every family in this country, every small business, people that can’t make ends meet. And the Opposition have the temerity to say, “Oh, people are leaving for Australia.” Well, yes, they are. The Opposition might have some recollections of what actions are causing that. It’s the pressure on people that are feeling it tough. That is why, as a Government, we are unapologetically across the board saying to Government departments, “You’ve got to make cuts.” You’ve had years where you’ve had, basically, an 80 percent increase over six or seven years in the amount of money you’ve spent; now we’re asking you to pull back by 6 or 7 percent. It’s nowhere near as dramatic as it’s made out to be, but it’s absolutely necessary.

What do these reductions in expenditure allow us to do? Well, it means we’re going to have fewer public servants. People say, “It’s terrible. The Government’s firing everyone.” Let’s get a reality check. From 2017 to 2023, this country went from having a core Public Service of 47,000 people up to 62,000. It increased by just over a third, the number of people working in the Public Service. Now, we’re reducing that by about 6,000—by just over 10 percent—having gone up a third in the last six years. The population of New Zealand didn’t go up that much. We are doing relatively modest reductions, but those reductions allow us to get back to surplus by 2027, which is what this Budget promises to do, and I hope it’ll end up being earlier. It also allows us to take less of people’s money.

You know, I heard the most amazing thing from Chlöe Swarbrick, who said that we’re spending money on tax cuts. Now, only the Green Party could talk about spending money on tax cuts, because the way the Government gets money is it taxes it off the people. You can’t spend money by not taxing; you need to tax to get the money in the first place. But they seem to be in favour—as they were in Government—of spending money you don’t have. That’s how we got into this mess.

When we talk about tax relief, what we’re really saying is we’re going to take $2.9 billion less out of the pockets of landlords. People say, “Oh, that’s a tax cut for landlords.” Really? Well, it’s funny because when these guys were campaigning on taking GST off fresh fruit and vegetables—

Chlöe Swarbrick: That wasn’t us.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —it wasn’t a tax cut for—Chlöe Swarbrick says, “That wasn’t us.” It’s all about Chlöe. I was talking about the Labour Party. But, anyway, that wasn’t a tax cut for supermarkets, that wasn’t a tax cut for fresh fruit and vegetable growers; that was a tax cut for consumers. Well, you know what the funny thing is? When we stopped taxing the act of renting a property from one person to another, that’s a tax cut for tenants. You’ve seen it because the Opposition said, “Oh, rents won’t go down.” Rents have flatlined since we made these tax cuts in April. People are actually getting some relief—people who rent under this Government—because we stopped the tax on people renting their home to another New Zealander. We’ve actually brought back that mortgage interest deductibility, and people out there in business know it’s ACT that did it. I’m very proud to stand here as the leader of ACT, as an Associate Minister of Finance.

Then there’s all those people who’ve paid more and more of their hard-earned money every year into the Treasury to get diminishing returns and more inflation, and we’re giving them tax relief. We’re letting people keep more of their own money because, at the end of the day, it’s a bloody tough time for New Zealand firms, for New Zealand farmers, and for New Zealand families.

Finally, we have a Government that is prepared to tighten its belt, but also to do something much more important, and that is to popularise a belief that this country’s prosperity and happiness is based on. It’s the simple belief that what happens in your life is not predetermined by something that happened in 1840 or even 1940; it’s not predetermined by the colour of your skin or the nature of your ancestor or how you were born. I represent an electorate where we have literal Holocaust survivors who are some of the happiest, most prosperous, high-achieving people I know.

We believe that, in this society, you can make a difference in your own life. We believe in high-quality public services, in good education, in good infrastructure, and in good regulations that make it easy for the next generation to build a home, to borrow money, to start a business, to develop a farm, even to do mining, because we believe that this is a society where you can make a difference in your own life. That is a stark difference from what the Opposition believes, because if you listen for long enough, apart from a huge amount of repetition, what you hear from the Greens, Labour, and Te Pāti Māori is that your problems in life are caused by someone else’s success, and “If only you vote for us, we will take their success away and give it to you.” That is a recipe for poverty—not just for people doing it tough now; a recipe for poverty for the whole country.

That’s why I’m proud to stand here for the ACT Party and for this Government that is bringing down a Budget that says that we believe again, yes, that New Zealanders can make a difference in their own lives and it’s our job to create the conditions where they can do it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Mr Speaker, it’s—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I take it you’re taking the 10-minute call?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: I am taking a 10-minute call with your duress or acquiescence. Hopefully it’s not too much duress.

It is my pleasure to take a call in this appropriations debate in regard to the New Zealand First lens on this. As the Hon David Seymour just outlined in his previous contribution, we came into Government about this time last year, inheriting a hell of a mess. Government expenses had gone up 80 percent, and there was a total lack of delivery. We had literally hundreds of millions of dollars spent on three waters without a single pipe going into the ground, the same with the light rail, and the same with the walking bridge over Auckland harbour. There was so much waste, and the Budget seems such a long time ago.

This has been a long and winding road, getting to this part of the process, but we have had our sleeves rolled up, and we are at work—no more so than one of our core funding principles that we campaigned on as a party, took into coalition negotiations, and had high alignment with our coalition partners, and that is in law and order. The 500 extra police that my colleague down here—the Hon Casey Costello—will be delivering over the next couple of years is part of the Budget, obviously, but it’s more than that; it’s an absolute signal that we are serious about getting our streets back. Some of the stories that we’ve been hearing and the experiences that are being reflected to us all the time show a sense of lawlessness that had got out of hand under a soft-on-crime Labour Government. And aren’t we going after the gangs? We are just not going to put up with that any more. The police and the citizens of New Zealand will have control of the streets, not the gangs.

We have delivered appropriations that allow us to deliver on another campaign promise, which my colleague here, Tanya Unkovich, spoke so passionately about the other day: the COVID inquiry, the second tranche of the COVID inquiry with the expanded terms of reference. Those forgotten New Zealanders will not have their stories and their experience swept under the carpet. We will have that discussion as a nation.

We’ve ended the bracket creep that had got into the Treaty of Waitangi issues—the veto rights that had crept through in just about every piece of legislation. It is need, not race, and, yes, we must respect the Treaty and the Treaty settlements, but they were getting expanded to the point where it had become extremely divisive in our communities.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): We’ve had about four minutes of context, but it would be good to actually go to the Budget.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: OK, Mr Speaker. And, of course, with my rural communities lens on, I would like to—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The good speaker’s context back to the Budget.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: Yes, we are back to the Budget because I’m going to look at the Budget within my rural communities portfolio and Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), and we have made some savings in MPI. As part of the overall Budget package, we have had a 9 percent reduction in the Budget for MPI, but we have a laser focus on the things that actually matter—things like biosecurity and food safety, the very things that our businesses, our rural businesses, our farmers, and our industry really want MPI to be focused on, not a lot of the fluffy stuff that had been creeping in.

I can tell you now, well, things are dire, and the Hon David Seymour did touch on it. Things are really, really tough out there at the moment, but I can tell you that the cavalry is coming, and the cavalry is coming from the same place that it always comes from in New Zealand. It’s coming from rural New Zealand—rural and regional New Zealand. The kiwifruit price is up, the milk price is up, the beef price is sitting at record levels, and, even in my own sphere of influence, the wool price is actually the highest-performing commodity, I say modestly, but it is coming off such a low base. But we are going to address that. We will be investing in initiatives around that through this Budget, but that is where we generate our income in New Zealand. That is where we deliver our services from the income, that 80 percent of export income. This will help deliver on our commitment to double exports within the next 10 years.

It’s broader than that, of course, too. There’s a regulatory reform that goes with that. We must see that in context. We have taken a lot of the red tape and compliance away from our farmers to get them back on the farm. They are the best, most efficient farmers and growers in the world, bar none, and we are setting them free. We trust our farmers. We know that they’re doing a good job out there. We know that they’re improving their environmental outcomes, and we are backing them.

Of course, the key thing from a New Zealand First perspective—our big signature policy and win within the coalition Government that is delivered within this Budget—is the $1.2 billion Regional Infrastructure Fund. We believe, in New Zealand First—and we’ve convinced our erstwhile colleagues over here—that the Government does have a role to play in regional development. We can co-invest, de-risk, and enable key regional infrastructure to unleash the potential that is out there in our provinces—the wharves, the airports, the renewable energy projects, the water storage, and irrigation. It is those fundamental key pieces of infrastructure that we can help fund, co-invest, to help unlock the enormous potential—the enormous potential—that sits out there in regional New Zealand.

Of course, Mr Speaker, for the context that you asked for before, none of this can be seen in isolation. It is not just the $1.2 billion that’s in the in the Regional Infrastructure Fund; it is, again, about the regulations and the fast-track consenting bill that is going through the House at the moment. We had become a country with so much potential where it was impossible to get anything done. Even Ngāi Tahu could not get an aquaculture farm in their rohe. When you’re at that point in the cycle, you know that it is broken.

We will unleash literally billions of dollars of projects over the next couple of years through this consenting process—many of them that had given up or would never have started, because they could not see a way to the finish line. This will be transformational for our regions and for our country. No other thing that we do in this term of Parliament will have such impact as that piece of legislation. And when that list comes out, where you see the scale of the investment that is queued up, waiting to be here, in mining and aquaculture and housing and renewable energy, there is an absolute conga line of projects that will unleash massive potential.

New Zealand has an incredibly bright future ahead of it. We just need a Government that understands what the key drivers are, where to invest, how to strategically invest, how to get the regulatory settings right, and how to take the country with us. We’re not pitting against each other; we’re actually working together on this—business, iwi, regional council, local council, and Government. And, where necessary, we will look for outside and foreign investment if we need to accelerate beyond what our internal capacity might be, because we absolutely cannot afford to stand still. We cannot afford to be in the morass that we were in. We’ve been going sideways for two years, but I can see the future because I have seen this list of projects. I had been out in the regions and been talking to all these stakeholders in our regional growth summits and the like. There is so much potential in regional and rural New Zealand, and I could not be more excited as to what the future looks like for us.

So not for us, the doom and gloom—yes, it is tough now. The cavalry is coming. New Zealand First are here. We’ve got our shoulder to the wheel, and we look forward to driving towards next year’s appropriation when I’m sure the tax take will be starting to be go through the roof, because we’re going to be seeing those dividends. Thank you.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E tū ana ahau ki te tuku i ngā kōrero a Te Pāti Māori, ki te whakatairanga i ētahi whakaaro hei whakaarotanga, hei wānangatanga mā tērā taha, mō te tahua Pūtea mō te tau 2023.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to offer the comments of the Māori Party, to put forward some thoughts for the consideration and deliberation of that side, regarding the Budget for the year 2023.]

Budget 2024-25 we view as being the Budget of funding the 100-day plan of the Government, and what was laid out in the 100-day plan of the Government was one of the most brutal and despicable attacks on te iwi Māori that this country has ever had to witness, plain and simple. Those aren’t my words.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Whose are they?

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Ah, you can go and have a look. The Budget provides the oil and the grease and the wheels for the 100-day plan to roll out. It’s a 100-day plan for no investment in Māori development—no investment in Māori development. If someone would like to show me where it is, knock yourself out. The only thing made available in the executive summary of the Budget describing or considering Māori development was the cuts and cost savings measures made in Māori development.

All of the things that were rolled out in the 100-day plan get funded; “for Māori, by Māori” initiatives across the board get defunded. That’s got to be of some concern to this side of the House, who pride themselves on numbers and figures and being economic wizards. If you look at the demographics of our country, you see you’re heading us into a dark corner, and the reason I say that is because 30 percent of tomorrow’s young people—these people are all alive today, by the way—are young Māori. If you can’t get societal settings right to support 30 percent of the future of your country, your labour workforce ain’t got a show. I’ll leave you with that to think about for a little while.

It’s also the Budget of assimilation, where the tangata whenua of Aotearoa, the principal constitution partner in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, is told, “Nah, nah, your rights in Te Tiriti o Waitangi don’t matter. Just jump in the back of the queue. You’ll do all right. We’ve built a system that services you well, as evidenced by a whole lot of—”. There’s no history that tells us that, and your Budget funds it. The Budget of assimilation—that’s what I referred to it as on The Hui debate—because Māori, yet again, instead of being recognised for Māori success, Māori delivery, “for Māori, by Māori, to Māori”. The great success—the great social investment success—that Whānau Ora is is being defunded. During the election, I talked about the need to ramp up Whānau Ora to the tune of billions of dollars, and here we are, as a result of the Tahua Pūtea of 2024, watching Whānau Ora funding being thrown out like a lolly scramble to any provider. Well done. We know what the cost of that is, we know what the cost of that will be, and the cost of it will be more pressure on your health system, more pressure on your social system, more pressure on every system funded by this Budget.

The Budget was $180 billion this year; “for Māori, by Māori” delivery got 0.3 percent of it. That’s $538 million of targeted “for Māori, by Māori, to Māori” delivery—0.3 percent. For a population in this country who constitute 20 percent of all the living beings in Aotearoa—20 percent. You know what the census said about that? They said, “Well, it’s about 19.7 percent, but we only managed to count about 80 to 85 percent of the Māori people.” That tells you that it’s more than a million, and that doesn’t count the Māori who live in Australia. Māori are at least 20 percent of this country, we struggle to get 1 percent of the Budget, and you try and tell us that you have all the solutions—ridiculous, ridiculous—while you defund and depower Māori solutions that have been providing you all of your good stories, whilst you ramp up tough on crime. “Tough on crime”—it was a great slogan; got you—well, it didn’t get National enough votes to get across the line by yourself.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: A few more than the Māori Party.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, yes, good on you!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Just not so much of the “you”—you’re addressing the Chair, please.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, OK, sorry, sorry. They—them. Ka pai. So, you know, there you go. That’s the state—

Tom Rutherford: Bring back the laptop!

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Yeah, I decided to leave the laptop out this time, buddy. I see all the other Ministers seem to be reading their notes, so I’m sort of wondering, well, is it no reading of anything or is it just no laptop out the front? I guess we’ll hear soon enough. But that’s all good. So kia haere tonu ahau, kia haere tonu ahau, e whā miniti e toe ana. [So I will continue, I will continue, there are four minutes left.]

There was $538 million, or 0.3 percent of the country’s yearly Budget, afforded to Māori for Māori, by Māori solutions when it’s those very solutions that have produced the greatest return—social return—on investment that this House has ever seen, and you, instead of giving that money to Whānau Ora, open it up for anyone. Well done—ka pai!

I just heard a statement by this fellow over here saying that we want a future that’s not predetermined by what happened in 1840. Well, what happened in 1840 is that this House was given the right and, indeed, the dignity of self-governance—self-governance—

Cameron Luxton: The House didn’t exist then.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: The House didn’t exist then—that’s right. Good on you; you know a little bit.

Tough on crime, knowledge-rich education economy that sees Māori education afforded 1 percent of the education budget. This is the same education system of kōhanga reo, kura kaupapa Māori, wharekura, kura ā-iwi, and wānanga that has outperformed this country’s central delivery of education for Māori for more than 30 years. How much evidence do you need?

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How much do they give?

TĀKUTA FERRIS: 1 percent. How much evidence do you need before you start putting the money in the places where it matters? It seems it doesn’t matter how much evidence we produce, it will all be ignored.

It’s also the Budget of wasted money—like $4 million to prop up a bill no one is going to support. The Treaty principles bill; $4 million is what it’s going to cost. Why don’t we hear you talking about that? Why don’t we hear you talking about that? You don’t want to talk about that. A complete waste of money. Seven urgent hearings of the Waitangi Tribunal, all funded by the Government—a complete waste of money. Yep, complete waste of money. They were all triggered by you—the te reo Māori claim.

Dana Kirkpatrick: You?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Mr Ferris, you can just try better. Just don’t use that word “you”. You’re not addressing the opposition; you’re addressing the Chair. Refer to them as “they” or—

Hon David Parker: “The Government”.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): —“the Government”.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Tēnā koe. The Government—the Government. They were all instigated by the Government: the te reo Māori claim, the Te Aka Whai Ora claim, the section 7AA urgent claim, the kura kaupapa Māori urgent claim, the Marine and Coastal Area urgent claim, the Māori wards urgent claim, the Treaty principles bill urgent claim. I’d estimate they’d cost at least a couple of million dollars—wasted money. But never mind; they seem to like wasting money. And so here we are.

You’ve got an education approach by a Government—well, the majority of them are set on standardised education, and a little pocket want, bespoke education, wasting $53 million. Tobacco got $216 million, and that’s a disgrace of a waste of money. Three billion dollars to landlords—disgrace of a waste of money. And here we are. The kōhanga reo was talked about as some shining light of your contribution to te iwi Māori—$12 million to kōhanga reo over four years. There are 460 of them; they get $6,500 each. So kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui.

I think of a statement that Robin Hapi made to me once. He said, “The trouble with Governments is that they can’t handle the fact that equitable outcomes require inequitable inputs.” So think about that. We do not commend this legislation to the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; thank you for the opportunity. It’s a great pleasure to speak on this Budget, and I’ll try and get it back on track.

Times are tough out there, there’s no doubt about that. Households and businesses are going through their expenditure line by line to ensure that they meet their outgoings and get food on the table. That’s what the Minister of Finance did for the Government in this Budget; she went through line by line and she required her Ministers who were making ministerial Budget bids to go through their departments expenditure line by line to ensure that we get value for money out of that expenditure. I think that’s a commendable attitude and it’s something we shouldn’t really take for granted because households and businesses do it every week, practically, and particularly when times are tough. They found 240 savings initiatives, which, actually, the finance Minister said before was $23 billion of reprioritisation, or savings and revenue. I think that’s a phenomenal achievement—and that was done without impacting front-line services.

I’ll come back to that later, but what has driven us into the position that we’re in is wasteful spending.

Helen White: You cancelled ferries—on a text.

STUART SMITH: Wasteful spending—actually, I’m going to come to the ferries in a minute—and just not keeping an eye on costs. Also, I think the Reserve Bank had quite a part to play in this, and their—I keep saying this in the House, I’m going to keep bringing it up—continuing the Funding for Lending Programme while raising the official cash rate actually prolonged inflation and had a real material cost on New Zealanders, which we are paying the price for now.

Hon David Parker: Yeah, we agree with that.

STUART SMITH: So here’s—well, thank you for that. I think that was a shameful thing to have happen, and I’ve raised this several times. Actually, we asked in select committee about that and the governor said that that was factually incorrect and he’d provide the evidence, and we wrote to him and he wasn’t able to do that—which we all knew he wouldn’t be able to, but anyway, that’s enough said on that.

I actually went to two meetings over the weekend about the ferries, and it was run by a group called “Trains are the Future” or “The Future is Rail” or something like that—in fact, they’ve had about three different name changes over time. It was interesting; I thought I might have been, you know, an endangered species at those meetings, but, actually, the first meeting was quite good and we got across a lot of things. A lot of it was just a bit of a moan session about what the Government’s doing, what we’ve done in the Budget, all that sort of thing.

Then I went to Picton, and that was a great meeting there. Actually, the rail union was there, or one of the unions anyway, and several people involved in the rail industry—as you’d expect—and the ferry industry, because they work on the ferries. It was a great meeting, fantastic meeting. And, of course, people were saying, “Why did you cancel the iReX project?” I said, “Well, actually, we didn’t cancel the iReX project. The finance Minister said there wasn’t any more money for it.” Then—Mr Speaker, I think you’ll really be interested in this—a train driver got up and he spoke, and he’s quite well known in Picton, in Marlborough. He said, “Look, don’t get me wrong, I love rail; I like rail. I’d love the iReX project to have gone ahead, but the reality is it costs money and that money comes from us—we would have to pay for it.”

He said, “We just have to be realistic about that.” And then he says to them—because a lot of people there were loving rail—“And you all say you like rail and you want it to go, and yet you protest about trains taking coal from Westport to Lyttelton, which pays the bills for New Zealand. And we’ve got to get realistic in New Zealand about what we’re doing and how we earn our way in the world.” I thought that was absolutely right on the money. It turned the whole mood in that room, about that, in that meeting, I thought. I’d been saying those things during that meeting, of course, wasn’t really being listened to by most of them, but that certainly turned it around. I take my hat off to him, because, actually, he knows what he’s talking about.

When I talked to him later, he said, “Oh, it’s not my wisdom; it’s the wisdom of the people,”—because I said it was very wise, what he’d said—and he said, “It’s just what I picked up from other people and I know what’s going on.” I thought, well, at least you were big enough to stand up and say that. And I thought, I really respect him for that.

Wasteful spending has got us to where we are, and that project was about cost controls getting completely out of control. What we have done through these 240 savings initiatives is to get some actual direction about what we want to achieve and how we’re going to go about achieving it, rather than just saying, “Your Government department had X amount of dollars, let’s give you that, plus inflation. And if you’ve got any new initiatives, OK, we want to give you some more money.” That’s how spending gets blown out, and that’s what happened under the previous Government.

We’ve had a significant issue this year with our energy prices, and that’s driven up costs and that is going to have ongoing effects. There’s a really interesting article in Energy News on a report from Analytica, which is an energy thought paper and research paper. It said they were going in on a report on the cost of what are, essentially, blackouts that we’ve been having through this winter because of the price of power. We’re not seeing the lights go out, because those blackouts are happening in businesses. They’ve said industrial production is a proxy for energy demand, such as when industry production is lost, energy demand follows—absolutely true.

I have a graph here, which they had in that article, and I’m sure you can see here: the black line way below the coloured lines—that’s how much energy production or consumption has gone down; that equals lost GDP. In fact, they’ve estimated in this paper that it’s around $300 million in total from a loss of energy demand from those large companies. That’s going to be significant. That’s not to mention the big impact that it has, which is going to be in confidence for companies to invest in New Zealand. We have a serious problem—that oil and gas ban that the previous Government put on had a chilling effect on our sovereign risk profile and it made it very difficult for companies who invest in New Zealand to raise money overseas. If we want to get our economy back on track, we need to do that.

I really was very concerned in the whole Budget process where we were with debt, and I know we’ve got a relentless focus to try and drive that down as quickly as possible, but there’s been a lot of talk about, you know, we’ve made cuts. I’d like to point out that there’s been a funding boost of $16.68 billion going into health. That’s not a cut; that’s an increase—a $16.68 billion increase going into health. And $2.93 billion going into education—that’s going to make a difference. But, actually, I think the biggest difference is going to be made by the structure of literacy and the one hour of reading, writing, and maths per day. That will really turn the dial, in my view, quite quickly. Actually, that’s an investment in our human capital. We will not have much of an economy if we don’t have an educated workforce. It’s incumbent on us to give our children as much opportunity as they can, the best start in life possible, and that means a good education.

Finally, a $2.92 billion increase in law and order—that impacts on us all. Doesn’t matter how much money you got in your household if you’re frightened to go out on the street because of violent crime. We need to get on top of that as quickly as possible. Dealing with the gangs the way that has been done, I really tip my hat to the police, they’ve done a fantastic job there. Getting rid of the Comancheros is a big step forward. Gangs are a cancer in our society and they need to be treated like one and they need to feel the full force of the law as quickly as possible. It gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve been able to spend about an hour in the House just listening to the different Budget speeches that have been made by members in the Government and members on this side of the House, and I’ve been listening intently because I’ve been wanting to hear how much they’re going to keep reeling out those sorts of key lines that they have around wasteful spending, etc., etc. I thought that, actually, as the first part of my speech in this debate, I’m going to address those concerns around wasteful spending, because it’s quite clear that this Government doesn’t even look at its own Government agencies’ websites.

The Minister of Finance asked earlier “Where did all the money go?”, because that’s what she’s hearing—“Where did all the money go?” Well, on her own agency’s website, the Treasury website, it actually has a list of where all that money went, because under the Public Finance Act, it has to be transparent as to where all that money went. I think the reference that she’s talking about, because of the debt that had to be borrowed, she’s totally erased from her memory, and perhaps from the memories of members on that side of the House, what happened from 2020 to 2022. Basically, the whole world stopped because of a pandemic that happened. Our Government at the time had to make decisions to save people’s lives and people’s jobs, and the decision to spend that money is all transparent on the Treasury website.

I want to be able to just basically go through so that the members on the other side know where exactly that money went, and they might be surprised where that money went. For the Business Support Subsidy, $17 billion went towards that. The COVID Resurgence Support Payment: $3 billion. The COVID health response: $2.7 billion. The cash-flow loan scheme for small businesses: $2.2 billion. The vaccine strategy: $1.7 billion. The isolation and quarantine management: $1.5 billion. The COVID-19 support payment: $1.3 billion. Infrastructure projects: $2.5 billion.

Now, this is where it’s interesting, because when we were in Government, we thought we needed to be able to spend that money in order to keep people in work and connected to their jobs. At the time, we were getting projections that a population the size of Palmerston North was going to be unemployed. Now, if you’re a Minister of Finance, I ask the MP for Palmerston North, would you just let the population of Palmerston North be unemployed?

Tangi Utikere: Absolutely not.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Exactly! You would not let a population the size of Palmerston North become unemployed, and those were the projections that were given from officials to Ministers at the time, which is why they spent $17 billion on the Business Support Subsidy, which included the wage subsidy.

Hon David Parker: Which National supported.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Which National did support at the time, and, actually, if I recall correctly as well, Mr Parker, I also remember them saying, “You need to give more money.” I’m pretty sure that other people in the House also heard that.

We wanted to make sure that people stayed connected to their employers. We wanted to make sure that we helped businesses who were losing revenue because of the lockdowns, because they were trying to keep people safe. We ensured that there were support packages there at the time. The Small Business Cashflow Scheme was there to help with some of those capital costs.

We saved 20,000 people’s lives because of those decisions. That money was not a waste of money when it comes down to the lives of people, unless you perhaps ask the Hon Brooke van Velden. She might say that maybe we put too much money on the lives of people, and I’ve heard that on Q+A, where the Minister said that maybe we’d put too much on the cost of a person’s life. Well, we disagree on this side of the House, which is why I wanted to respond to those members on the other side of the House talking about “Where did that money go—that wasteful spending!” That’s where that money went, and it’s on the Treasury website.

The other interesting thing about the $2.5 billion that was set aside for infrastructure projects was that around $1.2 billion of it was spent on the Jobs for Nature work. Well, in New Plymouth, for example, Yarrow Stadium—that got some money. There was housing in Flaxmere, the Kāinga Ora infrastructure for the Northcote development, the Tāmaki development, the Roskill South development, and also Taranaki. Well, guess where those members of Parliament are now! Money went into those housing and infrastructure projects in order for us to build homes for people to have places to go and stay. In Gisborne, the Kiwa Pools was paid for by COVID recovery money, as was the Sarjeant Gallery in Whanganui. These are all projects which are in electorates of members of the Government, and it’s all transparent on the Treasury website.

I suggest to members of the Government that when they’re asking what happened to this “wasteful spending”, go to your local pool, go to your local library, and go check out some of those new housing projects which are now being done. There was also the Clutha Community Hub and, of course, my favourite, which is the 26 fire stations that were renewed right across the country.

Hon David Parker: All of which employed people.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: All of which employed people—kept people safe. You know, the member Stuart Smith, who has just sat down—he joined me in cutting the ribbon for the opening of the Kaikōura station.

Every time that members on the Government benches say, “wasteful spending”, I’d tell them to go and have a look at where that money was spent, because I sure as hell am seeing a number of those members at those ribbon-cutting ceremonies right now—Tauranga. There was also some work down in Sumner. Now going back to—

Cameron Luxton: Yeah, ask them how they enjoyed stage one of Cameron Road redevelopment.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: I’ll send that member the link to the Treasury website for what happened in the Bay of Plenty area.

Going back to the Budget now and having addressed the question of “Where did that money go?”, I have spent a lot of time up and down the country speaking to businesses and speaking to financial support providers. We have financial support providers, in a cost of living crisis, that are having their funding cut. On the Kāpiti Coast, the Kapiti Family Budget Service has been around for 40 years—40 years. I was only three when they were first established—yes, I’m giving away my age. For 40 years, they have been open, but they will now have to shut because this Government has reduced the funding to public services, which then flows on to all these non-governmental organisations who are helping our people, and who are helping our most vulnerable people. We have a budgeting service up in South Auckland—I think it’s called Vaiola—and they have been shut because this Government has cut the funding to the Ministry of Social Development, which would therefore go to these budgeting services.

These budgeting service cuts aren’t what this Government say is just bureaucrats in Wellington—even then, they’re telling them to come back into work. Well, do you know what? The Minister of Finance said that she’d rather see more high-vis vests than lanyards. So what is it: you want less public servants and you’re going to sack 6,000 jobs from the Public Service, but then you’re going to expect them to come back in? Well, do you know what? In a cost of living crisis, when those public servants come in, it’s going to be difficult for them to spend money at the local café. I do want to acknowledge those public servants who have lost their jobs, because right throughout the COVID pandemic, right throughout the last couple of years, they have been trying and working really hard to keep the lights on for the rest of New Zealand, which is how we’ve managed to get that $2.5 billion of infrastructure spend out to the regions, right throughout the rest of the country. It wasn’t just here in Wellington.

One of the interesting things that I’ve also heard members on the other side of the House talk about is around the spending cuts that they’ve done. There’s $1.5 billion which has been saved. Well, $500 million of it was actually the savings programme that the Hon Grant Robertson started—$500 million. This side of the House recognised that we also had to tighten our belts to join the rest of New Zealand, and to join businesses and households that were tightening their belts. We did it in such a way that to ensure that public services wouldn’t be cut to the bone, but what we’re seeing now is that the tax cuts and the Public Service cuts are two hard, too fast, and it’s Kiwis on the ground who are missing out as a result of this.

When I go up and down the country and I talk to people about their tax cuts, I can talk to a pensioner who says, “Well, I’m only getting $2.15. That doesn’t really give me much, given my rates have gone up by 17 percent.”—or 21 percent or 10 percent. How does $2.15 help them with their rates increase, given this Government stopped the three waters programme that would have helped councils spread out the cost of that water infrastructure by moving them into an entity? Now, these poor pensioners, who are on fixed incomes, will have to wait until councils—which have up to a year—put together these new water reforms, basically, to see how they can spread that cost in the rates out.

There is so much I could talk about in relation to this Budget, but there have been so many speeches from the other side of the House that have not been transparent and not been fruitful in the sense that they don’t even look on their own agencies’ websites to see where money has been spent. This Budget has been all about choices. We are seeing the result of these choices, with Kiwis right across the country doing it even harder because of this Government.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I rise to support these two bills and our Budget because, on this side of the House, we are all about fiscal discipline and care. I would just like to reference the wasteful spending that the member the Hon Barbara Edmonds, who just sat down, spoke about. She said, “Why—why—are we talking about all this wasteful spending?” Well, I’ll throw a few figures out there: $1.2 billion on three waters, never saw the light of day; millions of dollars spent on light rail projects, never saw a metre of track laid; millions of dollars on cycleways across the harbour bridge, never saw a cycleway created. That’s just some of the wasteful spending.

Well, this Budget brings back discipline and care and fiscal discipline—now there’s a word—and a commitment to strengthening our economy, restoring law and order, and ensuring we have better infrastructure for the future, and actually getting things built as well as ensuring that we have better public services, health, and education. As a result of the fiscal discipline that we have seen in this Budget, we are starting to see some green shoots. We’re starting to see interest rates coming down, inflation coming down, but it is still really tough for hard-working New Zealanders out there to pay the grocery bills, to pay the petrol bills, to pay the electricity, and to pay their mortgage at the moment. That is why this Budget ensured that we provided tax relief for hard-working New Zealanders after 14 years. It is time that hard-working New Zealanders can keep more of what they earn.

We also introduced, in this Budget, the FamilyBoost package, which enables families to get up to $150 a fortnight. Registrations for this just opened last week, and families will be able to get up to $975 on 1 October. Now, this is big for families because childcare can be a really difficult decision for working families. FamilyBoost provides that much-needed relief for parents making those really tough decisions—you know, when you have a baby, deciding whether it’s worth it to go back to work; should I or shouldn’t I? Well, this FamilyBoost just makes that decision a whole lot easier because it is providing some relief to those hard-working families. On this side of the House, we are respecting those tough situations—making the childcare bill easier. FamilyBoost payments start in seven days and families can claim up to $975 every three months for early childhood education costs. This is significant for many low and middle income - earning families who are struggling. Our Government is finally taking action to bring down inflation, bring down interest rates, and strengthen our economy.

Budget 2024 is all about cost savings as well—$7.5 billion of savings as we restored discipline to public spending. We delivered on our commitment to put more funding into the front line; in the hospitals and in our classrooms—where it matters the most—and with our police out on the beat. We’re reducing the ballooning bureaucracy and ensuring it’s easier to get stuff done, get stuff built in this country, and redirecting that focus to the regions, to provincial New Zealand, where we have a lot of hard-working New Zealanders out there. We’re restoring confidence and business confidence for our primary industries—being aspirational once again for those food-producing regions like Hawke’s Bay. Of course, we’ve got this very ambitious target of doubling the value of our exports in the next 10 years. We’re reducing the red tape and the regulation that’s been strangling our primary industries for so long.

As the local Tukituki MP, I just thought I’d give a few examples of some of the amazing exporters who I have been visiting lately. They are giving some fantastic feedback because they feel like they’ve been championed once again, they feel like there’s—it’s aspirational for these exporters that are providing thousands and thousands of jobs and so much potential for our economy. Just as an example, Pan Pac Forest Products Ltd the other day, they are exporting timber and pulp to the world; Melita Honey, exporting our liquid gold mānuka honey; and Rockit Apple; and T&G apple producers in the fruit bowl of New Zealand in Tukituki, Hastings; and Silver Fern Farms and Ovation, two of our biggest employers in the Tukituki region, showcasing our red meat sector and employing thousands of people in Hawke’s Bay; and Askerne Winery, producing some of the best wines in the world in Tukituki. These are just some of the businesses that I visited and met the teams of, seeing the potential that we have in Hawke’s Bay as a food-producing region. Taxing more and spending more is not the way to get this country ahead. It’s not about dividing the pie; it is about growing the pie. That is why we are focused on growing this economy and driving productivity, because that’s what’s going to get the wheels moving in our economy and that what this Budget 2024 is all about.

A big part of the Budget is infrastructure. Our Government is investing massively in infrastructure because we’ve had a major infrastructure deficit over the past six years and major under-investment in our roads and our bridges and our infrastructure and our water storage—all the great things that are actually going to get our economy moving again. We’re investing $68 billion in infrastructure over the next five years and this is a record investment in infrastructure. When we talk about infrastructure, we aren’t just visualising light rail projects and cycleways across the harbour bridge; we’re actually about shovels and hard hats and getting the job done—results and outcomes and actually getting stuff built. That’s why we’ve got the Fast-track Approvals Bill in there at the moment, because this is what’s going to get stuff built. At the moment, it takes eight years to consent a wind farm and two years to build it—it’s senseless. We actually need to get going and get moving. If you look around the rest of the world, we’re lagging behind, so we need to get out there and build the roads.

That’s why we’ve got these 17 roads of national significance. It’s actually wonderful to see the four-lane expressway in Hawke’s Bay as one of the priority projects that is going to get going in the next three years, because that’s what’s going to drive productivity in the regions. Just an example of that—that’s getting our wine to the port, getting our apples to the port, getting our meat to the port and off to the markets at the optimum time so that we can get the premium added value for it. This is what drives productivity and this is what is going to grow our economy, and that’s why we’re so committed to infrastructure. But it’s not just building infrastructure; it’s maintaining infrastructure.

I’ll say, one of the biggest gripes that I’d have during the campaign would be people complaining about those pesky potholes and those road cones and the traffic management. There was just so much money spent on traffic management and road cones and people just couldn’t see the sense in that. That’s why we’re reining that back. We’re investing in maintaining our roads. We’re investing in those pesky potholes. I was just actually at a retirement village yesterday and they were complaining about the previous pesky potholes as well because it was damaging their cars as they were driving around. So they were very, very welcoming, obviously, of our investment in Budget 2024 into those pesky potholes.

In terms of Hawke’s Bay, I was really happy to see a large focus and investment in the Budget into rebuilding Hawke’s Bay in terms of our infrastructure and our roading. Of course, we have gone through Cyclone Gabrielle, so it’s important that we get our regions back up on their feet, back up running again, and back into production. A huge investment in law and order—of course, in Hawke’s Bay, we have a very big gang problem. To ensure that we have safer communities, we need to see investment in law and order and restoring law and order. Education, of course, is a big one, and we’ve got a lot of money going into education. Of course, two-thirds of the new spend in the Budget is to education and health. These are really important things. This is what’s going to get our country back on track.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Much better things are possible, and New Zealanders deserve much better from a Government and from a Budget than what we’ve got in this Budget.

The reality is this is completely out of touch with the major issues that New Zealanders and all of us in the world are going to be facing over the next decade or two. We have a very limited amount of time to make progress on radically reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, transitioning to a much more sustainable economy and way of living, and protecting nature and biodiversity, because we simply cannot afford to continue to trash the environment and still live good lives. This Government presents everything as a trade-off—like, we can grow the economy at the expense of people and the environment. And it’s just not true, because the economy is a subset of the environment. The economy is a subset of human activities, and there is no thriving economy on a planet that has constant climate chaos that’s caused by fossil fuels.

I want to say the Green Party is very, very clear that there is no trade-off. A Budget that New Zealanders deserve is one that lifts children out of poverty, that invests in our people, and that invests in infrastructure that will actually make a difference to how people and goods move around, and that’s not this Budget at all.

Now, the Government has the classic talking points from the failed economic policies of the 1980s and 1990s. It’s just the neoliberal playbook—run down public services, blame public servants, then say the Government’s not capable of solving our collective problems. Government is the level at which we can solve our collective problems, when we have a proper approach to it. We’ve had decades of under-investment in public services, it’s true. All of the problems that we’re facing right now as a society are not things that were created overnight. It started—particularly child poverty—in the early 1990s, and the under-investment in infrastructure and the lack of maintenance pretty much can be traced back to decisions made in the 1980s and 1990s. We can do so much better.

I just want to briefly speak to what actually is happening in this Budget and the deficit that we’re going to see, the deficit in terms of our people. The Government has completely walked away from child poverty reduction targets, because they would have needed to invest, in this Budget, more money in order to lift those children out of poverty. Now, that is what solves many of the challenges that they’re talking about solving in the short term, with crime and punishment, or it would take pressure off our hospitals, for example, to have fewer kids living in poverty. That is actually, probably, how you would grow a sustainable economy: investing in our kids early on. They’ve chosen instead to spend money on tax cuts that predominantly benefit those who own the most. Three billion dollars per annum, $12 billion over four years, is the advice on how much it would cost to meet the target of halving child poverty by 2028, and that’s certainly something that a responsible Government would prioritise, because that is what’s most important: the wellbeing of our people.

Instead, they’ve chosen to spend a similar amount on tax cuts for landlords. The “tax relief” is really a bit of a joke. I mean, the lowest-income people don’t benefit from that at all, and the majority of the cost of that tax relief is going to the highest-income people. That was in the regulatory impact statement, which, of course, Government members haven’t looked at. It was very clear in the regulatory impact statement that the vast majority of the tax cut benefits were going to the highest 40 percent of income earners, and some of the lowest-income earners actually did not receive any tax cut at all.

The trade-off is that we are going to have more people in poverty, we’re going to have more people queuing up at emergency departments. Every day in the papers, we see healthcare workers saying how overworked they are and under-resourced they are. That’s how we know that when they claim they’ve put more money into the front line—well, it certainly isn’t enough to meet the demand that’s out there. And they’re walking away from investments in social housing, which could make a really big difference. Not only are we not going to build the public housing that we need over the next decade, because a huge amount of construction has been stopped, but that has flow-on effects to the economy.

I note that the Government members are talking about how interest rates are coming down. Yeah, that’s because they crashed the economy, and they’ll blame it on the previous Government because that’s part of the neoliberal playbook. It’s very, very clear that Government decisions to cancel investment in schools, in public housing, and to lay off 6,000 public sector workers are all having massive flow-on impacts in the economy, which is why we now have negative GDP, and that is why interest rates are able to come down slightly. I hear them all laughing, but, look, I think, unfortunately, while the members opposite are really masters of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, when we actually go out and look at what the experts are saying, there’s no question that Government decisions are directly related to the situation of unemployment growing. Unemployment is growing, and that is why—not to mention the construction sector has completely stopped, practically, and they’re not carrying on with public housing build, which is what we need in a time of recession and while construction activity is slowing.

This whole idea that somehow this pain is a necessary part of achieving a stronger economy that will deliver for people and the environment is just completely backwards. It is completely backwards. I just want to mention as well, because part of the Budget is the “tax relief”, New Zealand is already a country in which the very wealthiest people and the highest-income earners pay significantly lower tax than what we would see in the high-income, developed countries that we would aspire to be like.

Max Rashbrooke recently published research, under Victoria University, that demonstrated that someone earning $330,000 a year in New Zealand is paying about $45,000 in tax. If they lived in one of 10 other countries that we might compare ourselves to—including Canada, Australia, the UK, and five European countries—they would be paying significantly higher rates of tax. In Spain, that person would be paying an additional $41,000 in tax; in Australia, $50,000 in additional tax; in Denmark, $98,000 in additional tax. And in all of those countries, they have inheritance taxes or capital gains taxes, which means that wealth doesn’t concentrate in the smallest group of people over time. If we actually look at the evidence and not just the talking points handed to the Government by Crosby Textor, or whoever it is they listen to, the reality is that a more fair and equitable tax system is something that leads to a more successful, inclusive, and productive economy and enables those higher rates of investment in public services and infrastructure.

Speaking to the transport part of the Budget, because we’ve had the National Land Transport Programme—which is the transport Budget for the next three years—published, I really want to call attention to page 35 of the National Land Transport Programme. I’ve printed out a larger graph here just to show how absolutely delusional the Government’s claims are about their investment in infrastructure, OK, because this is the next 10 years of transport expenditure according to the intentions of the Government. Now, just in the next three years, nearly half of the funding is not coming from road-user charges, OK? Nearly half of it is coming from Crown funding. That means it’s coming at the expense of hospitals and schools and all the other investment that we would expect the Government to make. The Government is actively taking money away from schools and hospitals to put into a few highways, and they are not shovel ready. I hate to inform the member who was speaking before me, Catherine Wedd: they’re years and years—and, in some cases, decades—away from actual construction starting.

Half of the funding over the next three years is already coming from taxpayers or loans—a $3 billion loan over the next three years. Then look at the expenditure intentions on the yellow line—expenditure versus revenue—it’s completely irresponsible. Anyone who claims that National or the coalition Government is fiscally disciplined has not looked at this graph, because here’s the New Zealand Transport Agency telling you right there how completely delusional their plans are, because there’s no plan to pay for these highways and they’re already taking on billions of dollars in debt just in the next three years. It’s completely irresponsible. It’s not going to deliver the outcomes we want—certainly not in climate. A much better future is possible, but we have to vote out this Government.

NANCY LU (National): I rise to support the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2024/25) Bill.

Now, what are we voting for? The Budget Statement delivered in May this year outlined the principal components of our Budget, which we have heard from many of our speakers before me. This year’s Budget is particularly noteworthy to me and to many of the constituents that I’ve talked to because, for the first time in 14 years, Kiwis—hard-working, day-to-day Kiwis—are actually getting some of their hard-earned money through the Government’s tax relief measures.

Members on this side of the House campaigned on, in the 2023 general election, turning the ship around for New Zealand and getting things back on track. We also campaigned on bringing down the cost of living for day-to-day New Zealanders. We campaigned on restoring law and order. We campaigned on improving public services. We also campaigned on improving education and to stop failing our children. We also campaigned on improving healthcare for Kiwis so they can access world-class healthcare. But guess what! People voted for the campaign. People voted for this Government because people needed some help and needed the growth and the hope, going into the future. So here we are debating this Budget and debating our Estimates that we announced on 30 May 2024.

I take this opportunity to quickly thank all of our Ministers, and the Government officials involved, in going through the Budget line by line, cutting out the wasteful spending and putting priorities back into the front line rather than spending on the bloated bureaucracy behind the scenes. What we are seeing is that this Budget is designed for everyday New Zealanders—the hard-working New Zealanders who are managing their pockets, they are tightening their belts as hard as they can for their families. That’s what they expect from the Government as well, and that’s exactly what the National-led Government has done for our day-to-day Kiwis.

Now, I will go through a few major components of this Budget that I particularly support, because I hear them the most and I have received the most questions from the communities that I go to. One of them is actually the tax relief, including FamilyBoost, which I will show an example of very, very soon. One of them relates to the Mental Health Awareness Week that we are celebrating this week in New Zealand. And one of them also relates partly to the New Zealand Chinese Language Week that we’re also celebrating this week.

If I can first start with the mental health budget that we have put in. Now, I’m going to read through very, very quickly some lines from the press releases already announced this year by New Zealand’s very first mental health Minister, the Hon Matt Doocey. Earlier this year, he announced the implementation of a new mental health and addiction peer support service in hospital emergency departments. Then he announced again that Budget 2024 will provide $24 million over four years to contract the I Am Hope Foundation to provide young people aged between five and 25 with free mental health counselling services. He also announced—a very busy Minister for the people in New Zealand—the first round of the Government’s $10 million Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund set to open for the people of New Zealand. Then he also—

Ryan Hamilton: More!

NANCY LU: Oh, there is so much more. He is such a busy, busy Minister. This is exactly why I wanted to bring everyone’s attention to this. This week, we are celebrating New Zealand’s Mental Health Awareness Week. This is when we need to shine the spotlight on to people who really need it. This includes the youth; this includes the working class; this includes many, many, many of the people in New Zealand who needed the help and needed the Government to really understand where help is coming from, who can provide the help, working with community providers who really understand the help and understand their people. I am very proud to be supporting New Zealand’s very first mental health Minister, the Hon Matt Doocey through his work—his very, very busy work schedule this year, working so hard to deliver for New Zealanders and actually putting budget, putting some value into the money that he fought hard for, for the people in New Zealand who need it.

Also this week in New Zealand, we are celebrating the 10th anniversary of the New Zealand Chinese Language Week. There is a reason why I wanted to highlight this particularly: one, obviously, because I’m Chinese ethnic; I’m a very proud Chinese Kiwi. And with that, I will say 中文周快乐, 中文周快樂, and I thank everyone in New Zealand, including members opposite, who tried to learn a little bit about the Chinese language and try to encourage people to also understand a little bit about the different culture. This is the beauty of our country. We are one of the most multicultural countries and societies on earth. I’m very proud because I felt so welcomed when I moved to New Zealand when I was a little girl, and I do hope that by us celebrating the different cultures and languages in New Zealand, it makes everyone feel welcome too.

There is a reason why I wanted to mention Chinese language week, and it’s not just about Chinese in New Zealand; it’s actually about the ethnic communities in New Zealand, because “New Zealand is”—and this is from the Ministry for Ethnic Communities—“a superdiverse country. It has the fourth highest proportion of overseas-born residents among the …. OECD [countries]. Auckland has been ranked as the fourth most ethnically diverse city in the world. Ethnic communities made up 37% of Auckland’s population in 2018”. And, with the latest 2023 census, this may go up. “Ethnic diversity can be an enabler linked to better long-term economic performance, and improved productivity and innovation.”

The reason why I have to bring up such good work from the ethnic communities in New Zealand is precisely because of the vast contributions that we all contribute to New Zealand’s culture, to our economy, to the productivity, to the future generation of New Zealand, and also to human capital. Now, this is where I have to say a huge thankyou and congratulations to our Minister for Ethnic Communities, our Hon Melissa Lee, for the very first inaugural Ethnic Xchange Symposium to take place in October, and this is organised by the Minister for Ethnic Communities. This landmark event will serve as a platform to boost innovation, trade, and investment across New Zealand’s increasingly diverse economic landscape, because a report done in 2021 by the Waitakere Ethnic Board reviewed that ethnic communities contributed a significant $64 billion to New Zealand’s GDP—underscoring their economic impact. This is why I wanted to just say a huge thankyou to the Minister for Ethnic Communities, the Hon Melissa Lee, for highlighting the importance of ethnic communities in New Zealand for their contribution in culture, but also in our economy.

This is why I am a huge supporter of our Budget, because we’re putting money where we can create value. This is where the previous speakers before me on this side of the House were talking about growing the pie. Let’s work together across communities: rural, urban, ethnic—work together so we can grow the pie for the benefit of everyone in New Zealand.

Now, in my very limited remaining time, I want to talk about one of the most asked questions that I have received from the communities that I talked to, which is the FamilyBoost. It’s part of the support package that our Minister of Finance, the Hon Nicola Willis, has fought so hard for. She campaigned on it. All of our members on this side of the House campaigned on it, and she delivered it for the people in New Zealand. And, look, like a former member before me—Catherine Wedd—has said, FamilyBoost applications started last week. I posted about it. I talked to people around me about it. I know so many friends at my age—we have young children, and I know they’ve been waiting for this. They have the invoices ready because they can start applying for the reimbursement on 1 October for the last three months: July, August, and September. Then they came to me and they were like, “But how? Applications, anything through the Government are always so slow, but how do I do it?”

I actually have screenshots from someone who I helped: logging on to IRD, setting up who they are. “Do you have a child?” Put in “Yes.” “Are they going to early childhood education (ECE)?” Say, “Yes.” “Who is the ECE?” Put in the details. Put in that person or that family member, that parent. Put in the bank account details. Last step: confirm that you have put in all the correct and complete information—done, within two minutes. If this is not helpful for day-to-day Kiwis, then I don’t know what is.

What I do want to say in my last remaining 30 seconds, particularly to a family that I’ve mentioned a couple of times in the House, to a Pakuranga couple who have two very young children going through ECE, Yali and Isaac. I want you to remember that members on this side of the House will be voting proudly to support the passing of this bill, but members opposite will be voting it down because they don’t care about you enough. I want to say I am so proud to support this bill.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply Bill. I do want to start off by just reflecting on where we are as a country. It has been a tough winter, and families out there and businesses have been hurting. It has been hard, and I do want to acknowledge that. I was actually just down South in Southland, in Gore, earlier last week. Obviously, we’ve had some really tough weather conditions, actually, down South, which have moved up through the country, and it has hit our farmers hard—you know, stock losses, damaged crops in the horticultural sector. I do know that farmers and other people in rural New Zealand are doing it tough.

It’s not just rural New Zealand. If you talk to some of the people in the retail and hospitality industries—I know the woes of Wellington have been well traversed in the last few weeks, but it is actually tough. Kiwis aren’t spending money. They are finding it hard to have enough money to pay their mortgage, their bills, their electricity, and so, again, I want to acknowledge that the retail and hospitality sectors, the trade sectors, are all doing it tough. Even in Auckland, it’s quiet on a Saturday night. I was lucky enough to be in Auckland this weekend. I was attending the finals of the Smokefree Rockquest—and a big shout-out to Top Shelf from Manurewa High School, who actually won the award—but, you know, I was at the SkyCity Theatre, it was a wonderful night, but I got in my taxi after the event and I said to the taxi driver, “How are things?” He said, “It’s very, very quiet.” He said, “Auckland is dead. People are not out spending.” And so I do want to acknowledge that.

I really want to talk about this Budget and why it’s important. Again, I know my colleague the Hon David Seymour talked about some of the structural issues in Government spending—that we are now spending $68 billion more. It’s not that we are not spending enough as a country; it’s that we’re not spending enough on the right things. I think this Budget really is a demonstration of how this Government, which ACT is proud to be a member of, is doing things differently. Again, I’ve been talking to people over the weekend, and I said, “Well, actually, this is the first true coalition Government, with three parties in Cabinet trying to do things differently. We all bring different ideas to the table, which I think is great. There’s a role for all of the parties.”

What ACT is trying to do is actually bring some policies for some long-term solutions, some really long-term things. Again, I think that is very much reflected in this Budget. There has been some talk about our initiatives that are reflected in this Budget around crime. I want to thank our coalition partners for embracing some of our ideas. We’ve embraced some of theirs, and we are actually getting tough on crime. There was actually extra money for prison. ACT supported that. We’re not always against Government spending, but it’s spending on things that actually are going to make Kiwis safer. You know, we’ve got our gangs legislation, three strikes, sentencing—there’s a raft of measures which, again, we’re putting through and are reflected in this Budget’s priority around law and order.

The other one which I think is important is in this Budget, obviously, there’s money for the new Ministry for Regulation. What that is actually trying to do is free up business from the burden of Government, and actually make our society more productive and allow business to employ people, export goods, get overseas incomes for this country. Again, this is something that’s being put in place for the long term. Minister Seymour is going to have two jobs, really—to do reviews of sectors like early childhood education. You know, what is the burden we’re putting on that sector; how can we make it easier? He’s got other sectors he wants to look at—and then, excitingly, actually saying, for every new law and regulation that this place puts forward, we’re actually going to have a proper regulatory impact assessment. We will look at the pros and cons and actually ask whether it is the right thing to do, and there’ll be a pushback against Ministers. There’s money for that in this Budget.

Likewise, education—and later today, in this House, we’ll again be debating charter schools; again, money set aside in this Budget. Why are we doing that? Because education standards in New Zealand are appalling. We are falling behind the rest of the world. Along with charter schools, there’s obviously a number of other initiatives around reading, writing, and arithmetic that we’re very happy to support. This is putting in place the building blocks for actually making this country better, for actually allowing our young people to reach their full potential, and actually setting this country up for success.

The other one I want to talk about is Resource Management Act (RMA) reform. Again, Minister Bishop and Under-Secretary Court made a major announcement last week. But why are we doing this? Because we’ve actually got to set up this country for success; we can’t stop projects. If I reflect back to my home town of Invercargill, there’s a consortium there wanting to build a state of the art data centre to actually do AI calculations, but you can imagine the hurdles they have to jump through at the moment to get the land re-zoned, and all of the permits and consents. This should be a no-brainer for a country like this. We’ve got a high-tech industry wanting to come and set up in New Zealand; let’s make it faster. The RMA reforms, which are supported by this Budget, are something that is actually going to help set this country up for the future.

The other one I want to talk about is health, which is dear to my heart. Again, it was this Government, it was this side of the House, that made a record investment in Pharmac. And why did we do that? Because New Zealanders were missing out on vital medicines. We’d fallen behind our cousins in Australia, the UK, and Canada. We were actually years and years—in some cases, decades—behind getting treatments that other countries had. What Minister Seymour and his Cabinet colleagues did was say, “Well, this is actually a sensible investment.” Pharmac exemplifies how we want this Government to work: actually make solid analysis about where you want to invest your money and actually show an outcome. And, look, Pharmac’s been doing that for years and years and years. It does very rigorous cost assessments. It actually looks at what a dollar spent on a medicine will deliver. We’re actually going to open that up and say, “Well, hopefully they can deliver other benefits to our society and to Government.”, but they are a very rigorous organisation.

That discipline—if we take that to other areas of Government spending, that is how this Government wants to operate. We on this side of the House should be incredibly proud of the money we’ve put into Pharmac. That is going to save the lives of thousands and thousands of New Zealanders every year, and is actually going to deliver hope. I think that’s a really great achievement.

I heard some quite disturbing comments when I was listening to some of the debate this afternoon. Again, you know, it has been reflected that we’re spending $68 billion more than we were in 2017, and I heard the deputy leader of the Labour Party saying we had no plan—well, actually, quite the opposite. The previous Government had no plan. They spent billions and billions of dollars but didn’t ask for any outcomes, didn’t measure anything, didn’t build anything, didn’t actually put in place projects that were going to set this country up for the future. I totally reject that and I think that we are operating in a different way and we have looked for savings in this Budget so we can prioritise things that are going to make a difference for today, tomorrow, and the future.

I also heard Julie Anne Genter saying that we crashed the economy. Well, that is just not true. We did not do that. In fact, the quickest way to crash the economy would be a capital gains tax and a wealth tax; that would absolutely decimate New Zealand and, in fact, stop investment. We’ve just got to stop debates on crazy policies like that.

The last thing I just want to reflect on is the tax relief that this Budget has delivered. While it might be modest—and, again, it is well known that ACT would go further in delivering tax relief and letting Kiwis keep more of their money—it is important, because this is the first time in many, many, many, many years—

Miles Anderson: How many?

TODD STEPHENSON: —17—that New Zealanders have received tax relief. I want to acknowledge that at least we are on the right path, and I hope in the next Budget we can talk about how we can deliver even more tax relief, and maybe deal with some of the issues we have around different tax brackets and rates. The family tax boost, which was talked about by the last speaker, is another great example of how we’re actually trying to help the back pockets of Kiwis.

So I’m very pleased to be supporting these two bills on behalf of ACT, and I look forward to many more fruitful discussions on this side of the House about how we can responsibly spend Kiwis’ money to get results for New Zealand. Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): 你好, Mr Speaker. I watched the initial speech in this debate, from the Minister of Finance, who asserted that she had not borrowed for tax cuts. I just want to remind the other side of the House of the actual numbers. There were tax cuts of about $10 billion in the Budget; there was borrowing of $12 billion. The borrowing in this Budget will drive Government debt up to 43.5 percent of GDP.

Now, borrowing is something that responsible Governments do in a responsible way. That’s fine. It’s not the borrowing per se; it’s just asserting that there was no borrowing for tax cuts—it actually happened. And it’s interesting—that word, “cuts”—they’re avoiding it. What we’re doing now is it’s called a “reprioritisation”, because what’s actually happened is a shuffling around of the money. That is a Government that gives with one hand and then takes, takes, takes with the other, shuffling the costs on to the least well-off people in our country—small changes to taxes, but then cuts elsewhere, which have had a dramatic impact on families.

We’re seeing the queues for GPs because there are not enough GPs funded by our health system. We’re seeing school lunches being run down and not provided to the families who need them. We have seen the ending of free prescriptions. And if there was one thing that we were told would make a difference in healthcare, it was ensuring that people could afford their medication. Cut—gone. It’s the muddling around with the climate commitments and walking back from them. It’s raiding the Climate Emergency Response Fund to pay for other activities, like the changes to the tax thresholds. That Government tried to give, but in reality it was take, take, take.

In some of the areas that I am responsible for in terms of being Opposition spokesperson, it’s had a real business. One of the takes: $500 million out of science funding—$500 million gone from the science budget. Now, that has a really fundamental effect on New Zealand. It has a fundamental effect on building up the knowledge we need to be able to live in this country, from some of the basic science research like mapping flood zones, like monitoring the climate. It has a dramatic effect on our people capability within the science system.

If we look to what people who work in the system say, they talk about the National Science Challenges which are now no longer there. Here’s something from Grant Rennie, who’s chair of the New Zealand Public Service Association’s National Science Committee, “The National Science Challenges are the home of our biggest and most important mission-led research. Without replacement research funding, most of this research will stop or at best put progress back years. Without the National Science Challenge funding scientists will lose their jobs, and because the whole science system is under significant financial pressure from these changes there will be no other employment available. It will mean nationally important capability will be lost from the system.” Take, take, take—that’s all they do.

Here’s another one, “Science jobs are never lost based on inefficient working or for poor performance, they are lost because an area has not been funded, therefore losing the ‘best and brightest’ for no other reason than their funding cycle ended”. And here’s the one that’s really impacting on the science community, from a CRI scientist, “Almost every person who has made amazing contributions through science points to someone who inspired them that science was doing something worth doing. We have reached a point where the community cannot recommend a career in science.” That is what that Government has done to our science community.

If we look at what’s happened in tertiary education, another area where there are funding changes, the Apprenticeship Boost went from being funded for two years down to one. Now, that was something that helped businesses and helped our young people to get training and get a job. They’ve taken that money away. There’s an interesting one in the way that they’ve shifted the fee structure around for tertiary students. Now, there was a fee boost—of Government funding to fees—of 2.5 percent, much less than the rate of inflation, much less even than the current rate of inflation, but they lifted the cap which institutions could charge fees to students; they lifted that cap by 6 percent. In other words, the funding was shifted from Government to individual students. Shuffling the money around and taking from people—that’s what this Budget did.

Then, sitting in the Budget documents, sitting right there, is a huge blank space for the cost of the Te Pūkenga transition, disestablishment, and transition. That’s an astonishing thing to have in there, a blank space for the disestablishment of an institution that was beginning to work, and for the disestablishment in a way that goes against what was recommended to the Minister by her own specialist task force and by her own advisers. If we’re talking about wasteful spending, it’s that great blank in the tertiary education budget. That’s an appalling thing to do in a Budget from a Government that says it is responsible about spending. It has written a blank cheque to satisfy the ego of one Minister.

Then I want to talk about the revenue picture. Now, in the revenue budget, money has been allocated to tax cheats. That’s a fair enough thing to do, but I want to look at the bigger picture. Now, the revenue strategy has to be set out in each year’s annual Budget, and it signifies how the Government plans to run its revenue strategy. This year’s revenue strategy begins by saying, “A good tax system is one that: finances public expenditure in a fair and efficient way”. Of course those words “fair and efficient” are important, and they speak to all of us—but we have different views about what they constitute.

I want to look at the first part of that sentence, “A good tax system is one that: finances public expenditure”. Sitting in the briefing to the incoming Minister this year, there is a challenge for the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Revenue, an ongoing challenge, and I’m going to point the members over that side to page 11 of the slide pack which the Treasury prepared. In it, there is a paragraph that says, “The net result of these movements in expenses and revenue and after stripping out large “one-off” expenditures and adjusting for the economic cycle, is that the government is currently running a structural OBEGAL deficit of around 2% of GDP.”

Over time, Government is simply not collecting enough revenue to fund the things that New Zealanders want—to fund health, to fund education, to fund welfare, to fund infrastructure—because there is a certain level of spending we simply cannot do without. There is a challenge for that Government. They’ve gone cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, but all that has resulted in is costs being forced on to individuals and forced on to people who can afford it the least. Their challenge is to restructure the revenue system, yet they have rejected doing that. That is sitting right here in these Budget documents.

There is just one further challenge for that Government. We hear the phrase all the time, we have to “grow the pie”. In order to do the things we want to do, we should “grow the pie”. I’ve been hearing that phrase for 40 years, and somehow the pie hasn’t grown enough—it simply hasn’t grown enough to ensure that we get the health system we need; it hasn’t grown enough to do simple things like lunches and schools. Time to stop saying “grow the pie”, and focus on the real challenge. That’s why cutting science expenditure is so frustrating. If we are going to meet our country’s productivity challenge, science is one of the critical ways to do it. That’s why the lack of funding into tertiary education is so frustrating, because if we want to meet this country’s productivity challenge, one of the ways to do it is by ensuring that about 80 percent of people have a tertiary degree or diploma. We actually need to fund those systems.

Here’s something for the Government to understand: you cannot cut your way to growth. Growth requires investment—growth requires investment in science and in tertiary education, and it requires investment in all of us.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member’s time has expired. All this talk about pies has reminded me that, members, it’s time for me to leave the Chair; it’s dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Good evening, all. We’re on the third reading of the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill and the second reading of the Imprest Supply (Second for 2024/25) Bill.

Debate interrupted.

Personal Explanations

Estimates Debate—Correction

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Mr Speaker, point of order. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct a statement I made in the Estimates debate on Wednesday, 18 September.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to make it clear that $92.235 million has been appropriated for our programme of work around the Resource Management Act; not $92.4 million.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Thank you.

Bills

Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill

Third Reading

Bills

Imprest Supply (Second for 2024/25) Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. 大家好，我是 Ryan Hamilton，中文周快乐. Happy Chinese Language Week to everyone who’s listening. Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I’d also like to acknowledge one young politician of the year—Miss Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke—who was one of four selected to represent the world. I think that’s a significant achievement and would like to acknowledge her, also a fellow Waikato MP. She’s certainly got a challenge in front of her as she maps kotahitanga in the path forward, but she’s certainly got some great legacy and leaders like Pita Sharples and Turiana Turia. We wish her every luck and look forward to advancing Waikato with her.

In the context of this imprest supply bill, we must remember the situation with which the Budget was made. Of course, the first one was cost of living, a flat GDP, high inflation, high interest rates, and, of course, all those things lead to a recessionary environment. Now, of course, we’re seeing some of the lag effects of those, with things like increasing unemployment. I think, if we could name this Budget—certainly, it’s not the “mother of all Budgets”, but I’d like to call it the “Berocca Budget”, because it’s what you take to help when you’re slightly hungover. I think this is the hangover that we’ve been passed, and so this is the “Berocca Budget”.

Obviously, this House will be well versed in the 14-year gap and fiscal drag in that which we know as tax relief, and so it was very pleasing to see that after such a long, dry time, we were able to adjust those tax brackets and thresholds from that fiscal drag, the minimum one going from $14,000 to $15,600, and the second from $48,000 to $53,500, and the last—

Camilla Belich: How many of those years was National in power?

RYAN HAMILTON: Thank you for bringing up National. Actually, we tried in 2017, but you voted it down. We would have increased the tax brackets a lot sooner, had Labour not intervened, but the good thing about this is that now, with FamilyBoost, families can also receive up to $75 a fortnight more for those with kids in childcare, as one of my colleagues elucidated earlier, which is a fantastic achievement for those families doing it hard. We’re really excited about those tax adjustments.

Three key things that the Opposition was quite quick to criticise earlier was that this actually tilts the benefit—the benefits of the tax package are tilted towards lower and middle income families in New Zealand and it puts $3.7 billion back into the hands of New Zealanders. I’m pleased my good friend “Piketty Pirate” Parker is over there; he was often challenging where this came from. It was actually from both revenue measures and tax reprioritisation, so it’s fully funded—those two key “f” words. The other great thing about this Budget is two-thirds of it is actually going towards some of the priorities we campaigned on, those being health, education, and law and order. That is two-thirds of this Budget.

Let me start with healthcare, if I may. We contributed an extra $8.2 billion towards the budget, and $665 million of that was from a reprioritisation. One of my colleagues earlier talked about how we went line through line and we saved something like 240 items. We were able to claw back revenue and put it back towards those front-line services. Of that $8.2 billion, $3.4 billion was earmarked for hospitals and specialist services and $2.1 billion for primary care. We know only too well the benefit of funding in primary care. In fact, we were able to support capitation for medical practices by an uplift of 4 percent and an average allowable fee of 7.76 percent. I was approached by several GPs who were struggling to make ends meet because their revenue stream was, effectively, capped. The capitation was locked and they were unable to reduce the fees for patients. Now we’ve seen a slight uplift in capitation and in fees, which is not the complete cure, as you’ll appreciate, with the “hangover Budget cure”, but we’re making steps in the right direction.

The other key thing in health, of course, is the appointment of the Minister for Mental Health, which is absolutely fantastic, and $24 million towards Gumboot Friday. Might I also just pause here to acknowledge we’re in Mental Health Awareness Week. Nāu te rourou, nāku te rourou, ka ora ai te iwi—with your food basket and mine, the people will flourish. I just want to give pause to the purpose of this week, and acknowledge the great mental health Minister sitting here. We all know someone who is either directly or indirectly affected by mental health, and I think it’s just a moment for us to think about the person that’s been a little bit quiet in the last week or two, the person that’s missing in action, or the person that’s on the end of a phone that you may not have called in the last week or two or month. May we just acknowledge those that have struggled or are struggling with mental health, and may we all do our bit to help them.

While I’m on the subject, last week, in the good electorate of Hamilton East, I met Sarah, who’s the CEO of Mental Health First Aid Aotearoa, New Zealand, where they actually equip people to deal with first aid signs and, if someone’s suicidal, how they can have just some tool box tools to help them. I’d also like to acknowledge Mike from Male Survivors, Jane from Child Matters, Mike from Vinnie’s, and Jo from Te Whare Korowai—great organisations which all help people in our community. They’ll be the first to say that trauma is often one of the underlying causes of mental health. Again, with this Budget, I was so pleased to see the social investment. Time permitting, Mr Speaker, I’d love to indulge you in some of the wonderful things that are happening in that space as well.

I alluded to the investment in education: $2.9 billion in schools and early childhood education, including kōhanga reo, Playcentre, kindergartens, kura kaupapa Māori, special schools, intermediate schools, secondary schools, charter schools—the work goes on and it’s just fantastic. Of course, we know that Budgets aren’t just about money; we’ve also had some incredible success with the cellphone ban, and it’s been a pleasure to go around the schools and hear the activity at lunch times and play times of kids laughing and enjoying each other. One thing we know is social cohesion is key towards healthy communities and healthy play groups. Of course, education is one of our key pillars of productivity, which we’re hearing a lot about. We’ve got to educate our next generation, our rangatahi, our tamariki. It’s so important. I’m pleased to see that education is one of those key pillars of our productivity.

Of course, we’re investing $2.9 billion in restoring law and order. This House has been actively involved in some of that work in the last few weeks, with legislation going through the House in the justice and the law and order sections. Waikato, in particular, is grateful for the extra 14 cops on the beat that have been announced in recent times, a proactive measure to help calm the community so that they can feel safe and also to reduce the serious levels of violence and abuse and theft we’ve seen in recent times. I’d also like to acknowledge the appointment of Andrew Coster, a former Police commissioner, now the CE of the Social Investment Agency, which I alluded to earlier.

There is $51 million to accelerate social investment, a social investment fund to directly commission outcomes for vulnerable New Zealanders. We get a little bit of flak from the Opposition in terms of being tough on crime and being hard, but, equally, we’ve actually got very big hearts on this side of the House, and we know the importance of getting in front of the problems before they become crime. If crime does eventuate, there do need to be consequences, but, of course, if we can prevent that at the very front end—from childhood, from family cohesion—well, we’re all about that. I wish Andrew Coster as the new CEO of that organisation every success.

I’m looking forward to the Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms that will be coming through in the next few months, particularly fast track. Certainly, I’ve had developers and entrepreneurs and people that are just frustrated with the stymied confusion, delay in getting things off the ground—

Hon Willie Jackson: Lobbyists, tobacco companies.

RYAN HAMILTON: I bet even the Hon Willie Jackson, if he’s honest, has had a few people coming and saying, “When’s that fast track going through? Because I’m really keen on it, eh.” Like, even both sides of the House are really keen—

Hon Member: Lot of iwi leaders want it.

RYAN HAMILTON: Iwi leaders, yep. Even though they’ll pretend that they’re against fast track, secretly they’re quite looking forward to it. We’re really excited about that fast track, and, of course, the RMA reform, ably led by the Hon Chris Bishop. I’m pleased to say that fast track will be here “fastly”. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Kia ora to the House. The Labour Party, obviously, stands opposed to this terrible legislation and this appalling and dangerous and selfish Budget. It’s not a Budget for the people; it’s a Budget for the rich, and I think we’ve pretty well established that, on this side of the House. It’s not a Budget for Kiwis; it’s a Budget for the donor class of National, ACT, and New Zealand First. Treasury warned National they needed to spend $3 billion a year to halve child poverty. The Government responded cruelly by ignoring that advice. They don’t have money to halve child poverty, but they do have it for borrowed tax cuts.

I just want to come to, obviously, the Māori area, because it’s an area that I’ve put a lot of time into, as our party has, of course. I want to comment, particularly after last week, that we had Māori Language Week, and that’s a week when there should always be a lot of investment by Governments. It was a wonderful week in the House. We had Tama Potaka not speaking English—you know, sticking to the kaupapa. Good on him, kia ū ki te kaupapa—aye, Peeni? Pai tana reo, rawe! Rawe ki te whakarongo ki a ia. [Good on him, commit to the theme—aye, Peeni? His reo is good, excellent! Awesome to listen to him.]

He was lovely to listen to, and we had Shane Jones giving us beautiful recitals of whakapapa and history. Oh, it was all so beautiful, and then we had Minister Goldsmith. All of a sudden, he was so passionate about the language, and oh, it was just incredible, really, watching Minister Goldsmith and his new-found love of the Māori language. Do you know, it was just beautiful. I thought he was really from Ngati Porou, the way he was going on, and he was being tutored by Tama Potaka and Shane Jones. But it was interesting, coming from Minister Goldsmith, given his negativity towards our language, towards our reo, about three weeks earlier, when he felt too embarrassed to put our language on a simple letter to his counterpart—

Ryan Hamilton: Back to the Budget.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh no, this is all about the Budget. The point is, I say to that other side, that it’s all good to talk about the language, but how about putting some funding and resourcing behind it?

The very week that these three were parading around the House that they all love Māori Language Week, we had the Māori Television chief executive, Shane Taurima, telling our select committee downstairs that he’s making a 25 percent cut in terms of his staff, which is huge for Whakaata Māori. Why? Because the great lovers of the language—Minister Goldsmith, Minister Jones, and Minister Potaka—haven’t put their hands up in the Budget rounds to get more funding and resourcing for Whakaata Māori. It is a disgrace. They are a disgrace. The beautiful language—beautiful; yes, we loved their reo. Peeni Henare, who is one of the real experts, sat there—“Oh, yes, wonderful.” Former Minister Henare knows that it’s all very good to speak the reo, but how about fronting up at Budget time and getting some funding for your people? Shame on all three of them, because that’s sort of our lot for Māori.

This Budget represents the worst outcome for Māori in a generation. The Government has slashed $40 million from Māori housing providers, along with cutting $20 million for young people/rangatahi transitional housing. In our view, Māori have been ignored in this Budget. Māori development has received zero funding for core services, along with no new initiatives for Māori communities. It’s a disgrace that Māori are being used to pay for tax cuts—pay for tax cuts—at a time when whānau across the country are struggling. Almost $100 million has been saved by the Government choosing not to invest in supporting Māori. Tairāwhiti has been neglected, with no funding to support projects on the East Coast. All funding for mātauranga Māori - based approaches to agricultural emissions have been cut.

It is embarrassing what this Government has come out with. When I think about what myself and Peeni Henare, our Māori caucus, and our Labour Party supported over the last few years, we were averaging $1 billion a year, and $32 million we got for Matatini; $1 billion a year—$1.2 billion in our last year—we thought was pretty reasonable. Now you will hear the arguments from Te Pāti Māori, who talk about 20 percent of the funding. Good on Te Pāti Māori, but, realistically, any Government should be funding Māori kaupapa at around what we were doing, which represented around about 6 percent of the new funding. I was proud that Labour was able to do that over three years. Yes, I hear—and we all hear—Te Pāti Māori talking about 20 percent because we are 20 percent, but the reality is there’s only 5 or 6 percent of “by Māori, for Māori” providers.

The type of funding that we were rolling out, I think, was perfect, and we were funding the right providers and the right people. Of course, the National Party weren’t ignoring Māori altogether; they put a bit of funding behind Paula Bennett, who took over the chairmanship of—what did Paula Bennett take the chairmanship of?

Hon Member: Pharmac.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Pharmac? Oh, yes. There are some Māori they fund and support: Paula Bennett. Paula’s got a flash new job with Pharmac. The first thing she did was get rid of all the Treaty clauses in Pharmac. Well done, Paula! They don’t always ignore Māori. Simon Bridges has also got a flash job, too, I believe. Yes, he’s going to look after Minister Simeon Brown and make sure that the Māoris don’t get too big for their boots in the transport area, because you don’t want too many Māori names in transport! Simon will make sure that things are OK for the Government in the transport area. So it’s not right to say that this Government ignores Māori altogether; they look after some of their favourite Māori, as we all know. It’s a sad time for not just Māori but everyone.

As we know, as a party, they don’t have money to properly fund health, but they do have $5 million for a bootcamp virtue signal that we all know won’t work. They don’t have money for more food in schools, but they do have $4 million for ACT’s racist Treaty referendum bill. It’s a shocking bill that has been rubbished not just by our side but by the National Party side—good National Party people like Jim Bolger, Doug Graham, Jenny Shipley; they’ve all said how shocking this is—but we have a National Cabinet that lined up and supported David Seymour for a waste of $4 million. Despite what judges have said for the last 30 to 40 years, despite what National and Labour Governments have done, they rolled out $4 million for the most divisive type of legislation you could ever have. They’ve also given $30 million for David Seymour’s red-tape ministry—but not the beneficiaries who need that more.

It’s a Budget that rewards the polluters while the climate burns. Shane Jones hasn’t met a coal mine now that he doesn’t want to marry, and this Budget allows him to do that. I mean, Shane is just so in love not just with himself but with this National Party and with coal mines, as we all know. It’s a Budget for higher speed limits and more road deaths; I think that’s been pretty well established. It’s a Budget for landlords at the expense of renters. It just goes on and on. I know the other side—I’m picking up from them that they’re a bit embarrassed by this, because that’s why they’re listening intently tonight. I’m pleased about that. If the Budget had pronouns, they would be “me” and “mine”! This is a Budget that celebrates selfishness at the cost of the common good.

A Budget from Labour that went beyond donor interests would ensure our public services weren’t hacked back. Nicola Willis’ demands that public servants return to the office is a sad attempt to jumpstart the Wellington economy, when the reality is that the 5,000 public servants the Government sacked is why this Wellington economy is suffering. It’s a ghost town at times; it pains me to see it. This Budget enables that suffering. This Budget funds the mega-prison that our underfunded social services help produce. Rather than focus on the cause of crime, this Budget only funds the symptoms. This isn’t a Budget for the people. I talked about Māori, but it actually isn’t a Budget for workers. It’s not a Budget for women. It’s not a Budget for Pasifika. Our people in the regions are suffering. All around the country, our people are upset. It doesn’t discriminate in terms of colour. It is not good for your average Kiwi. Labour rises to denounce this Budget for what it is: a Budget for the rich, by the rich, and in the interests of the rich. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Thank you, Mr Jackson. I just was going to mention about reading a speech, but in some members’ cases, having a prepared, read speech is actually an advantage—so well done.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): In my 11 or so months here so far, there’s been a couple of things I’ve always looked forward to, and one of them has been to provide the rebuttal or the speech straight after the Hon Willie Jackson. But, actually, I don’t need to say anything in response to that because, Mr Speaker, you said it all for me. You said it all for me around reading the speech, getting into the detail, particularly at the last minute, because he’s used the first nine minutes with all the bluster and everything he needs to say, and then, “Oh, yup—last minute. I need to get to the talking points.” The “me/mine” Budget, as he coined as well—very smart, Mr Jackson, very smart, well done.

The key messages, particularly about this Budget, have been that this bill is a testament to our Government’s commitment to fiscal responsibility. It shows that we are strongly in favour of having a transparent allocation of resources. Additionally, it ensures that essential public services and infrastructure projects have that necessary funding to operate effectively and efficiently.

There’s a number of crucial components that I’m going to dive deep into through my contribution, but just to remind people what Budget 2024 actually delivered: we delivered a fiscally responsible Budget that delivered on our commitments from the election campaign; tax relief that gave average-income households up to $102 a fortnight, plus FamilyBoost childcare payments of up to $150 a fortnight; targeted investments in public services, including healthcare, education, and law and order; savings across Government to responsibly fund tax relief and boost front-line services; infrastructure investments for growth; and fiscal discipline to get us back into surplus and to lower debt.

That’s one particular point I really want to highlight, because, in 2019, Government debt sat at around $5 billion. In 2023, it had ballooned to $100 billion. The other side of the House was simply an “Afterpay Government”, paying for fine things today and paying for it in the future. It’s my generation, and the generations to come, that will feel the full effects of the “Afterpay Government”, of the “Credit Card Government”, of the “Just Appropriate it Government”, that simply said, “We can spray the problem away by throwing more cash at it.” Actually, that doesn’t resolve the issues that we’re facing, because if it was just as simple as throwing money at things, we would solve numerous problems. It’s actually about diving deeper into what the real issues are. Government spending on the other side increased by over 80 percent. Show me a New Zealander today that says, under that six years, they were 80 percent better off. Show me 80 percent better off. Show me it—show me it—because we’ve got Government debt at $100 billion and we’ve got Government spending increased by 80 percent but nothing to show for it, nothing that we can see tangibly improving New Zealanders’ lives.

One of the things I’m really proud about from our Budget that we delivered this year is FamilyBoost. One of the stories I want to share was just from the weekend at the Women’s Lifestyle Expo in the Bay of Plenty. A young mum came up to me and said, “Oh, I just want to say thank you for FamilyBoost and what it’s going to mean for our family.” I said, “Oh, OK, tell me a little bit more about that.” She said, “Oh, I’ve got a couple of young kids. I’ve got them in early childcare. For us, the extra $975 we’re going to get every three months is going to make the world of difference. My husband and I, we own our own small business. Times are tough. Our kids need early childhood education. This $975 every quarter, nearly $4,000 a year, is going to make a world of difference for us. It might mean that we can keep sending our kids to their swimming lessons. It might mean that we can go on that one holiday that we’ve been hoping for. We just want to say thank you because this really has made the biggest impact for our household.” I said to her, “Well, thank you so much for sharing that with me. I’m keen to understand if it has been easy for you, with your childcare provider, to get your access to FamilyBoost.” What she said was, “Yes, my local provider in Pāpāmoa, in the Bay of Plenty electorate, has prepared for us a three-monthly statement that I can simply upload on to the myIR website.” I said, “That’s fantastic.”

It’s stories like that, and hearing those daily, that really hammer home what impacts a fiscally responsible, smart decision-making Budget can have for everyday New Zealanders. I want to thank that young mum for coming and sharing that story with me because it’s something that I’ve carried from having spoken with her over the weekend. For those families out there thinking about FamilyBoost, simply my suggestions to you are to jump on to the myIR website, gather your ECE invoices, and be ready to submit your claim from 1 October. FamilyBoost is our Government’s commitment to helping New Zealand families. We’re making it easier for parents to manage their household expenses while ensuring that their children get a quality education.

As we move on, I want to talk about tax relief. One of the things that we changed and adjusted in this Budget was to do with the bracket creep that we had seen for the last 14 years. We hadn’t seen our tax brackets in New Zealand adjusted for 14 years and there had been this bracket creep that had grown exponentially over that period of time. On this side of the House, we believe New Zealanders know how to spend their money and can be fiscally responsible, whilst on the other side of the House, they’re having a crisis at the moment, trying to work out new ways to find taxes, new ways to take it off New Zealanders, new ways to put it into the Government’s pockets because they believe they can spend it better than anybody else. Fundamentally, we do not agree with that. The difference couldn’t be starker for the New Zealand public. This side believes you keep it; that side believes they should take it. And they are making that abundantly clear now, two years out from the next election, and the New Zealand public in 2026 will know what the clear differences are between this side of the House and the other side of the House.

The other key part about this year’s Budget was the investment in infrastructure and roading, particularly our 17 roads of national significance—17 roads of national significance. One road for every Labour MP elected in a seat around the country—one road for every Labour MP elected around the country. I say to the communities across the country: would you choose the Labour MP or the road of national significance? They’re picking the road of national significance every day of the week.

I think about my Bay of Plenty electorate; two roads of national significance for us locally. State Highway 29 over the Kaimai Ranges, connecting Tauranga with Waikato and Auckland—the “golden triangle”—and connecting New Zealand’s largest port with the Port of Tauranga; 40 percent of New Zealand’s exports leaving it. That vital road will play a key link for us to the rest of New Zealand, particularly with the Waikato and Auckland. Then the Takitimu North Link, through Te Puna and Ōmokoroa, connecting the Tauranga, Bay of Plenty, and Coromandel electorates. That is going to move a huge amount of freight and people off local roads and onto State highways.

Let’s just recall, in 2017, that road was ready to go, consented, funded, and ready. What did Labour do when they came into Government in 2017? They cancelled it—they cancelled it—then they scaled it back, they brought it back in, and then they delayed it again, and they only did stage one. Stage one would have been delivered by now. I say to the people of Te Puna, Ōmokoroa, Waihī Beach, Katikati, and all the communities through there: the road is being delivered by National for you, to enable you to get where you want to go quicker, safer, and faster, because that’s what this side of the House believes. That’s what we fundamentally believe: that we actually need roads to drive on around this country.

We hear people across the other side of the House who say, “Oh, just put more cycle lanes in. Take out the car parks outside our offices and just put the cycle lanes in. That’ll help everybody get around the country.” Well, it doesn’t work. It simply doesn’t work. It’s the roads of national significance—as I said, the 17 of them; one for every Labour MP elected in a seat around this country—and they’re really going to be delivering for the New Zealand population and allowing people to get around our country in a better way and make us—make us—a more productive country. That’s what we’re fundamentally here to do—

James Meager: Grow the pie.

TOM RUTHERFORD: —make us a more productive country and, as we’ve talked about tonight, grow that pie.

You heard Deborah Russell: she was sick of the pie—she was sick of the pie—she hated the pie. Well, she would have loved the movie Chicken Run. She’s sick of hearing about the pie and growing it, where, on this side of the House, we actually want to grow New Zealand, both locally and on the international stage. We can’t do it by just sharing things with each other; we have to get out there internationally, share what we’ve got with them, bring in what other countries have that we don’t have, to ensure we are the best country in the world. That’s what we’re here to do—to make us the best place in the world for people to live, work, and play. For me, that stands most importantly for my local community of the Bay of Plenty but also for New Zealand—to make it the best place for our next generations that are coming through, so they’re not saddled with debt, so they’ve got a Government that believes in them and wants to make it the best place in the world.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’ve been following this debate, and the sad fact is that it hasn’t actually been a debate at all. This is supposed to be a talk about this bill and the Budget that this Government has passed that every single one of these MPs have voted for. I would have thought that they would take the opportunity to stand up and not just read what is in front of them, not just read what’s been given to them, but actually respond to the points that have been made.

Throughout this debate, members have pointed out that the Budget that we’re talking about today, the Budget they voted for, removed $1.5 billion from housing. The Budget they voted for has removed $1.5 billion from health. It has imposed significant costs on to ratepayers and there’s a $6 billion hole in their transport budget. Now, if a left-leaning Government produced a Budget with deficits like that, they would be screaming from the rooftops about how irresponsible it was. Could you imagine what their response might be if a Labour finance Minister borrowed more than five out of the last six Budgets, and borrowed even more irresponsibly for tax cuts? They would be out of their minds with rage about how irresponsible it is. Yet they stand here today and they read the comments that have been prepared for them in defence of this Budget. Not responding to the points that have been made. Not actually debating it, just trying to rewrite history—trying to put a positive spin on a Budget that doesn’t add up.

I just wonder why the Government just can’t be upfront with New Zealanders. When they campaigned in the election, they were told it didn’t add up. Everyone said it didn’t add up. Not just other politicians but economists and bankers: “It just doesn’t add up.” “Oh no, no, no, no, no; it adds up.”, they told us. They knew it didn’t add up. Then they delivered a Budget where they had to borrow more than five of the last six Budgets. That’s responsible, supposedly. Then they call around and they look New Zealanders in the eye and they say, “We have not borrowed for tax cuts.” It’s just not true. Listen to the independent people if you don’t believe us. They’re saying that it is a fallacy, and yet they look New Zealanders in the eye and they say so.

They stand in the House, as they have many times before, and they celebrate the fact that there are fewer people in emergency housing. Where have they gone? Not into houses that they’ve paid for. Not after pulling $1.5 billion out of the Budget, and not after making the criteria more difficult to reach in order to qualify for emergency housing. It was quite telling today. One of the questions trying to celebrate lower numbers of people in emergency housing was “How much money have we saved as a result?” And there it was. That is exactly what sums up their approach: it’s all about the money. It’s not about wellbeing. It’s certainly not about the working people of this country. In fact, it’s not about most people in this country. To them, they’re quite happy to stand up and gaslight the country and tell them everything’s OK and tell them that they’re good at balancing the books, when it’s not OK and they haven’t balanced diddly-squat. Nothing in this Budget matches up to the PR spin that we’ve heard from the Government members today.

They have withdrawn so much money out of the housing budget that they are only projecting to fund 750 homes a year—750. Last year, Kāinga Ora alone built 5,000. These guys have stripped money from Kāinga Ora and have stopped them building houses. Homeless rates will rise, so will poverty, so will crime because they had to find a way to pay for tax cuts for landlords. Everywhere you look, there are examples where that money would have made a material difference to people’s lives, and they’ve given it as a tax break to landlords.

What they never mention is that the settings of interest deductibility were such that you could still claim it on a new build, but not on an existing build. Why? Because we want people to build houses, and it was working. Investment was being driven to new homes, the proportion of new homebuilders was growing, the number of consents was growing, and now what’s happened? They’ve taken it away. Consents are through the floor. The proportion of first-home buyers is going down, and 8,000 construction workers are out of work, and what do they do? Not take responsibility. They blame absolutely everybody else—everyone that they can see except themselves. Yet this is a direct result of decisions that they have made. They don’t front up. They certainly don’t defend their decisions.

Go anywhere in the country and talk to health workers. You saw it on the news tonight, we’ve seen it in the news for the last few months; this is the worst state that they have seen the health sector to be in. It was only a few years ago—and they laugh. That is the typical arrogance that we can expect from Matt Doocey and others, when we are relaying the accounts of health professionals and they laugh—that’s the arrogance. That is the arrogance that we can expect from this Government. They don’t care.

When they are confronted with facts, like the nurses at Masterton Hospital that say that they are 40 nurses short, and they are not allowed to recruit, and what’s their response? “There’s no hire freeze at all.” One of them is not telling the truth, and I bet it’s not the workers. I bet it’s not the nurses and I bet it’s not the patients who are having to wait at emergency departments all around the country, longer than they ever have because there aren’t enough workers because they’ve cut $1.5 billion out of the health sector.

Everywhere you look, they are scratching around for money to fill the hole that they themselves created. The previous speaker, Tom Rutherford, spoke at length of National Party roads of significance. He didn’t talk about whether they were funded or not. I’ll tell you why, because they’re not—a $6 billion hole. They’ve gone around the country in order to get elected, telling regions everywhere that they’re going to build them a new road, except, I note, in the South Island—not a single road of National Party significance in the South Island. Matt Doocey’s quiet now. There’s a $6 billion hole because they promised too much, and now they need to fill it.

What are they going to do? They’re going to sting the people that they have the arrogance to look in the eye and say that “We’re looking after you.”—and no better example of this than the Manawatū Tararua Highway. They’ve even tried to claim credit for something that was nothing to do with them. Simon Bridges closed the Manawatū Gorge for safety reasons back in 2017, and their proposal as a replacement was the Saddle Road. That’s all the National Party ever did. They never put up plans and they certainly didn’t fund it, and that’s a fact. They can write as many columns and post it around telling people that they started it; it’s not true.

Yet here we are, looking at a road—a replacement highway that is nine months from completion, that is going to be a game-changer for this region, that the region has waited patiently for seven years. It is the largest earthworks project in the country, and it’s going to make all the difference to that region. This Government, because they can’t make their books balance, because there is a $6 billion hole in their transport budget, have decided to put a toll on it: $4.30 one way; $8.60 if you’re going to Palmerston North to work. What good is a $2.50 tax cut when the Government’s going to turn around and put $8.60 on those households? The median income in the Tararua District is $26,000, and they want to sting these good people to the tune of $40 a week because they can’t make their books balance. It’s a disgrace. It’s an act of bad faith.

There was a public meeting in Woodville last Tuesday. Two National Party MPs were there: Mike Butterick and Suze Redmayne. At no point did they stand up and say, “I will join you and oppose this pulp.” All they said was, “I’m here to listen.”, and they sat down. Those people are going to be stung because there’s no one in the Government that’s fighting in their corner. All they have to say is, “We’re listening.” Well, prove it—prove it. Prove it that you’re listening and scrap this ridiculous toll. This is going to hurt people.

This is what this Budget is actually about. It’s not about all the big claims that they’ve made. It’s not about all the untruthful claims about budget responsibility. It’s actually about the impact on real people. Examples like this proposed toll that is directly as a result of this Government’s policies and the hole in this Budget is going to hurt people. I think that sums up this Budget more than anything else.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Vanessa Weenink, with six minutes and 55 seconds left.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an honour to speak in this final speech for the Appropriation (2024/25) Estimates) Bill and Imprest Supply Bill. I have the honour of bringing it home. We’ve had a great afternoon listening to a range of speakers around the House. For those people in the Banks Peninsula electorate who are watching at home, I’m going to give a bit of a summary, because they’ve probably been waiting—I know there’s at least one person who’s watching!

We kicked off this debate with the Minister of Finance describing the context for this bill and the requirement for it: for the Government to be provided with the authority to make the spending decisions throughout the year, and it allows operational and capital expenditure to carry on throughout the year in between the Budget spends. Doing this is kind of a safety net, is how she put it, of the Public Finance Act. It’s a way to make sure that the Government is doing things within the law with the authority of Parliament. This is the last phase of the Budget legislation for the 2024 Budget, and the first for the Hon Nicola Willis.

In that Budget, we have delivered the first tax relief in 14 years, and this will help more people to keep money in their own back pockets, and we’re delivering FamilyBoost to help families with the cost of childcare, which my colleagues Catherine Wedd and Nancy Lu also spoke about, as did others. They spoke about how easy it is for people to sign up to be able to get those payments, and we’re delivering on our promises within our first year of Government. We have delivered tax relief and we are seeing inflation come down. We’ve got interest rates also coming down. We’re working to grow the economy. As many people have mentioned, we are growing the pie. So many of my colleagues have mentioned that.

We heard from Stuart Smith. He spoke about many things, including the energy sector, and energy feeds the economy. Something he also spoke about was some of the ways that he’s heard that everyday New Zealanders understand that this money that we’re talking about is everybody’s money; it’s not just the Government’s money. Who’s paying for it? Actually, we’re all paying for it, and people in New Zealand understand that, and they know that this Government is going to be much more fiscally responsible.

Stuart also mentioned that gangs are a cancer on our society, which I think is apt, given the surgical excision we are seeing of that organisation out of some of the neighbourhoods in my electorate. Law and order is about creating confidence. It’s about allowing us all to get on with our business and conduct our affairs peacefully. I see a direct link between law and order and economic growth, and I have also witnessed the opposite in Afghanistan.

Catherine Wedd spoke very eloquently about the industries that she sees out and about that will help us to grow their pie, and, no doubt, it will be an apple pie, given that her electorate is the fruit bowl of New Zealand. Nancy Lu told us about the incredible potential in our ethnic communities, and highlighted a fantastic symposium that’s happening in Auckland soon to showcase that. Ryan Hamilton also spoke about some of the impacts in his electorate in Hamilton, which is great.

I do want to highlight one other colleague’s contribution, and that was Todd Stephenson, who spoke about Pharmac. I’m very, very glad to be part of a Government which has stabilised Pharmac and also stopped them from having to de-list medications, and then gave one of the largest injections of money into Pharmac that has ever been received. I know very, very well how hard all of the people within Pharmac work to assess the impacts and make sure that the benefits of medication are known, and to get to the heart of the science behind the medications so that we can get the best value for New Zealand, and I thank them for that. I think Pharmac is one of the treasures of our country that we should support.

As always, Tom Rutherford gave us some great insights into what he has been hearing from around the electorate, and he did talk about those roads of national significance. I was listening to the other side, and I did hear what they had to say, and I have got a few things to point out to them. I think the honourable member who spoke before me, Kieran McAnulty, is one of the best advertisements for structured literacy and structured numeracy that we could ever have, because he kept talking about $1.5 billion taken out of health. Well, I don’t remember seeing that; I remember the $16 billion extra in funding. I remember seeing that this is one of the most extensive Budgets we’ve had for health ever, and I’ve had quite a close watch of that. Now, $2.1 billion into primary care—that’s one of the greatest uplifts in primary care that we’ve ever seen. We’ll wait to see how Te Whatu Ora operationalise that, and I really look forward to it.

The Hon Barbara Edmonds lectured people on looking up on the internet on where we might see how things have been spent. Well, the other thing you might look up on the internet is the Auditor-General’s report, especially the one that talks about the ways in which some of those little projects that she mentioned were chosen. Some of those projects were very poorly managed, there was a lack of transparency, and there was no measurement of the impact, no focus on the outcomes of their project, and no way that we could measure whether or not we were making a difference. I don’t know if she’s read any of those, but she can look them up on the House website if she cares to.

Chlöe Swarbrick also mentioned social determinants of health, especially those like stable housing and decent incomes, and that’s exactly our point too, and when it comes to social investments, we’re not going to sit by and let whānau languish in emergency housing, and that’s why we’ve improved and reduced the number of people in social housing by 57 percent.

This Government cares about outcomes, we are fiscally responsible, and we don’t just talk about nice ideas; we have practical ways that we can get them done. The other side of the House likes to try to paint a story of us being mean and nasty, but actually we are being careful with New Zealanders’ money, we are being respectful, we are laying out what we’re going to get for our money—because it’s all of our money; we were talking about that—and we will hold our Government departments to account. We will be doing that consistently. Now, health is a debacle because of the previous Government. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and that the Imprest Supply (Second for 2024/25) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill read a third time.

Imprest Supply (Second for 2024/25)

Imprest Supply (Second for 2024/25)

A party vote was called for on the question, That Imprest Supply (Second for 2024/25) Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Bills

Imprest Supply (Second for 2024/25) Bill

Third Reading

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2024/25) Bill be now read a third time.

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

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Education and Training Amendment Bill.

Bills

Education and Training Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 19 September.

Part 2 Amendments to other legislation and revocation (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Education and Training Amendment Bill. When we were last debating the bill, we were debating Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 63AAA to 70, “Amendments to other legislation and revocation”, and Schedule 4.

Last week, it was mistakenly ruled that Schedule 1 could not be debated during the debate on Part 1. This, unfortunately, prevented some members from debating Schedule 1 at the appropriate time. I’m therefore ruling that members may debate Schedule 1 as part of the debate on Part 2. However, this does not open the debate to matters and questions about Schedule 1 that have already been addressed. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Just a question about your ruling. Thank you for that ruling to make that clear. Having discussed with some colleagues on this side of the House who were present for that entire committee stage, the only parts that we are aware of that were touched on in Schedule 1 were some of the changes to 6A—an amendment in relation to that—and also an exchange between myself and the Associate Minister of Education in relation to information on the transfer of employment. So we’re just raising that at this initial stage to make sure that we’re clear that matters that are not related to those two subject areas will be within this debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yep, that’s fine.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Speaking to the point of order, I’d like to remind members that there was an extensive debate about the transfer and ownership of assets, which is covered by new clause 117 in Schedule 1. That considers quite a lot of it. In addition to new clause 119, that actually covers several parts of Schedule 1. However, the member is right that other aspects weren’t debated.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just on the point of order, we do have a list of what’s already been debated. So if it hasn’t been debated, that’s OK, but we will watch for repetition. But if they’re new points, we’re open to that.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just did have some questions in relation to the first part of Schedule 1, in relation to new clause 114 and the situation of a board dissolving—so I’m referring to new clauses 114 and 115 in Subpart 2.

In terms of the interpretation section here, I have a question for the Minister around the definition of “converted school”. It was notable to me when I read through this section that “converted school” means a former State school that has become a charter school, and I wanted to ask the Minister: does that mean that a converted school is no longer part of the State school system, or, if that’s incorrect, how would a converted school under this definition be considered to be part of the State school system? I understand the intention of this, but I think that especially in definitional sections, it’s quite important that we get that right, and I’d appreciate it if, hopefully, the Minister will be able to address that.

In relation to new clause 115, I had a question around the dissolution of boards of trustees. Obviously, what the Minister is doing with this charter school bill is changing the way that a school is run in terms of the converted schools. A board of trustees that is democratically elected by parents at the date of the conversion will no longer exist and will be dissolved, and I wanted to ask the Minister whether, in relation to this particular point, he had engaged with boards of trustees in relation to the timing of this dissolution. Would there be any involvement for the boards of trustees either to be consulted in relation to the change from a school to a charter school? What would that, effectively, mean in terms of their responsibilities? My understanding is that they end on that particular date. Can the Minister explain whether he has had any engagement with the representatives of boards of trustees—I understand that there is an association of boards of trustees—and whether they would have any feedback?

I don’t recall any submission from them, but in terms of that particular democratic mandate, as a parent myself, I’m aware that there are regular elections in relation to boards of trustees. I wondered if that would be a consideration into the date of the conversion as well, or whether that wouldn’t be a factor at all, because you can imagine a situation where a board of trustees has just been elected or several members have just been elected, and then suddenly there’s a conversion into a charter school and they don’t have any opportunity to implement the mandate that they went to other parents for in order to make a contribution to that school.

I understand what the Minister is doing and that he doesn’t want boards of trustees in relation to charter schools. I want to ask if he has considered an option of maintaining some kind of democratic representation in relation to sponsored schools. Would it be possible for sponsors to decide within the character of their charter school that they are going to have an equivalent of a board of trustees? These are important questions in terms of the mechanics of charter schools that under his new system, New Zealanders—parents and the many thousands of people who do really incredible work on our boards of trustees—might not be aware of. So, in relation to those initial clauses, I wondered whether the Minister had any comments.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Both of these issues were well canvassed in previous debate on this committee stage. In relation to new clause 114 of Schedule 1, do we define a “converted school” as a State school? Well, it’s a charter school, but as we discussed at the time, charter schools are, for all intents and purposes, part of the State school network. They have a different name, but they perform a similar function in that sense.

In relation to the question about boards of trustees, as was widely traversed in earlier discussion on this committee stage, it is true that the authorisation board should seek community support, and obviously a board of trustees would be an important stakeholder in deciding whether or not a State school had the ability to convert.

Finally, the sponsor in this legislation can take on any form. Certainly in the past when New Zealanders had charter schools, one of the things that’s been noted is the innovation and governance structure, which means that there’s many possibilities that the people that the member describes could be included in governance of a charter school.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. You were in the Chair on Thursday when the debate was interrupted and I was in the middle of explaining my amendment, which was about new clause 111, inserted by clause 70. Since then, I have put a new amendment in which is about removing clause 70 out of Part 2, and the two go together. I reflected on this, and after talking to early childhood groups on Friday and then the teacher advocacy group for early childhood yesterday, I felt that perhaps the amendment that I had about new clause 111, inserted by clause 70, didn’t go far enough, so I have put in the one about removing clause 70, about the revoking of the early childhood regulations.

The reason that I’ve done that is because many of the groups that I’ve spoken to who feel like their voices have not been heard in this have said that this is really important to ensure that we have not just the right provisions in the right areas, but adequate provision. They feel that this particular clause that the Minister has put here is going to be detrimental to our low socio-economic areas and our rural areas. Minister, I want to know from you, that being the case, what thought went into those areas that have low uptake of early childhood education provision in them? That is, the providers in those particular areas are not going in there because they’re not able to make it work for them, or the fact that people are finding it inaccessible because the early childhood fees are too high for them, and so we have a very low uptake in those particular areas.

Also in the rural areas, Minister, I would like to know from you—you must have done some modelling around this, about how this would impact in those rural areas, that some of the providers will not go into those rural areas and they will see that that would be detrimental to their business model. That is something that has been brought up with me from several different groups over the last few days, and so I want to know what modelling has gone in there and what the impact of this will be on those areas.

Now, just going back to that amendment that I made that we interrupted the debate on—and I was halfway through that—if we’re not going to delete clause 70, then I would move to new clause 111, inserted by clause 70, and replace new subclause (2). One of the issues that we have is that we have a number of early childhood education centres, and we talked about this, but we didn’t put a geographical area on how many centres should be in any given area. I’ve made this amendment to say that network provision, if it was to be repealed, then it would then apply if there was a centre that was being established within 1 kilometre of another centre.

I think from talking to those teachers in the groups that I have spoken to over the last few days, they see this as a compromise but they also see it as a sort of a halfway provision. I want to know if there was any thought that was given to having a halfway provision and not just going the full hog out, but also the groups other than the Early Childhood Council that might have influenced the Minister’s decision in this. Those groups that I have spoken to who are not unions—because I know that the Minister has an adverse reaction when the word “union” is brought up—

Hon Phil Twyford: Allergic.

Hon JAN TINETTI: Allergic reaction—yeah, no; exactly. I’m just wondering what other groups might have influenced in that area as well, to see if we could get some sort of halfway provision.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Look, the member’s not the first to assume I must have done modelling, but in this case we’ve actually covered the issue pretty widely. Actually, we talked about the policy decision that we want parents to choose what they support, rather than the Government to choose what’s allowed to be open. That is the policy decision agreed to by the House at the second reading and, therefore, we don’t support the member’s proposed amendments that would, effectively, require the Government to continue choosing which centres were able to open, in spite of parent choice.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to speak specifically on Subpart 1 of new Part 6, inserted by Schedule 1. I’m more broadly looking at new clauses 111 to 113, but I mainly want to focus on 113.

I think one of the things we’re hearing in terms of this particular committee stage is that we are asking similar questions in some sense because we’re not getting the information from the Associate Minister of Education on the response or even on the evidence and some of the data that we’re looking at here, or some of the modelling. We have already seen, in terms of the regulatory impact statement, that some of this modelling is a little bit lacking. Some of these things, particularly when we’re looking at transitional arrangements, may not be well-thought-out because no one was consulted on it. As we have seen from the Education and Workforce Committee process, when people do submit, their advice and their opinion—which we then have put in as amendments—are not taken on board by the Minister. Forgive us, Mr Chair, but we do want to just get some form of confidence from the Minister that this particular transitional bit in Schedule 1 is well-thought-out, because it is very much to do with process and procedure and operationalisation of this particular phase.

In terms of this bit, one of the questions I have is around the existing applications that are in there. In terms of new clauses 111, 112, and 113, it talks about what happens when someone applies for a licence and they’re currently under consultation by the Ministry of Education. I have two questions around that. Number one is: considering this bill is going through the House, what has this meant for the Ministry of Education’s approval process under the existing system, knowing that when we get to the commencement date of this particular bill, or after Royal assent, everything you have to do needs to be put to a stop? One of the examples is in new clause 113(2), it says that when the bill comes into force, the application must be treated as if it has been withdrawn and you also have to refund the applicant the prescribed fee.

I want to know from the Minister what the modelling is, or what conversation the Minister has had with the Ministry of Education around whether there’s been a focus of trying to get all of the applications done before the commencement date or if it’s being deliberately dragging it out so that way nothing is approved currently and then we’re waiting for the commencement date, in which case nothing then applies. Has there been a hold up in the existing approval process; if there has, how much of a hold up is there? There may not be, so I’ll be interested to hear if the Minister is able to clarify that.

The second question I then have is, considering that we are discussing this bill as it goes through, that people who are interested in applying for early childhood education service obviously know that this particular part is going to be repealed, so they may potentially hold off on applying in the first place while waiting for this bill to go through the House. Then that hold up is going to have a tangible impact on how we look at data for 2024, and particularly we’re looking at the year to date, etc. When we are looking at that data, has the Minister or any of the officials from the Ministry of Education considered whether that is going to skew the data around the new early childhood education centres that are going to be open, because people are holding out on applying because of this bill?

So I have two questions: what modelling has the Minister had in terms of whether the Ministry of Education is going to hold up on approving this, knowing this bill is going to go through, and does the Minister know if that hold up, or the process going through, meant that people are not applying to open centres because it’s going to be repealed anyway?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Well, I thank the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan for his questions regarding new clause 113, which—just for people who may not have seen it or are watching this video from home—says that if this law is passed by Parliament, then anyone who has applied for a licensing consent to grow or open a new early childhood education centre will have their application basically cancelled and their money returned so they can just go back to choosing to invest and meet parents’ demands according to whether parents want them to do it, not according to whether the Government wants them to do it.

The member also asked the question has the Ministry of Education been going either faster or slower than usual in anticipation of this change? I would expect that the Ministry of Education respects that this Parliament makes the laws in New Zealand. They shouldn’t try to anticipate what Parliament does; they should just follow the law and be good public servants, as I often expect they are. In terms of whether people out in the sector anticipated this change and have chosen to either, you know, hold off on an application to expand because they know that soon that the Government will be getting rid of it, or at least they anticipate that—they very well might have. There’s certainly been a lot of support and enthusiasm for this change from within the sector, so I’m sure that’s true.

I’ll just say something to the member about modelling. I’m one of the very few people in this House who has actually studied mathematical modelling (MM) to some extent—a really tough three years of MM: one, two, and three, and then, in fourth year, it gets harder. It’s called engineering school. One thing you need to know about modelling is: garbage in, garbage out. I don’t know what data the member thinks that we would have used to anticipate people’s propensity to apply sooner or later, based on an upcoming law change. It’s certainly a very, very interesting thing to model from an academic point of view, but I don’t think it would make a very good use of time. Sometimes, people talk about modelling because they think that it makes them sound smart, but if you’ve actually done a little bit, you understand what its limitations are.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want a reasonably quick question of the Minister in light of the answer he gave to my colleague the Hon Jan Tinetti. When she asked around whether any modelling had been done as to the impacts of this, the removal of the network planning, the Minister noted that it was all about parents and giving parents choice. I agree with that; I think it’s really great that parents do have a choice as to the types of services that they send their children to. However, I would be interested to know how much consultation the Minister did with actual parents of children that attended the centres that are likely to be negatively impacted by this piece of legislation.

I think particularly to, say, the community-based centres who have been around for many, many years in different areas around the country, and the impact that will be seen on them negatively when you can have these big corporates that move into town, and also the impact that it will have—and I think, negatively impacting—on those small individual centre owners, like the type of centre that I used to own, when you’ve got the big corporates that move into town. I want to know just how much consultation the Minister did with those particular groups of people—the individual centre owners, the parents themselves—or did he just simply listen to the grumblings from the Early Childhood Council?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just before the Minister, I will—it is about transitional arrangements. That’s probably been covered in Part 1, but I’ll leave it up to the Minister whether he wants to answer that.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. It was interesting to hear about the Minister’s studies in engineering, and I’d like to follow up his musings on his past learnings to also focus on something that I studied when I was at university, which was the law of trusts, because there is a section in here, new clause 118, in relation to that. I’m pleased to see the Attorney-General’s presence in the Chamber, and she will, hopefully, be able to assist if there’s any elucidation that the Minister in the chair needs on the law of trusts as we discuss this section.

This is an interesting section because it covers, as far as I can ascertain, a situation where a school that is not yet a charter school has property that is held in trust, and the definition of “school” is broad. It is not just the school—the board of the school, which you might assume—but also any other person who may hold it for the benefit of the school that’s to be converted or for students or former students of the converted school. That’s quite a large ambit of what could be considered a relevant trust under this section.

All good so far. New clause 118(2) states, basically, that the trust continues, which is, I think, probably what we would expect, because a trust owns private property and it’s the legal owner, and so changing that by the statute would be somewhat problematic. However, then it goes on, at some length, in new clause 118, new subclauses (3) to (8), to go through a very, very complex system where it allows those trustees, who are perfectly entitled to hold that property in trust, as far as I can see, for as long as they want within the confines of this bill, this to-be piece of legislation, where they may apply to the Public Trust, who then may involve the Solicitor-General, in order to alter their trust deed. I wanted to ask the Minister: why have you put in this extremely complex procedure involving the Public Trust? The Public Trust does very good work, but there are certain fees that come with using the Public Trust that may not be apparent in other ways of dealing with property that’s held in trust. Why are we using the Public Trust, and then why do we need to involve the Solicitor-General? Why, Minister, can the normal law of trusts not apply in this situation?

It seems to me quite unusual that we need this complex arrangement, involving these two otherwise uninvolved and irrelevant bodies to this particular bill, in order to fix some kind of problem that could be easily solved just under the law that currently exists. I wanted to ask the Minister, in relation to new clause 118: what’s the purpose of it?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Schedule 1, new clause 119 deals with the transfer of employees of converted schools. I raised this knowing that the Associate Minister in the chair is not someone who places a lot of importance on the employment rights of teachers, because he believes, somehow, that to focus on the rights of teachers is, somehow, to take away from the value that we should place on students. He doesn’t understand or believe that there is a symbiotic relationship in our education system between the wellbeing of teachers and the wellbeing of their students. Nevertheless, new clause 119 deals with the transfer of employees of converted school to charter school. “On the conversion date, every employee of a converted school becomes an employee of the sponsor”.

Now, this provision will be of great interest to the many tens of thousands of teachers who work in our State school system, and they will be interested in how their rights will be treated in the event of a transfer—in the event of the Minister pointing the bone at a particular school and telling the board they must apply to be converted, to undergo David Seymour’s particular brand of conversion therapy for schools. Subclause (3) says, “A transferred employee is not entitled to receive any contractual notice or … payment, benefit, or compensation from the board of a converted school”—i.e., redundancy—“on the grounds that—(a) the person’s position in the converted school has ceased to exist; or (b) [that] the person has ceased to be an employee of the board as a result of the person’s transfer to the charter school.”

When someone’s job changes, the principle of redundancy is well established in our legal system. It is reflected in many, many employment agreements and collective agreements around this country and indeed in some statutes. The effect of this provision is to take away the rights of people by deeming that they are not entitled to any contractual notice or payment as a result of that position ceasing to exist. I want to draw the committee’s attention to Jan Tinetti’s Amendment Paper that would replace that subclause (3) with one that reads “An employee of a State school converting to a charter school who does not wish to take up employment in the charter school may deem their employment to be ended and be entitled to any compensation afforded by their collective agreement or the Employment Relations Act.”

My question for the Minister in light of that is: why does he see fit to take away the employment rights of people whose job—and it’s very easy to imagine a situation where in fact their job does change. Not only does their employer change but let’s say a home economics teacher gets transferred to a converted school that, because of its religious beliefs, does not teach home economics, the person’s job may end up being completely different, or any other shade of whatever that teacher is teaching or is being asked to do may change. Under the bill as it stands, the person is not entitled to claim redundancy even if redundancy provisions were included in the employment contract in their original school. Not only that but also why would the Associate Minister want to place individual teachers in this invidious position? Surely it’s impractical. If someone’s job changes, if someone’s employer changes, why would you not allow them the opportunity and the right to take redundancy in the way that most other workers in New Zealand would in a commensurate situation?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m just going to call on the Minister. I just want to say with that last set of questions, I allowed the redundancy because we’re talking about transition here. We’ve talked quite a lot about the rights of teachers, and I see there was some repetition from the Hon Twyford into some questions that you’d had in previous calls.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Just in response to Camilla Belich—a very interesting question. Property is held privately in trusts or trust, as the member said. Some of the best advice I’ve ever had is wear your learning lightly. The reason for the Solicitor-General potentially being involved—but bear in mind that, after 90 days, the solicitor’s involvement lapses by default—is that the beneficiary of that property held in trust is changed because there’s now a new operator of the school. That is something that the Crown has brought about by its policy and the conversion of the school from State to charter that’s taken place.

It’s kind of, I guess, you might say, a reserve power for the Solicitor-General and the Public Trust to ensure and look after the rights of the settlors of the trust, which might be an old pupils’ association or some other type of group. As the member will see in Schedule 1, new clause 118(8)(a), the Solicitor-General can only approve a scheme if “it modifies the trust concerned so as best to give effect to the intentions of the testator, settlor, or other person or body by whom or which the trust was established”. This is very much about preserving the rights of the people who put the trust in place, given that there is a slight change in the beneficiary because of the change of administration of the school, which is something the Crown’s brought about, and, therefore, the Crown is there with the Solicitor-General to ensure that everyone’s rights are looked after.

In respect of the role of teachers, the principle is very simple: the simple proposition is that we want people who work at a State school to be re-employed on terms no less favourable. The member brought up an example. He said, “Well, what if the school converts to a school with special character and the new character is a religion that doesn’t believe in home economics?” Well, first of all, that’s not going to happen because you can’t take on a religious character through conversion if you didn’t already have one, which is also in the legislation. Second of all, it’s kind of an absurd example. I can’t really think of a religion that doesn’t believe in cooking food. The member might well say, “Well, yes, but it’s just an example.” The fact he had to come up with such an absurd example maybe suggests that he’s scraping the bottom of the barrel for questions.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lawrence Xu-Nan, and I am looking for new questions, please.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have just seen some advice that we are looking at Schedule 1 as well as Part 2—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Only the piece of Schedule 1 that has not been discussed before—new information.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I’m actually going to—for us, anyway, we’re going to move from Schedule 1 and talk more broadly about Part 2. The clause I’m looking at is actually clause 69, which is around Schedule 4. The thing that I wanted to raise with the Minister, in terms of Schedule 4, is around the part that talks about “Education (Stand-down, Suspension, Exclusion, and Expulsion) Rules 1999”, and particularly the part that is at the bottom of page 53 and the top of page 54 around replacing rule 16(1).

Now, the rule itself I have no issues with; I think it’s done in a way that is structured and formatted as the rest of the legislation. However, I am curious about the new term that we actually haven’t seen throughout this entire bill, which is “governing member of the sponsor”. One of the things that we see in this bill when we are looking at a comparison between what is the existing system within State schools and what is going to be the system in charter schools—we’ve seen the equivalence of equating board with sponsor, principal with the person responsible for teaching and learning, and that is, essentially, it. However, what we’re seeing in this particular part in 1B is that there is a new term that has been introduced that equates board members, which we understand in a State school there are, and the governing member of a sponsor.

I’m curious to know from the Minister: what is a governing member of the sponsor? One of the things we’ve heard throughout this thing is that you are allowing for flexibility, you’re allowing for all of the things, and for the schools to make their own decisions, but what we’re seeing here is a somewhat entrenched organisational structure in the sense that there must be governing members on top of the person in charge of teaching and learning and on top of the sponsor

I would be very keen for the Minister to paint us a picture of who these governing members, then, would be. Is there any consideration, then, on what we consider to be the size of a governing council at a charter school, which, then, undoubtedly, possibly, would then include the sponsor—“the person in charge is responsible for teaching and learning”—and additional members. Would these members then be elected from the community, as we see with board members, or would it be simply drawn from other parts within the charter school organisation? For example, the welfare manager could be a governing member, the academic director could be a governing member, the person in charge of compliance could be a governing member. Can I just get some clarification from the Minister on this term that we have not seen in any other part of the bill but that exists here. Thank you.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I thought that was an excellent contribution. The member actually asked and answered his own question. He asked why a person in a governance role in a charter school might not necessarily be called a board member, and then he gave a whole range of other types of people that might play a governance role, and really gave good examples of how the flexibility of the model could be used. In fact, I think, if this debate goes on long enough, then Mr Xu-Nan could become a strong proponent of charter schools. It’s true—I’ve always managed to convert the intelligent ones.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll take a call from Camilla Belich, but I’m really narrowing it down now to very specific new questions.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a number of specific, new questions still, in Schedule 1, and, on this particular side of the Chamber, we haven’t even moved—Mr Xu-Nan has taken a few questions in relation to Schedule 2, but we haven’t. We do have a number of—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s fine, so long as they’re new questions.

CAMILLA BELICH: Yeah. I’ve got three questions still on Schedule 1 which I want to raise with the Minister.

The first is in relation to new clause 121 in relation to pay equity claims that transfer, which I understand has not been discussed in detail. I think that this is an appropriate clause to have in this bill. It’s good to see that pay equity claims and the obligations that existing schools and their sponsors will have continue and will be transferred under this bill, so I don’t oppose this particular clause, but I do have a question around how this will work, considering the Minister’s amendment in relation to the multi-employer collective agreements. Essentially, pay equity claims have a similar effect in imposing pay rates on a particular subset of employees, no matter who their employer is, in a similar way that a multi-employer collective employment agreement would have—which the Minister has very objectionably and wrongly, in my view—unilaterally decided to ban under this piece of legislation. I wanted to ask him about that, so that’s my first question.

The second question I had is in relation to new clause 122, in relation to the transfer of holidays and liabilities. A type of clause of this nature is obviously necessary. We need to make sure that people aren’t losing entitlements. I’ve read through this clause a number of times, so I’d appreciate it if the Minister could clarify exactly how he thinks this is going to work in practice, because the way I read that clause is that existing liabilities in relation to holiday pay—and, of course, we know the system we have in New Zealand in relation to holiday pay is that, often, people have quite a number of weeks that they might build up and that would be considered a liability by the existing school that they are employed by. As far as I can see in this clause, on the conversion date, those liabilities transfer, then, to the Minister on behalf of the Crown. The liability for paying the holiday pay that might be owed is then not held by the new employer. It’s not a transfer of that liability, as far as I’m aware—I’m happy to, if I’m wrong, have the Minister correct me.

My question to the Minister is, then: what happens to that person’s holiday pay? How do they then get that back off the Minister in whom it’s now vested? Will the Minister be paying that holiday pay out as a cash payment? Will they be able to still use that holiday if they want to actually take a holiday but they’re employed by a charter school? Maybe I’m missing something here. I’d appreciate it if the Minister could clarify exactly how that would work, because I do think it is an important point for people, teachers, and other employees of schools that may convert to know where does their holiday pay sit. For a lot of people, it’s quite important for them.

My last question, if I may, and I do appreciate that it looks as if the Minister will be addressing some of these questions, is in relation to new clause 124, the Government Superannuation Fund. I was surprised to see this in this bill. I wonder if the Minister has received any advice as to how many people currently employed by schools in New Zealand are actually members of the Government Superannuation Fund. As I understand, they may have to be quite well advanced in age to still be a member of this fund, which was quite generous, as I understand. Obviously, everything in a piece of legislation needs to have a purpose, and so I wanted to know, is there actually any need for this clause? How many people are actually affected by this?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): In relation to the questions around new clause 122, first of all, the principle here is that a person who works at a State school will be no worse off by their school converting to a charter school. They may find themselves in slightly different conditions, but no worse off. We’ve made that commitment, and I think it’s a fair commitment to be made. Some liabilities vest in the Minister at the point of conversion, but bear in mind that the Minister is also contracting with the new sponsor, so you can see how they might have the possibility of transferring liabilities, depending on the circumstances.

In relation to the Government Superannuation Fund, I have sought advice that is a rather limited number of people, given that I think you had to be teaching in the early 1990s in order to be a member of that still. None the less, I do caution the member against her apparent attitude towards teachers in advanced age, some of them are very valuable.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll just make the point here that I feel like Schedule 1 has now largely been traversed. The member over here talked about Part 2. Is the member’s question on the schedule or Part 2?

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: On Part 2.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, thank you. Can you make it brief and to the point.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: I’ll do my best, Madam Chair. My contribution—which will, hopefully, be a brief one tonight—will be on Part 2, clause 63AAA, “Principal Act”, and 63AAB, which amends the Local Government (Rating) Act. I don’t think there have been questions tonight on this section, although I think, last week, there were some questions around it and some excellent contributions from Labour members about the pan tax, which is the first that I’ve heard of it. My questions are in a different vein but kind of relate to the idea of local government and their ratings and the potential impact that these charter schools might have, and the implications for local government funding.

I won’t belabour the point, so I won’t read the purpose of the Act, but I just want to summarise the purpose of the Act that we’re amending, which is the Local Government (Rating) Act. In summary, it, basically, gives local government powers to set rates and ensure that the rates are being set in a manner. Now, the schedule that we’re amending is, I believe, Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 6(f)—in that, essentially, the amendments we’re making are consistent with the wider purposes of the clause around that, which is that “Land owned or used by, and for the purposes of, any of the following as defined in section 10(1) of the Education and Training Act 2020:” It covers a State school; a State integrated school; a specialist school; a special institution; an early childhood education and care centre, except an early childhood education and care centre that operates for profit; a private school, except a registered school that operates for profit, and an institution. Clearly, it’s meant to be covering a wide range of institutions, which would include charter schools, except, potentially, the ones that operate for profit.

Now, my question to the Minister is around this idea of—you talked earlier today about how you were expecting, I believe, 78 new charter schools from this process. Of that 78, how many are from private schools that are currently operating for profit? I guess this is really where my question is getting to. Do you foresee any impacts on the rating basis of these local governments? We’re in an era when local governments are having to put their rates up. There’s a potential for further rates shortfalls. And I guess the second leg of the question is: are there kinds of implications in terms of setting up new charter schools and the potential needs for infrastructure that they might create in local jurisdictions? Are there provisions that cover for that? As much as we on this side of the House oppose charter schools, we also want to make sure that they’re not deliberately being set up to fail, because that wouldn’t be fair to the children or the parents or the communities that service them. So we do want to see them resourced for the infrastructure.

As I promised, I did keep my contribution as brief as I could. I hope I can get some answers from the Minister. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Thank you, Madam Chair. Very quickly, welcome to Parliament to the member. I said, at question time today, that there are 78 applications. There are, in fact, 15 new schools and 35 conversions budgeted for. Whether or not those will be approved is yet to be determined by the Authorisation Board if this legislation passes. The identity of those—whether they are independent schools—I do not know, because I have not seen the list, and I do not intend to. It’s an arm’s length process.

Are we concerned about the impact on local councils? I don’t think it’s plausible that a relatively small number of schools, 50 of which would be converting State schools anyway—so you’re down to 15 relatively small schools initially—could affect the rating base of councils, but if they did and charter schools became so popular and were doing so much for children’s education that they started to distort the rating base of councils up and down New Zealand, I think it’d probably be a good thing.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have some quick questions for the Minister in relation to Part 2. We know that charter schools are not subject to the Official Information Act, and that’s been traversed, and we’ve had amendments that the Minister hasn’t accepted. In Part 2 here, we have an amendment to the Ombudsmen Act 1975, and that is in relation to the Charter Schools Authorisation Board. The question I have for the Minister is in relation to the Charter Schools Authorisation Board: will the Charter Schools Authorisation Board be subject to the Official Information Act? That’s my first question in relation to Part 2.

My second question is in relation to the change to the Public Audit Act, which also includes the Charter Schools Authorisation Board. What scrutiny does the Minister envisage that the Charter Schools Authorisation Board will have? I know that there’s an amendment to the Public Audit Act. I haven’t had a chance to check that Act to figure out exactly what that amendment means, but would, for example, the Charter Schools Authorisation Board be something that would be covered in our select committee’s annual reviews? For example, the Education and Workforce Committee looks at a number of public organisations that have important responsibilities in relation to education, and I would like to know whether he envisages that the Charter Schools Authorisation Board and some of their activities would be subject to that type of parliamentary scrutiny.

Also, my last question on this section: in relation to the change to the Public Records Act 2005 in Part 2, clause 68, what type of records, in terms of the historical records that regular schools are meant to maintain for students for a period of usually seven years, would charter schools be required to maintain in order to ensure that there wasn’t a difference of treatment? Obviously, the Minister said that charter schools are out doing things differently and having flexibility. Is that in relation to record keeping as well?

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to delete clause 70 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 106 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment deleting new Subpart 1 of Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 113 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to replace subclause (2) in new clause 111 in Schedule 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new clause 119 in Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 123 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to replace subclause (3) in new clause 119 in Schedule 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to delete subclause (6) in new clause 119 in Schedule 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to new clause 120(1) in Schedule 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to insert new subclause (3) in new clause 120 in Schedule 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to insert new subclause (1B) in clause 120 in Schedule 1 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment. [Interruption] Can we have quiet during voting, please.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new clause 125 in Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 122 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now for the debate on Schedule 2. There is no debate, but we’re voting on Schedule 2.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new Schedule 6A in Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 124 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3

That Schedule 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Schedule 3 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question,

Schedule 4

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 2 of Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 113 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 4 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to the debate on clauses 1 to 3, and this is the debate on title, commencement, and the principal Act. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Madam Chair, thank you for this. I want to take perhaps a brief call and just ask a question around clause 2, around the commencement.

It says in the commencement clause: “This Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent.” The Minister has made it clear that they’re expecting many of these schools—the first round of them—to open in the beginning of 2025. Considering that we are heading very quickly to the end of 2024, and we’re all at the tail end of September and coming into October, and considering that a number of these schools are converting from State schools to charter and that it is a very busy time for schools, what thought was given to the fact that 2025 is coming on those schools very fast with a very, very busy time that they have to the end of the year? And is there consideration given around the fact that there’s that possibility that they can do that conversion later in the year? It seems to me that with everything that’s going on, particularly in our secondary schools at the moment with exams happening, that there’s an unrealistic expectation around the fact that they would have that conversion. It’s just putting another pressure on a very, very pressured system at the moment.

The reason I ask this is because I have had a number of teachers tell me about how they are very burnt out and very stressed within the system, that they’re not sure what is happening, that they have had little communication on whether this is even happening in their schools, that they have no idea what is happening within their own schools because of the pressure that’s being put on them in the system. It seems to be that this is being rushed through, just like it was rushed through in the select committee. Now we’re actually having to go into urgency as part of the urgency motion—which I know when the Minister was on this side of the House he was very anti using urgency motions—and here we are using this to get this bill through its final stages. I really want to know from you what consideration had been given to the pressures that are put on schools at this time of the year? Also the pressures put on a new school being open—what considerations have been given to that? And what considerations are given to those schools not starting at the beginning of the year?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): First of all, I’ve always been very much a stickler for parliamentary process. Can the member honestly tell me that she hasn’t had a very good opportunity to engage in the details of this bill over the last four or five hours? She went on for hours; after she ran out of questions, she kept going.

Hon Jan Tinetti: We’ve just come to this clause, Minister.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: And now the member’s saying, “just come to this clause”. Well, that is ironic. But it is a very narrow debate. The commencement clause tells us when this legislation will come into force. It’s as soon as it receives the Royal assent—hopefully, in a few days when the Governor-General is able to give it the Royal assent. The sooner that happens, the more easily the concerns that she’s raised will be allayed.

However, the idea that a school is going to convert and people working in the school don’t know about that is implausible. If it was the case, I think they’d have a very big job persuading the authorisation board that they actually do have the support of the community.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’d like to thank the Associate Minister of Education for bringing all of those very interesting debating points into this very narrow debate on the title and commencement of the bill. Thanks for that, Minister, because, actually, there hasn’t been a lot of time to discuss this bill. We know that there was a shortened time at the Education and Workforce Committee, so the points that the members raise are very relevant. We know that you brought in—sorry, we know that the Minister brought in changes where there were only two days allowed for additional submissions, and we are grateful for those two days.

Carl Bates: You agreed to those two days.

CAMILLA BELICH: We were grateful for those two days—Mr Bates, thank you very much—but is that really sufficient when you’re taking away rights from people, Minister? I don’t think so and I don’t think New Zealanders think so. Now, my colleague Jan Tinetti makes another good point: we are passing this bill in urgency. Those points that you raised and those snarky remarks that you made about my colleague, I have taken the liberty of responding to that within this debate.

I do actually have some very important questions for the Minister, in relation to the title of this bill, and I want him, if he would be so obliged, to answer them. This bill, as we are now debating, is called the Education and Training Amendment Bill. Now, I think I’ve heard that somewhere before. Do you know when I think I heard that? I think I heard that last year, in 2023. I think I heard that in 2022. I think I heard that same title in 2021 and in 2020. I think that the title, “Education and Training Amendment Bill”, is perhaps the most uninspired, unoriginal title. So many bills have come before this House with that exact title. It tells us absolutely nothing about the contents of this bill. I want to ask the Minister: has he considered some better titles?

I have some suggestions for him. Did he consider, because this bill is so precious to him, calling it the “Associate Minister of Education’s Education and Training Amendment Bill”? The reason I suggest that is because, when the Minister took advice from his officials and had them put together a particular paper for him, so he could take away teachers rights in this very bill, through his Amendment Paper, he—well, I don’t know—

Carl Bates: What’s the next title? Move on—give us the next suggestions.

CAMILLA BELICH: —whether it was him; it could have been the officials. If you listen, Mr Bates, I think you’ll find this extremely interesting—much more interesting than the sound of your voice going over and over the same point. My point is: in his paper—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just don’t overuse the word “you”, thank you.

CAMILLA BELICH: —it was called—you know, that is a very good point, Madam Chair. I apologise for using the word “you”. I’m determined not to use that term again for the rest of my contribution, but thank you for raising that with me. I actually made a point previously—it was actually raised with me on another occasion, and so, Madam Chair, I appreciate the fact that that was raised.

Anyway, back to my contribution. Did the Minister think that he might call it the “Associate Minister of Education’s Education and Training Amendment Bill”? It does reflect the advice paper that he got, which outlined a few options for him to consider in terms of taking away teachers’ rights—a slight gradient scale of removing all of the rights, right down to removing some of the rights. The option that he went with was the one that was in his own name—the Associate Minister of Education’s name. He’s obviously attracted to that particular option in his advice paper, and I wondered if he might want to change the bill’s name to that as well.

I do have a few other suggestions—probably a slightly, somewhat less tongue-in-cheek suggestion. Why not call it the “Charter School Network Provision Repeal and Attendance Statistics Amendment Bill”? That would actually describe what it does. It would actually be useful. It’s a clear language interpretation of what the bill actually does.

My last point in relation to the title is it is called the Education and Training Amendment Bill, but, somewhat ironically, what this does is allows institutions to set up where they don’t teach the curriculum, so we don’t know for sure if they’re going to get an education, and they don’t require trained teachers—no trained teachers necessary in charter schools. Actually, I would go so far as to say the title is misleading.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I’ve seen some witty, creative, and really rollicking good filibusters in my 10 years in this House—sadly, that wasn’t one of them. In fact, someone told me about something that I hesitate to mention: DSDS, or David Seymour Derangement Syndrome. I think we just saw an example of that, actually. But, in answer to the member’s question, no. The reason that is called the Education and Training Amendment Bill is that it’s a bill that amends the Education and Training Act, and we just thought that was the appropriate name for it.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think when we come to the title of this bill, as the previous speakers mentioned, the title itself does not actually accurately represent what the bill means. I understand where the Minister is coming from—and also, by the way, I have been very courteous to the Minister by referring to the Minister with his full title, and expect him to do the same.

In terms of this bill, what I’m more concerned about when it comes to the title is the fact that there are so many things that are currently happening within the education front that having this as the Education and Training Amendment Act 2024 may put other bills that this Government is also trying to put through in jeopardy in terms of naming but also in terms of creating confusion around that, because we know that there is currently work that’s being done by the Minister around other elements of early childhood education, and we also know there are other consultations that are happening around Te Tiriti o Waitangi as well.

So, to the Minister, I would be interested to hear from you whether you would consider a more specific title, which is the tabled amendment I have on the “Education and Training (Charter Schools Repeal of Network Management Attendance Data Collection) Amendment Act 2024”. Now, I understand that this is more of a long-winded mouthful, but we also need to consider the fact that, Minister, you have—sorry, my apologies, the Minister has—introduced three completely unrelated elements and smooshed it into one bill without consultation and without hearing the genuine concerns from the New Zealand public.

James Meager: Select committee.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yes, thank you. Thank you to the other side for saying that; yes, there is a select committee. May I remind the Government that there were 90 percent of the people who opposed this bill on charter schools—96.3 percent who opposed the repeal of network management. If you really, truly care about listening at select committee, this is what it means.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Interjections are great; that was a barrage, and I’d ask the member to stick to the title, because I’ve heard the other points before.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: In terms of the title—thank you, Madam Chair—what, then, would I consider would be a more appropriate title to make in terms of this particular bill? I would consider other titles in terms of the amendment. As I’ve mentioned in my first reading, this is a chimera of a bill, because it comes up in three different faces. Drawing on my classical knowledge, I would also consider this bill as the “Education (the Battle of Chimera versus Bellerophon) Amendment Act 2024” as well, but I still do think that what I have put down as a tabled amendment is probably more reflective of the content.

Now, I’m not going to stand here and talk about the other elements of this bill that I think are concerning because I think, frankly, the Minister has heard the concerns that we have raised around this—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s good because we’re doing title and commencement.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: In terms of the commencement date, when we are looking at the fact that it’s going to be after Royal ascent, although we have heard from a previous speaker around the fact that it does not give enough time for the school to adjust and to do all of those, I would really sort of implore the Minister to consider pushing this out, particularly for converting schools, or to consider having two separate commencement days—one set for converting schools and one set for new schools—because, yes, maybe new schools are able to start much faster, but we have heard already that there are other considerations, particularly when schools and boards said that they need more time to consider some of these.

I would ask if the Minister would consider two separate dates for the commencement date, and I will ask the Minister to consider my tabled amendments around the name for the bill.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Well, first of all, in respect to the member’s tabled amendment, that would take it from about a four-word bill to looks like about 15 words. I’m a big fan of George Orwell and particularly his rules for writing, especially “If you can cut a word out, cut it out.” That’s the first thing I’d say. And I’ve heard the member saying I just brought up George Orwell in the vain hope that the member will be able to relate George Orwell to a three-clause commencement, principal Act, and title clause.

In relation to changing the commencement date as the member has suggested, in order to take time pressure off schools converting, well, the schools can’t really convert till the law commences, so if we make the commencement later, then that would put more time pressure and, therefore, achieve the exact opposite of what the member’s proposing the change for. We certainly won’t be supporting that. I think, probably, when it’s all said and done, it’ll be easier just to leave the three clauses as they are.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s true that the title of this bill is suspiciously innocuous, and, in line with the general legislative principle that the title on the lid should reflect what’s in the tin, I want to propose, and it’s not too late, for an amendment to be considered. I want to propose that we call this bill “ACT’s Half-hearted and Short-lived Experiment Bill”. I say that because it is an experiment—it is an experiment because there isn’t a shred of evidence, in spite of this vast database of educational research and data that is available to all of the members on that side of the Chamber. If they were just to open their laptops and google “education data”, they would find that there isn’t a skerrick of evidence that underpins this bill. It is truly an ideological experiment. It is a policy in search of evidence to back it up.

The reason I say it’s half-hearted and short-lived is that this is a particular sort of pet project of the ACT Party’s that is locked in a kind of doomed cycle, to be introduced every time ACT finds itself as a member of a governing coalition. It’s destined to be introduced into the system, a whole lot of taxpayers’ money thrown at it, and then, in a few years, it’ll be thrown out again, because, on this side of the Chamber—and I say this with confidence, actually—on this side of the Parliament, we have no faith and no confidence in this policy, and we won’t allow it to stick around, because it’s actually a threat to so many of the things that we hold dear in a quality public education system.

There are so many things that we believe in that are important for this country, that are embodied in our education system, that this law is a threat to, that it simply won’t stand. It is locked in a doomed cycle. It will be introduced, it will have a few years of inconclusive performance, and then it will be thrown out again. That’s why I say that we should actually follow what the Swedish Government have recently explained, based on their 30-year experiment with charter schools—that, actually, they harmed the school system, they harmed the learning of their students, and they put the experiment to bed. That’s what I think we should do in this case.

Before I finish, just let me say that the National Party benches have been a great disappointment in this debate. We haven’t heard a thing from them. They occasionally squeak up, or they start barking like a pack of wild dogs, but have they actually contributed anything of value—anything of value? No, they haven’t. They’re a real disappointment.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I rise to make a couple of quick corrections. First of all, we don’t agree with the proposed change to the title. I was struck by the member Phil Twyford’s presumption that he’s going to be back in Government soon. Has he seen the results? Has he seen the polls? Has he seen what happened last time he was the Minister? I don’t think so. Even if we assume for a moment that somehow, through some electoral accident, he could be a Minister again, he should read his own party’s minority view on this legislation, because there’s an awful lot of hedging—“Well, we might put new restrictions on charters. We might change the requirements. We might do this or that.”—which all implies they’re going to keep them around.

If you think about it, that is exactly what they did last time: every single charter school that was opened last time—as he rightly points out, ACT was in Government—is still operating with children coming through the door at this time. That just tells me that, actually, there’s a very, very bright future for choice. What I’d say to the Labour Party is they can close down a school temporarily and then reopen it, but they can’t close down an idea.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Clause 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Education and Training Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The Education and Training Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 24 SEPTEMBER 2024

(continued on Wednesday, 25 September 2024)

Bills

Education and Training Amendment Bill

Third Reading

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is resumed. Good morning, members. Yesterday when we finished, the Education and Training Amendment Bill had been set down for third reading.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training Amendment Bill.

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

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I move, That the Education and Training Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I want to thank all of the people who have contributed to this legislation. I want to thank my colleague, the Hon Erica Stanford, Minister of Education—and I see Katie Nimon, chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, along with other members of that committee, who shepherded the bill through the committee stage faster than usual but with no less care and attention, and made valuable improvements to this legislation. It has been a very good example of what Parliament can do when people are committed to a cause.

I don’t believe that there’s any greater cause for this country’s long-term future than the simple equation of how much knowledge is transferred from one generation to the next, because a knowledgeable and educated population can overcome whatever challenges we may face with the economy or foreign affairs or climate change or public health. An educated population will be able to solve those problems, but an uneducated population that hasn’t learnt the best knowledge from generations before them will be able to squander even great prosperity that this country currently has. That’s why it matters so much and that’s why I think we saw so much commitment from those people involved in this legislation, and perhaps more than any for the enormous detail that has been meticulously put together. I thank the employees at the Ministry of Education, the policy team, particularly Andy and Jen and all those who support them. They have done an absolutely outstanding job.

What is the cause in this bill? Well, this bill has three parts: two of them, relatively simple, and one of them, more complex and, I would argue, ultimately more important. The first is that we are removing the network management requirement for early childhood education centres. This comes from many complaints from early childhood educators that it is absolutely insane that in order to open up a business that people in your community want, you have to go and ask the Government if the people in your community want it as much as you know they want it because you’re risking your money to do it. Yet, somehow the people at the Government are supposed to have a better idea than you do. Members on the other side, we’re going to have a bit of a history lesson later in this speech, so don’t worry, that’s coming. But, actually, there’s a country called Russia, where they tried this approach to economic management for about 70 years; it didn’t work. Even they’ve abandoned it. It’s only the Labour Party and the Greens that persist with trying to centrally plan economies with these kinds of decisions.

Now you don’t have to do network management. If you want to expand or open a new early childhood education (ECE) centre, then you can just do it. But the real judge is the parents. And do you know what the parents say to me? When I go and visit ECE centres and I ask the parents, they say I want my child to be happy; I want them to be safe—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Will they be?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —I want them to be growing. I think parents of New Zealand are better—the Opposition is asking: is that what the parents say? Yes. And if the member would like to visit some of these centres or, you know, venture out of academia or out of this House, he might find that is what the parents say. Actually, I think the parents are better to judge it than the Government.

The second thing we’re doing is we’re updating the attendance records. It’s interesting, Madam Speaker. The attendance records actually are set under 1951 regulation, which was made under 1914 legislation. You could almost argue—not quite, but almost—that our attendance regulations pre-date World War I, and this is a Government of the future. We are going to update the way that attendance regulations are made. Every day from next year, every school student management system will be pushing rich data about student attendance into the Ministry of Education’s data warehouse so we can understand who’s not attending and we can start to dig into why, and we can start to work out if the things the Government and schools are doing to improve attendance—and parents, for that matter—are working so that we can do more of the things that work and less of the things that don’t. It sounds simple. To most New Zealanders, to most people in business or running a farm or their household, it is simple; it’s how you do business every day. It’s actually how this Government is going to start getting stuck into the business of getting children back to school.

Coming to charter schools, we’re introducing the simple idea that not every insight into how to engage children in learning and pass that knowledge from one generation to the next can be found in the Ministry of Education or Wellington, or even amongst the wise members of Parliament in this House. Sometimes the best knowledge exists out in the community.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Most times.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Sometimes those—“most times”, the Māori Party say, and I actually for once think Te Pāti Māori are right. You’ll notice when I talked about communist adherence, I talked about Labour and the Greens, not the free-market Te Pāti Māori, for whom I have great hope. If they could just get over themselves, I think they could contribute a lot to this House and life in New Zealand.

It’s not surprising, because the iwi leaders forum have written to me in strong support of charter schools, because they know that communities know more about how to engage their children than the people in Wellington most of the time. We’re going to invite people in communities to start up schools and they’re going to get the money the State would have spent on the same child at a State school. It’s going to go to the school they choose to go to if—and this is important—high standards are met. If high standards of attendance are contracted in, if high standards of achievement are contracted in, if they show that they’re using their money wisely with financial probity, then they will continue to get their money and they will be able to use that money for the best effect, to get those children at school engaged, achieving, and learning, so that they can actually learn skills that turn into qualifications, that turn into jobs, that turn into careers, that turn into a sense of achievement and feeling good about yourself. That’s why we’re doing it.

I heard last night from the Labour Party that they would like to shut these schools down. Now, their bark’s worse than their bite. They didn’t do it last time. All the schools carried on, but with one change: that they don’t want them to operate without union contracts. You see, that’s the thing about these charter schools; teachers get paid, like most New Zealanders, on individual employment agreements, and, if they’re good, they can get paid more, and, if they’re not good, they can get fired. Here’s why that matters. We run education for the children. You see, the thing is—I was looking at some statistics the other day—we spent $20 billion a year on education; 60,000 kids are born in this country every year. If you do the maths—it can be challenging on the other side—that is $330,000 per citizen, lifetime education spending. Yet, what do we get for that? I look at the UE, the university entrance achievement, and for the most prosperous, wealthy, and advantaged students, 82 percent get UE; but for the most disadvantaged students, 30 percent get UE.

Now, I said there was a lecture coming. There’s an old book called The God That Failed, and the God that fails is the stories of former adherents of the Communist Party who realised it didn’t work and left. They wrote this book and it’s a wonderful set of essays. I would put it to the Labour Party that, when you spend $330,000 per citizen and the most disadvantaged students are nearly three times less likely to get university entrance than the most advantaged students, your God has failed. Sorry, Labour: your God has failed, because you spent all the money, but the wealthy kids from the good backgrounds are still doing pretty good and the poor kids you were supposed to help are still failing.

That’s why I’m proud to be here in this Government, standing as an ACT MP, setting up schools that allow people to choose their own destiny. Tino rangatiratanga, we might call it—the ability of people to use the knowledge in their society, in their community, to take the funding that the Government would have funded and use it—you’d have provided for those children—for better effect: to make sure that children have that opportunity to feel good about themselves, to learn, to engage, to have it done their way, not to feel unsafe or bullied but to actually go along and build their own future, not only for themselves, each in their own way, but for the future of this great country of ours. That is what this policy of charter schools really means for the future of our country.

I challenge the Opposition: where are your ideas other than more money for our union mates? Not for teachers but for the unions, because that’s what it comes down to at the end of the day. Charter schools don’t have to use the unions’ contracts. That is what we are here to end, to give freedom and choice to New Zealanders to make their own future. I’m sorry, Labour: your God’s failed.

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

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): I hope lots of people go back and watch that speech, because that was a ramble from way back. It made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Today is a sad day for public education—a very, very sad day in New Zealand. It’s a day when the National-led Government has put politics before education. It has put politics before our learners, it’s put it before our children, and here we go again. I say here we go again because I’ve just opened with exactly the same words that the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins opened with in his speech in the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill in 2013. This is like a treadmill. We are putting ideology ahead of our children here today.

This is worse than 2013, because not only today have we got back the introduction of charter schools, we also have the repeal of the network planning as part of the early learning network in this country. How sad is that? The early learning network planning was part of the Early Learning Action Plan, and I hold that here because this is a well-respected document, not only here in New Zealand but across the world. It was worked out with experts. It was worked out with our teaching workforce but also with all of the peak body groups. It was worked out with academics in terms of what was going to make the biggest difference for our early learning sector.

Objective 5 is about the network planning, and part of that objective—and part of the network planning—was to give it time to bed in, and to give it time to see the difference that it was making. Not even a year goes by and the Minister’s repealing it. Why is he repealing it? He’s repealing it because the business model people that want to run their businesses in early childhood see that they’re having their business models being hampered by the network planning. We’re not putting kids at the centre.

The Minister—how embarrassing. How embarrassing for our early childhood network in this country that he is talking about Russia and business in Russia. We’re not talking about coffee beans. We’re not talking about inanimate objects here; we’re talking about children’s education. How can that be acceptable that we have an Associate Minister who likens kids’ education to economic studies and economic philosophy around the world? That is embarrassing for this country, and very embarrassing for the members of the coalition Government, I am sure.

Today, with the repeal of that, we put our community-based centres back at risk. We put our Pacific learning nests; our puna reo, our kōhanga reo back at risk. And the Minister’s response? “Oh, well, in Russia, when they tried to stop businesses starting”—

Shanan Halbert: Russia?

Hon JAN TINETTI: “In Russia, when they tried to stop businesses starting, it didn’t work.” Again, I say we’re not talking about inanimate objects; we’re talking about children and their learning.

Now, let’s get on to the charter schools. An absolutely horrific ideological experiment that has failed in this country, in many ways, once before. Now, I’m not saying that there weren’t some individual successes, but, overall, charter schools absolutely failed.

Hon Erica Stanford: You never visited—you never visited them! Been to Vanguard, Jan?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Here we go! We’re hearing that I’ve never visited them. Oh yes, I did, Minister—I absolutely visited some of those charter schools. Have you visited all of them, Minister? I ask you that because that is not right either. Here we go. We’re just going to get in there and say, “Oh, she hasn’t visited them.” That is absolutely wrong.

Hon Member: She’s quiet now.

Hon JAN TINETTI: Yeah, quiet now—absolutely right. It is an ideological experiment that absolutely failed. Did you visit the ones that failed, that put the kids at risk—that we heard about?

Hon Member: No. That’s a no.

Hon JAN TINETTI: That’s a no—that’s an absolute no, because that didn’t happen. The mamae that happened that we heard about in select committee—the absolute horrific-ness that happened for some of those kids. And why is it such a bad thing? Because we are using profit, and profit-making enterprise, to withdraw money from the public education system. And there it is—not putting kids at the centre. That side over there thinks that that’s OK. That’s great that they think that’s OK, because when we see the failure this time and the hurt that will happen to some of those kids, that will be on their heads—that will be on their heads.

It’s causing a distraction to say, “Oh, look, it creates choice and flexibility.” What we do know about education in this country is that, when we devolve in education even further, we create greater inequities. What we have seen overseas with the research that has been seen around charter schools is that inequity has become even greater. We have seen that time and time again, but we will hear from them about research that they will quote, where they will say, “Oh no, the CREDO research says that.” That has already been discredited because of its inability to have a peer review, and the fact that it was funded by charter school proponents. Why would the other side only go to that research? Because there isn’t any other research that shows that this is a good thing. It shows that we are going to be devolving this education sector even further.

Let’s go to the real reason here, because we heard it from the Minister’s speech there just now. This is about busting our teaching unions. In fact, last week when we were talking about this in the House, we had a member from the other side—I think it was Simon Court—who yelled out, “We don’t care about unions; we only care about kids.” Well, I can tell you from experience that the people that become involved in the teaching unions become involved because they want the best for kids. They know that those unions want the absolute—

Grant McCallum: Oh, come on! Who pays the unions?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Here we go—doesn’t that trigger them? Every single time, that triggers them—say that word “union”! But if I said, “Taxpayers’ Union”, does that trigger you in the same way? No, it doesn’t. They are incredibly triggered by unions. They do not care about conditions for teachers, which means that they do not care about conditions for kids, because teacher conditions and educator conditions are our kids’ conditions. The reason, as I said, that people become involved in the unions is to ensure that they are getting the very best deal for their kids.

I was involved in the national executive of the NZEI Te Riu Roa. I did not do that for my own self, or for my colleagues; I did it because I knew that we could get a better deal for our kids, and that we had a strong, strong organisation that could advocate for the best for kids. We talked to academics; we talked to people in the know about what was the best. I put it out there: what does the other side do in that? They don’t want to put children at the centre of what they’re talking about here; otherwise, they wouldn’t be going down this track.

There has been overwhelming public opposition to this bill—90.3 percent of submitters were opposed to charter schools.

Grant McCallum: Just a union campaign!

Hon JAN TINETTI: And here we have the other side just proving my point—Mr McCallum talking about it being a union campaign and completely, completely proving my point. Please keep speaking with your interjections because you are going so far, Mr McCallum, in speaking exactly to my point: that they are tiggered by something that they should not be triggered about. They are absolutely making this about busting those teacher unions. The reason why is because we have got such a strong body there that put our kids at the centre. I go back to say that the people that worked so hard in those organisations know that, if they get it right for the educators, they get it right for the kids.

I go back to that comment—and let’s just put this into context—that was made by that member last week, saying we don’t care about unions; we care about kids. I understand that that member was a civil engineer before he came into politics. That’s like saying, “We don’t care about the engineers; we only care about the bridges.” Imagine if we did that; we’d have all our infrastructure falling over. These people have no idea of the importance of what our unions bring. Having said that, that means they have no regard for our teachers whatsoever.

This has been a rushed process. Even now, we have to finish this off under urgency. Why do we have to finish it off under urgency? Because the arguments against this were so strong and it has taken so long that the Minister knew that he had to finish it under urgency. He gave it a rushed process, a shortened select committee, not giving people the opportunity to have their say.

It is going to be starting next year—next year is rushing it. This is going to have so many problems. We’ve seen it, we know we’re going to have to have it back in the House to tidy up this bill, because we’ve identified the sloppiness; we’ve identified where the issues are. I go back to how I started: this is a sad, sad day for New Zealand public education.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Let us be clear: this bill is not about education; it is about privatisation. This is about privatising further our early childhood education (ECE) sector, which is already struggling. It is about privatising our education sector, which is already struggling.

We have heard from the select committee stage, and from committee of the whole House, about how we tried to get any sort of sense out of the Associate Minister on this bill, and what we got were campaign slogans, politicisation, and the divide and conquer technique.

This week is New Zealand Chinese Language Week, so I would like to enlighten the House on an old Chinese proverb: 鹬蚌相争，渔翁得利—when the crane and the clam fight, it is the fisherman who benefits. Who actually benefits from this bill? It is not the children, it is not the teachers, and it is certainly not the parents that they care so much about. It is the private companies; it is the overseas companies who want to come here and take New Zealand money. It is about the privatised ECE centres who want to funnel the money offshore. It is not about education.

One of the things that we did during the committee stage was to go through the bill, because it was quite a rushed process. We identified a number of issues with the bill that needed some tweaking. A lot of the amendments that were put forward were genuine amendments that would tidy up certain elements of the bill. But what we have seen from this Government is that they actually don’t care. They don’t care what the other side is doing. They don’t care whether there were genuine amendments that were based on common sense, evidence, or good grammar. It is just simply a case of “We don’t listen. We don’t want to hear about it. We’re just going to do what we want to do because this is what our coalition Government agreed to.”, despite the fact that there are severe contradictions between the Associate Minister and the Minister in terms of some of the announcements he’s made regarding attendance.

One of the things you find in terms of the announcements around charter schools is the fact that the Associate Minister said charter schools will have a higher requirement. Well, apparently, when you’re looking at the Equity Index (EQI) and when you’re looking at some of the elements, charter schools only require 35 percent of regular attendance but the Government wants State schools to have 80 percent regular attendance. That’s just one of many examples. The Associate Minister can say that it’s tougher. Great—sounds pretty. That’s not what it actually means.

As we go through this bill, let’s start with the charter school component. Charter schools have been in Aotearoa before. It hasn’t worked. They’ve been reverted back to State schools. They improved outcomes during that stage—now that they were part of the State system. We are hearing that teachers are struggling at ECE centres. Parents are really concerned about where they’re at. Parents are really concerned about how much more they have to pay for ECE because of the privatisation component, because of the fact that when it comes to the privatisation, when you are asking schools to operate for profit, they would put profit over education.

The Associate Minister talked about history and evidence and education, which sounds, again, incredibly pretty, but what we have seen throughout the entire process is that there is not an ounce of evidence that they have considered. We mentioned that during the select committee stage that 90.3 percent of the people who submitted opposed charter schools and 96.3 percent of people opposed the repeal of the ECE network, and people on the Government side of the Education and Workforce Committee could say, “Well, that’s because the unions came out.” Well, I’m sorry but why did the parents some out then? If they think the parents care so much about it, surely they will weigh in and make a submission. Maybe the people who submitted on this were genuine experts in the field with decades of experience that the Government has decided to brush aside and not take into consideration. That is not listening to evidence. That is not caring about the community. That is not caring about what people genuinely think. No, that is just fancy politicisation.

What we also see when we’re looking at evidence is that, again, the Government keeps on quoting evidence that’s been used overseas. They keep on using different reports, etc., but, again, none of that has been substantiated. None of that has had credible peer review. Peer review is really important.

The other thing that I want to address is the idea of creating a non-existent culture war between parents and teachers. That is appalling. We are here talking about our future generations. We’re here talking about kotahitanga. We’re here talking about everyone coming together to work towards the same goal, but what we are hearing instead from the Associate Minister is, like, “No, we only want to hear from X group. The parent knows best. What does the union really know. This is all about the union pocketing the money.” It’s the same ecosystem. The parents need to rely on the teachers to do their job.

Teachers are professionals, going from ECE all the way to the tertiary sector. They are professionals who spent years perfecting their craft. They dedicated years of their lives to the education of the next generation. In any other country, teachers are revered for the work that they do, for the nurturing they do, for our future generations, but, apparently, that is not the case here in Aotearoa. Why is that? Why are we creating this unnecessary cultural war between teachers and parents? It is unacceptable. Why—why are we doing that?

When we look at some of the things we have heard from ECE teachers who are teachers in for-profit ECE centres, we’re hearing about how they can’t even take a break. They are on the verge of “Should I wear diapers alongside my students? Because the minute I take a break, I break ratio.” This is what happens when we don’t resource enough, when we don’t support our education sector enough, when we put profit over the lives of our teachers who look after our students and our future generations and our children. This is what happens.

The Green Party wants to see a thriving public education system where everyone’s able to thrive—teachers and students—and also teachers being able to work with parents, but we are not going to be seeing that with this bill. I’m flabbergasted at the fact that we are allowing this bill to go through under urgency, that we are allowed to divide the education system and put $153 million into a system that has no evidence domestically or internationally that it has worked.

I am horrified at the fact that the governing party, the National Party, is allowing their coalition partners to lead them by the nose and spend all of their money.

Carl Bates: It’s not our money.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: No, it’s not that party’s money. It’s the taxpayers’ money that the Government is spending frivolously on a vanity project. I hope, nay, I expect, that the Minister and members of the Government, because they love this school system so much, will be sending their students to charter schools. I expect that. At the very least, I expect those members to be answerable to their communities as to why their schools are no longer getting the funding they deserve.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I’d just like to draw, for those watching at home, some attention to the fact that what we have seen from the Opposition is the pot calling the kettle black—absolutely outrageous. And do you know what? I’m going to say my last sentence first: I am absolutely—absolutely—excited to see us substantiate the evidence, because, if you don’t give this a chance, you will not see what this is going to do for our education system—

Camilla Belich: We gave it a chance and it didn’t work.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Give us the evidence.

KATIE NIMON: And, look, this is exactly the point: pot, kettle, black. I’m just going to bring people’s attention to Te Aratika Academy, a charter school that was in my electorate, who were so excited by the opportunity to do something different. When the Opposition became Government and took charter schools away, they had to shove what they were doing inside a box that didn’t fit them. This is giving people a chance to do something different. No one has talked about the parents or the children; this is exactly what this is about. I want to stand and make a point: everyone on the other side has been saying, “Ninety percent of people in the Education and Workforce Committee didn’t support it.” It is not a poll. It has never been a poll.

Now, when it comes to network approval, let me talk about something that has not been covered that well. This is an omnibus bill, and we’ve talked about it at length. What we’ve got is three parts. Now, we haven’t talked too much about the attendance, because it’s non-controversial. This is really important, but when it comes to network approval, guess what happens: the Ministry of Education don’t have the data to make these decisions. The early childhood education centres (ECEs), the kindergarten that want to open up, had to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for a private company to find the data to give it to the ministry—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, I’m just having trouble hearing the speaker, and I can say it’s been coming from both sides this morning. I know it’s an emotive topic. Interjections are fine, but let’s just keep the noise level down so I can hear the speaker.

KATIE NIMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. ECEs are having to pay thousands of dollars to obtain data to give to the Ministry of Education to make decisions about the network approval. Now, that is not fair to ECEs around the country that don’t have that money and have a real barrier to entering, and we are removing this.

There are all sorts of things we are doing to remove barriers to give people choices, and that is what this bill is about. I am excited to see what’s going to happen, I am excited to substantiate evidence, and I am excited to give parents and students a choice to do something different. And can I tell you, I have had feedback in my electorate from principals at schools saying they are wanting to see what happens next—what else can we do to give schools that maybe want to have a mixed-model approach? This is brilliant, because they are excited at the prospect of what this is going to bring. So, with that, on the third reading of this bill, I commend it to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thanks, Madam Speaker. This is the coalition Government keeping its promises. This has been very, very well signalled to the electorate, it was taken to the electorate, and I want to congratulate the Associate Minister of Education for shepherding the bill through. The simple concept here is that all of our children are not the same—one size does not fit all—and it gives the opportunity for some diversification from innovation, and I think that that is a great thing.

What we’ve heard from the Opposition is charter schools won’t work, or maybe it’s that they’ll work too well. The Opposition is concerned that it will increase inequity, which must be them thinking it will work too well—and that’s a terrible thing, isn’t it? Maybe it’ll be too expensive and they’re worried about things like pay and conditions, teaching qualifications, and so on, but my appeal, just as Katie Nimon has said, is to give it a go—for the Opposition to give it a go, for the unions to give it a go, to fair-minded Kiwis to give it a go and let’s see how it goes, because we will be watching. We will watch the conversion process. We will watch the consultation, the engagement. We will watch the way in which charter schools engage with communities when they’re set up. We will watch those issues, you know, where communities have raised money for parts of the asset base, whether it’s playgrounds or whatever it might be. We’ll watch the costs. And, most importantly, we’ll watch the performance. We’ll watch how the children engage in those schools, how the children attend those schools—because it ain’t great in the State sector—and how they perform in those schools, what sort of results we get. Those are the important things.

I would say to the Opposition: one of the things that is going to be really important is the quality of the information we get. I note that the charter schools are exempt from the Official Information Act to start with, and that is something which, obviously, we will be wanting to see what the data looks like so that we can all say these things work or they don’t work. That’s what we need to know.

Finally, the Hon Jan Tinetti said that this is a sad day for the State education system. I just say to her and to the Opposition: look in the mirror. Look at what you did. Look at what we saw the performance of the State sector do in the last six years—it wasn’t great. We are working very hard in this Government to turn that around and good progress is being made. Look at the performance, the attendance, the results—and this is about our future—look at the assets themselves, the buildings and so on. It is not great at the moment. That needs to be turned around. We’re working very hard to fix that system. This is about innovation and going forward. I commend this bill to the House.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā tātou katoa. Tēnā tātou i te āhuatanga o ngā whare mātauranga o te motu. Tēnā tātou i ngā pūkenga, i ngā wānanga i oti nei i a rātou te whakairo i te ara e eke panuku ai ngā mokopuna i roto i te ao mātauranga.

Tēnā tātou i te mau roa o te iwi Māori ki te ara mātauranga hei whakawhitinga ki te ora mō ngā tamariki, mō ngā mokopuna, heke iho, tūāuri, whāioio, tatū mai ki tēnei rangi.

Kia kaha rā, te iwi Māori. Kia kaha rā tatou.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker, indeed greetings to all of us. I acknowledge us all with respect to the paradigm of the academic institutions of the nation. I acknowledge our lecturers and academics that carved the pathway to success for the grandchildren within the education sector.

I acknowledge us with respect to the Māori people’s enduring dedication to educational pathways to transition to wellbeing for the children, for the grandchildren, descendants, the many, the multitudes, right to this very day.

Have strength, Māori people. May we all be strong.]

Let me start by stating the obvious, which is that this Government has a juxtaposed approach to education—completely idiotic. Two-thirds of them want standardised, cookie cutter, chicken factory, hen education, and they think, somehow, that post an Industrial Revolution age, in the technological age, that’s going to cut it. Well, that just tells me they know nothing about education in 2024. The Minister can laugh, but as I listen to her speak about Māori education and kaupapa Māori education that I just described at the beginning of my speech, I can do nothing but laugh at her.

Hon Erica Stanford: I speak very highly of it.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Yeah, good on you.

Hon Erica Stanford: Well, then what’s the joke?

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Your ideas.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. That’s enough.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Sixty thousand kids. This fella over here tells us that 60,000 kids are born every year: 30 percent, 60,000 kids—$330,000 each. Oh, it’s a disgrace that the poor kids don’t get university entrance (UE). I described how Māori kids are getting UE at astounding rates in the beginning of my speech. Go back and listen to it, get the translation, and learn something.

Hon Member: Go to school.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Bro, just be quiet—be quiet. Thirty percent of people today, right? Thirty percent of people today in this country under 25 are Māori. What are you doing for them? Don’t tell me; I already know. Don’t tell me.

Carl Bates: No, you think you know.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: No, no, don’t tell me—I already know. Whanganui—what does Whanganui know? What’s happening in Whanganui? Not a lot.

So 30 percent of the people under 25 in this country are Māori and they have kids at a rate of 2.8 per whānau. Work that out—work that out. The Associate Minister claims that the iwi chairs support his idea. They support the idea because the idea is about education models that are built on self-determination. They don’t support your ideas, Seymour—not in the slightest. I’ll take you to the next iwi chairs and we’ll see—not in the slightest.

Community-led education can continue on as long as it achieves high success and standards. Well, the highest NCEA results last year came out of kura kaupapa Māori, a tino rangatiratanga - based model of education—a tino rangatiratanga - based model of education. Kōhanga reo—a tino rangatiratanga - based model of education. Wharekura—a tino rangatiratanga - based model of education. Wānanga—a tino rangatiratanga - based model of education that your Government gave 1 percent of its Budget to—

Hon Member: They’re charter schools.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: —1 percent. They’re not charter schools—sit down, junior. Turituri. Hoki ki te kāinga. [Be quiet. Go home.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hey, enough. Let’s just lift the level, please.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Well, tēnā, tino rangatiratanga models of education have been in existence since 1981 and you’ve never supported them. Don’t go fluffing your feathers like you’re doing something good for it now, because you’re not—$6,500 per kōhanga reo is not supporting tino rangatiratanga - based education. It’s a slap in the face, and you’re happy to do it.

Nō reira, I’ll just wind up by referencing the great achievement of the current Minister for Māori education in the appointment of an advisory group. Kia ora.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I wanted to start my contribution by referencing a well-known whakataukī that’s been heard around this Chamber before, and it’s “Ko te manu e kai ana i te miro, nōna te ngahere; ko te manu e kai ana i te mātauranga, nōna te ao”, which roughly translates as “The bird that partakes in the miro berry, their domain is the forest; but the bird that partakes of knowledge, their domain is the world”. This is a very apt whakataukī, but the problem is that if those berries are privatised or if there are certain birds within the forest which are collecting all of the berries that are not sharing them with all of the other birds, that creates additional problems.

I just wanted to sort of touch on a few of the things that have been talked about in this debate so far, and to join in with what was being said by my whanaunga from the Māori Party, as well, because I’m not sure if they were here when the Associate Minister of Education spoke about tino rangatiratanga. Unfortunately, the Associate Minister was confused about tino rangatiratanga and used that term wrong. What tino rangatiratanga is about is also reflected in another whakataukī, which goes “Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi; engari taku toa he toa takitini”—My efforts are not by myself alone as an individual; my efforts are those of the collective—because what tino rangatiratanga is about is collective rights. It comes out of the Treaty of Waitangi, article 2—Te Tiriti o Waitangi—which points to the fact that tino rangatiratanga is about collective rights.

Indigenous rights are collective rights. If he’s confused about that—and he was confused—then that explains the trajectory of this Government and the way that it has approached Māori issues so far.

The Green Party wants to see a well-funded public education system where all students are able to thrive, particularly those with diverse backgrounds, hence why we strongly oppose the reintroduction of charter schools, on the grounds that there is no evidence—I’ve heard nothing, so far, that has been convincing—either domestically or internationally, that charter schools are a successful model for schooling. It has been tried and it has failed.

It is also regrettable that despite the overwhelming feedback and recommendations—and I was listening carefully, because I wasn’t on the Education and Workforce Committee during this bill—that there were 90.3 percent of submitters opposing charter schools, and 96.3 percent of submitters opposing the repeal of the early childhood education (ECE) network approval. The Government, clearly, is not listening to the public and has persisted with this bill.

We also oppose the repeal of the ECE network approval process, considering that the approval process was not only introduced in 2023 but there hasn’t been enough sufficient time—again, another example of this Government not listening.

The other thing that I want to address in this debate, which has come up a few times and I would encourage all members around the House to really think about how we talk about education, is the false dichotomy between parents and teachers. Putting parents against teachers is not going to be good for our children. It is not going to be good for our mokopuna. Our children’s learning conditions are our teachers’ working conditions. If we want to support our parents—and, around the House, I think we all want to do that—we must also support teachers.

That means looking at the issues around pay parity—There are wide disparities between what people are being paid, whether they’re in kindergarten or ECE—and making sure that that is being sorted out. I’ve seen nothing from this Government that would deal with that. The really important issue of ratios—and that has been touched on a few times around the House today—is very, very important, because anyone who is a parent of two, three, or maybe more children knows how difficult it is to look after a group of babies; how difficult it is. Those sorts of decisions should not be profit-driven. The market-base ideology that is pushing this obsession with charter schools and also continuing down the consumerist pathway of market ideology with the ECE sector is incredibly problematic, and we will continue to oppose those things.

Just to recap, it is incredibly important that this Government actually gets their understanding up a lot more about Māori education, particularly about their understanding about what tino rangatiratanga actually means and making sure that we do everything to have a mokopuna-centred education system. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is my privilege to stand and speak in support of this bill in the third reading. I want to thank also those who submitted as part of the select committee process. There’s a been a lot of focus on those that submitted, and treating it as though it’s a numbers game. A lot of the submissions, though, focused on things other than what this is about, and this is about lifting student achievement.

The Opposition are trying to characterise this bill being about the market as opposed to it being about ensuring we deliver opportunities for lifting student achievement here in New Zealand. A number of the schools that’ll come through the charter school model will be non-profit schools, but we don’t hear the Opposition talk about that, because it doesn’t fit their narrative. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hipkins, is worried about his leadership tenure, because, like the last time we had charter schools, that lot only gave it just over a year. The clock is ticking because these guys don’t give things a chance, and if I was Mr Hipkins, I’d be worried about where that clock ends up.

I wanted to touch this morning on three particular things: first of all, a very technical change that will be liked by local government. It is something that we dealt with in the select committee process. I’m sure that the Whanganui District Council, the South Taranaki District Council, and the Stratford District Council will be pleased that we’ve made it clear that the local government rates are only not payable by a charter school if that charter school is a non-profit school. We made a very clear change to the bill to make sure that charter schools that are for profit, because, remember, the Opposition don’t like to remind the public that there are a large number of these that will be non-profit schools—it is only the non-profit schools that don’t have to pay their rates.

Secondly, I want to just touch on the Network for Learning changes. A couple of weeks ago, I went to the Montessori in Whanganui, a non-profit early childhood education facility or organisation, and they have had to move to another place in town. Their lease is coming to an end after a number of years and they have had to move to another place in town. They had to spend $1,000 just to pay for the Network for Learning charge to move into another facility down the road—crazy. These guys want to make it all about “Network for Learning is all about the private sector opening another place.” Well, that is just not the reality.

Thirdly, I want to talk about attendance. This bill enables us to collect data around attendance. Look, I think that, generally, Candice and I are pretty good parents and we make sure that we let the school know when things happen, but I must say we had a bit of an unfortunate week last week. We had a family funeral on Tuesday, of my auntie, and Fordell School rang us at 10 minutes past 9 to ask where Angus was because we hadn’t rung that morning to say, “Hey, we will be at a family funeral.” I’m excited about the fact that we’re going to be supporting schools like Fordell School to collect that data and make sure that we’re feeding that data in. Recognising that attendance at school is a parent’s responsibility, first and foremost, and this bill supports us to capture that critical data. I look forward to this turning into law later today. I commend the bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I won’t say it’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill, because I think this is probably one of the most terrible, ill-thought-out, and ill-conceived bills that I’ve had the opportunity to comment on in the House. Just first of all, I want to reflect a little bit on the committee of the whole House stage that we had last night and also the contributions that we’ve had today in the third reading, starting with that of the Associate Minister of Education.

Now, this whole thing is very weird, is how I would characterise it. It’s a very unusual situation. We had some really unusual comments coming from the Associate Minister last night. We had him referencing Orwell, baiting Opposition members to try and see if we could come up with a question associated with George Orwell—a very unusual way to approach a committee of the whole House stage. We had him referencing the situation in Russia and, in fact, sprinkling references to The God That Failed throughout his third reading speech. This is extremely unusual behaviour from the Minister, from a Minister of the Crown.

I think the reason for that is because what this Parliament is doing today—I think most New Zealanders would find it very unusual. We have a situation where have someone who is a self-proclaimed libertarian deciding to spend $153 million setting up an alternative education system that’s not needed. Now, Government members might say, “Oh, you know, this is wanted by people who want to set up specific schools for Māori, and this will be supported by Māori.” Well, we’ve already heard that there are multiple numbers and types of schools that already assist and have excellent results in relation to Māori achievement within our State system, so that can’t be the real reason.

Then we think, well, you know, what are the other reasons that this particular system might be set up? It seems totally at odds with the other coalition partners. We’re starting to see a few cracks in this coalition, Madam Speaker—I know you won’t be able to comment on that. We’ve already seen the situation in relation to Israel—people weren’t happy about that, were they? There’s a few things about that. The ferries—we know that there’s a bit of contention there. Clearly, in charter schools as well, we’re seeing that. When we’re discussing it today, we’re seeing a lack of agreement.

Now, I like Andy Foster, he gave a good contribution, but it wasn’t really support, was it? If we’re honest, we could say that New Zealand First’s support for this bill—they voted for it, yes, but it was lukewarm. We know that he has valid concerns about this—transparency for one. Charter schools are not subject to the Official Information Act. We’re giving them all of this public money but they’re not subject to the Official Information Act. We know that New Zealand First has problems with that, and we know that New Zealanders do too. Do you know who else has a problem with that? The Ombudsman has a problem with that, and we heard that at the Education and Workforce Committee. We’re not hearing Government Ministers talk about that lack of transparency today, are we? This is another area.

Even the National Party—now, I mentioned it in a previous reading and some of the other members got very upset that I implied that they might not have full scale support for charter schools, but it’s been quite lukewarm as well, I have to say. It doesn’t take a genius to work out why that is. We have, on the one hand, the Minister of Education announcing a very structured curriculum: we’re going to have structured literacy, we’re going to have structured maths, we’re going to have no phones in schools, we’re going to dictate to schools the hours of the day that you have to spend on student subjects.

Hon Erica Stanford: [Claps]

CAMILLA BELICH: At the same time—exactly, that’s what Erica Stanford supports; she’s clapping. This is my point: that is what the National Party believes. Like it or loathe it, that’s what they believe, that’s a policy that they’ve set up. That is what the National Party stands for. But what are we seeing in the House today? Not a policy that goes well with that policy at all. We are seeing the exact opposite. We are seeing—

Hon Erica Stanford: There’s accountability built in.

CAMILLA BELICH: Well, there isn’t much accountability, is there? There’s no Official Information Act request; there’s not a lot of transparency. We can go through the lack of transparency, and I’m glad the Minister brought that up, because that’s one of the major things I want to make sure I save time for—going through the lack of transparency in this bill.

We have a situation here where we’re setting up a charter school programme—and this has been raised in previous speeches, and I did actually go and double-check this—but, at charter schools, you do not need to have teachers employed. When I raised this previously, the Minister said, “Oh, well, that’s the exact same situation as we have now.” Well, no, that is not exactly correct. Currently, in the State system, if you cannot find a registered teacher to do the work, then you might be able to have a teacher, or a holder of a limited authority to teach, who’s able to come in and teach a specific subject—it is not the default. It is very different in charter schools—

Hon Erica Stanford: There’s 2,000 of them.

CAMILLA BELICH: —where you are allowed—well, maybe that’s a problem with people not wanting to be teachers, and I’m not exactly surprised with the way that you’ve been treating them. I’m not exactly surprised that people don’t want to be teachers when you’re taking away their fundamental rights and are talking down to them and pitting them against students, like your Associate Minister has been doing.

This is the total opposite of what the National Party stands for, and you’d think that there would have to be quite a lot of evidence to support that. Well, we didn’t hear any in select committee. What we heard was 90 percent of submitters are opposed to it. Those on the other side of the House say that was a union campaign. Well, I’m sorry, but I heard a lot of teachers, a lot of individuals, a lot of people who are concerned, at select committee. I think it’s absolutely terrible that, as chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, the chair can get up and say that she doesn’t care about those particular opinions—that it’s not a poll—undermining the contributions that they made. I really disagreed with that.

Anyway, we see that this particular model doesn’t have widespread support and it doesn’t have any evidence to back it up. We heard comments from Government speakers saying they’re looking forward to substantiating the evidence.

Shanan Halbert: It’s an experiment.

CAMILLA BELICH: It’s an experiment, and, I tell you, it is the worst type of experiment that a Government can make: experimenting on our children. If this doesn’t work, the people who lose out are not the people sitting around this Chamber; it’ll be the vulnerable children who miss out on having a good quality education that they would have got if you’d spent this money in the State system. When that day comes and we see failing charter schools, the place that the Government will have to look to find who is to blame is in the mirror.

The other thing that I wanted to cover is that this has been a rushed process. This has not been a good example of good legislative process from a procedural perspective and also substantively. We had a shortened select committee process. Now, we did try and do our job as best we could, and I want to commend members from across the House for their participation in the select committee—I don’t think their comments in the House have been reflective of the good process that we went through in select committee—but it was short. It was too short. We couldn’t get the information that we needed from the Ministry of Education. We had regulatory impact statements saying they didn’t have time to speak to people; they didn’t have time to get the information that they needed in order to fully inform the committee.

Then we had a terrible situation where an amendment came in late from the Associate Minister wanting to take away workers’ rights from teachers and then try and hide it from the public. We had it released to the select committee, and then we had an email saying, “You’ve got to delete that email. We’ve got to redact that information. We don’t want the public to see that information. We don’t want the select committee to see that information.” And let me tell you, it was a very difficult journey to be able to make sure that this House and this Parliament had all the information available in relation to that absolutely outrageous taking away of human rights.

Now, the ACT Party says it’s libertarian and that it stands up for freedom. Well, one freedom that is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the freedom of association. That is one of the fundamental tenets of freedom. What the ACT Party has decided to do—and this coalition Government, in very lukewarm support for this proposal, has decided to support—is actually putting forward a proposal that gets rid of fundamental rights from teachers. We had it in black and white in the advice that the Minister got: this is in contradiction to our International Labour Organization conventions; it’s in contradiction to our trade agreements—again, the second time this week I’ve had to look at the Government side and say there is something in our trade agreements that you are not following.

If they are the party of trade, if they are the party of business, they will care about these things, but they evidently don’t. They ignore them even when it’s clear—and it’s clear in the advice, which we’ve finally managed to get in our select committee report to be reported to the House and are able to comment in the Chamber on this—that they are ignoring the rights, the fundamental freedoms, of people. This is a bad bill. It’s a bad bill—it doesn’t have any evidence to support it, the process has been rushed, and I do not commend it to the House.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): I rise to speak in support of this bill. Isn’t it great that, on this side of the House, we’re intent on making sure we lift the outcomes for our young students. I look at the hard work so far by the incredibly dedicated, focused, and passionate Minister of Education, Erica Stanford. The positive feedback from parents has been overwhelming and I’m thrilled that the spotlight has been put on improved educational outcomes for our young people, because the hopes and dreams of this country in the future rest on their young shoulders.

This bill allows for the introduction of charter schools that have the potential to further lift the bar on those aspirations. An appetite for participation—78 so far, likely counting—shows we’re on the right track to getting educational performance back on track. Charter schools are one way of wanting to lift student achievement and, ultimately, to help deliver a better economy in the future. We have seen declining student achievement in New Zealand, and this bill will help give teachers greater autonomy to support those under-achieving students while having high levels of accountability—accountability; that’s a good thing.

Regarding the early childhood education component of this bill, we’re removing the red tape to make it easier to deliver effective, affordable, accessible early learning services to families, and that’s in complete contrast to the other side of the House who’d rather spend all their time working out how to relieve hard-working Kiwis of their income with more tax. This bill also enables rules about collecting, recording, and providing attendance data. Simply, we want our kids back at school. I commend this bill to the House.

SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call on Tangi Utikere.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I join with other members on this side of the House in expressing what is a huge sense of disappointment in terms of this bill that is currently progressing through the House under urgency. I think the fact that it is under urgency really does underscore the rushed sense that this particular bill has followed, not just through the select committee process with a shortened, truncated opportunity for members of the public and the community to share their views, but to be ramming this through a third reading in the morning on Wednesday under urgency underscores it even more.

What we have heard from the Government this morning is “You know what? We don’t need to think about the numbers of submitters that took the opportunity even in a short period of time to share their views on this, because this is not a poll.” That is now the approach, it seems, from this Government: that they’re only going to look at one or two submissions because it suits their own concerns or their own benefits—because “It’s not a poll.”

Katie Nimon: No, we took the feedback from each submission, but we didn’t tally them up.

TANGI UTIKERE: And now they’re trying to say, “Well, we read every submission.” What we’ve heard from them is very clear this morning that “It is not a poll.” Let’s see how long that particular frame sticks for this particular Government.

Charter schools are a failed experiment and what we’re hearing from Government members this morning is “Well, we’ll just sit back and we’ll watch. We’ll put a few things in place. Yes, there’s no requirement to abide by the Official Information Act for now, at the moment, but we’ll just sit back and watch how this all unfolds.” That is a continued experiment. It is a continued experiment and it is simply history that is repeating itself.

We’ve heard this morning that the crux of this bill is to try and break unions, because we know that, actually, when it concerns unions in the education sector, within the State sector, unions like the Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA), unions like NZEI, those are particular collectives that do exist for teachers. They exist for school communities, which includes tamariki, ākonga, and the wider whānau that are part of that as well.

This is a Government that is simply indicating “We don’t care about that.” They seem to have a sense of suspicion about the work and activities that unions do. When I first entered the workforce as a teacher, the PPTA was the first union that I joined—actually, when I was at teachers college. For more than a decade, all I found from that particular organisation was support, encouragement, and collegiality. Why is it that we have a Government that is so hell-bent on basically wanting to break down those three tenets in terms of supporting the educational outcome and achievement of tamariki in this country? It is absolutely shameful.

But then, of course, this is a Minister and indeed a Government that have a one-track mind when it comes to this. They want to see schools being able to teach whatever they want, despite the fact that there has been a huge amount of support and progress in the history space to ensure that all tamariki in Aotearoa New Zealand will learn about what it is that makes this place so special. Yet this is a Government that wants to, effectively, remove that as an opportunity.

We hear about innovation. Well, I’ve got news for the Government: you will not only find innovation in your proposed charter schools, you will find innovation in public schools all around this country. Perhaps it’s just that they don’t get out and have a look at the classrooms. Perhaps it is that they don’t actually get out and about and share and understand what it is that’s being taught, because they seem to think that innovation is only something that you’ll find anywhere outside of the State sector. We know that the Government are doing this because this is going to benefit profit-making corporates—profit-making corporates—and we hear no retaliation, no pushback from members opposite, because they know it’s true. They know it’s true. This is a failed experiment. We do not need to give this a further chance. We look around the world; we hear around the world; we reflect on our own experience here in Aotearoa New Zealand that it has not worked.

In the committee of the whole House stage, I asked the Minister: what would it mean for a family who is in a zoned area and their school decides to transition or convert over to a charter school? The Minister said, “Oh, well, if that’s the view of the community—they would have gone through the process—that’s the end of it.” We are forcing into play particular decision making that actually is removed from a community or whānau level, and that is an absolute disgrace. Colleagues on this side of the House have said that it is a sad, sad day for public education, and it is. It’s purely because this is a Government that has a one-track mind and wants to rush this through under a rushed urgency and process. I do not commend this bill to the House.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I’d like to focus my comments on this bill on the kids. Ultimately, education is there for the children. That’s what it’s all about. What really confuses me is why there is so much opposition to another form of education being provided to our children. Some children—but not all children—thrive under the same system. Some children thrive in the State schools—that’s great, but they don’t all do that. Some thrive in integrated schools—and that’s great, but they don’t all do that. Some in a private school, but they don’t all thrive there. Some thrive in Māori immersion schools, and that’s great as well. What are they so afraid of? Ultimately, it’s about where the student will get the best education. Charter schools now provide another opportunity to that. We just look at our current system: it is not delivering for the students of New Zealand as it should.

In fact, we’ve heard a lot about the submissions that were made to the select committee, and we got a wide range of them. Yes, the majority of them were clearly an orchestrated campaign coming from the unions and the teachers to come along, but there were a couple of very interesting comments I picked up. One was from the University of Otago College of Education, and this beggars belief when it says to me one of their key principles is “Success at school cannot be reduced to achievement in literacy and numeracy.” Just think about that. Ultimately, it’s not their main focus. Then, actually, another submitter said the same thing. The Aotearoa Educators Collective said the same thing: that “Success at school cannot be reduced to achievement in literacy and numeracy”. No wonder some of our students are struggling so much.

What I would like to highlight is—and I think I’ve mentioned this before—that there are some people with some great foresight on the other side of the House and they made some great comments, actually. One of them is in the House tonight—except, this morning, I should say—and one of the great quotes is: “The charter school model presented an opportunity for us to work with whānau and switch them onto learning. We provided a wraparound solution to re-engage Māori parents and their children into learning.” That was the Hon Willie Jackson—the Hon Willie Jackson. Actually, he received great support. I have here a headline: “Labour MP backs Jackson on charter schools”, and his quote was: “The bottom line is, why would you stop something that’s working?” To the Hon Peeni Henare: I thank you very much for your support. On that note, I’d like to say—

Hon Peeni Henare: Catch up, brother!

GRANT McCALLUM: Ha, ha! On that note, I’d like to say I look forward to this bill being introduced and I commend it to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): No one really asked for this legislation—only ACT. Charter schools were a bargaining chip in the coalition negotiations, part of the price of ACT’s 11 votes for this coalition Government. It is, as my colleagues have said—and we’ve restated it throughout this legislative process—a very expensive ideological experiment in de-unionisation by a party that is utterly obsessed with the teacher unions. I don’t understand why, but they are.

A price tag of $153 million when there are so many things in our public education system that could usefully use that money—schools not accountable through all the normal mechanisms, like the Education Review Office (ERO), for the quality of their performance in teaching our young people, a sort of subset of the school system that is not accountable for public money; bizarre, as the ombudsman said when he came along. It is almost a constitutional principle that the Official Information Act applies to organisations using public money, and charter schools won’t be accountable in that way. They won’t have to teach New Zealand’s world-leading Curriculum, and, bizarrely, weirdly, they won’t have to employ trained teachers.

Now, there has been a lot of talk about the evidence, and the Associate Minister, the Hon David Seymour, asserted again this morning in the House that somehow the choice and flexibility that he thinks charter schools will offer will improve learning outcomes. There is no evidence globally. There is a mountain of data, of peer-reviewed studies, on this. There have been a lot of experiments across, particularly, OECD countries over the last 40 years, who have thought that charter schools might improve learning outcomes. There is zero evidence to support that they do make a positive difference, and, in fact, Sweden has just chucked out a 30-year experiment in charter schools. They did it longer than anyone else, and the Swedish education Minister and their Opposition spokesperson on education both publicly stated that it was a failure and they regretted it and it actually harmed generations of students that went through those charter schools.

Do we even need this kind of mythical choice and flexibility that the Associate Minister thinks charter schools will deliver? Experts came along to the Education and Workforce Committee and they told us that New Zealand schools, self-governing schools in this country, have all the flexibility that they need to innovate. We have the diversity. We have special character schools, we have kura kaupapa, we have private schools, we have integrated schools, and I don’t know if members of this House heard her a few months ago, but Claire Amos, the principal of Albany Senior High School, went on the radio and said that, in her experience—and she would know, because she’s an education trailblazer if ever there was one—a principal and a board working together have all of the flexibility in the current system to innovate.

Hon Erica Stanford: She applied to set one up!

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: She says she doesn’t want to—

Hon Member: Own goal!

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: She said she doesn’t want to. Claire Amos has publicly, on record, said that it’s not necessary.

SPEAKER: That’s all very good, but can we just go back to a bit of order. Thank you very much.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Now, in the Associate Minister’s speech this morning, it was very revealing. He responded to comments that I’d made last night that the charter schools experiment won’t survive the next Labour-led Government. He pointed out that a number of the schools during the last failed charter schools experiment have survived. He said, “Sure, they’ve been incorporated into the system as special character schools.” But the point is: to him, these special character schools were actually charter schools with unionised teachers. That’s what he said this morning, and that reveals what this is about for this Associate Minister.

It’s about de-unionisation. That’s the main thing for him. He’s utterly obsessed with the teaching unions. The point is that, when those charter schools were folded back into the State system, they had to teach the Curriculum—they have to hire trained teachers, they are accountable for public money, they are accountable to the ERO for the quality of their practice. So, in actual fact, they are no longer charter schools, but David Seymour revealed what this is all about for him; it is simply a way to carve out part of the public education system and kick the unions out. That’s what it’s about for him.

I said earlier that there’s no evidence to support the Associate Minister’s claim that charter schools will deliver improved learning outcomes, and that’s right; there is no evidence. There’s also no evidence to support the idea that different governance models—the ability to run your school like a private corporation, the ability to self-manage your property, and all the other things that these charter schools will have—make any difference to learning outcomes, and there is a mountain of international peer-reviewed studies to support this. There is evidence, however, that hiring tertiary-trained teachers to teach your students does make a discernible difference. It’s the only thing, on all of these issues that we have been discussing, where there is clear evidence that it makes a difference.

I have huge respect for the educators, the principals and the teachers, and the school communities in the communities that I work for in West Auckland. They’re incredibly professional. They’re highly motivated. They have a huge heart for the children that they work with, and they’re doing an amazing job for our children and our families, but they need more resourcing, particularly to deal with the high numbers of kids going through our schools today with special learning needs, behavioural problems, and neurodiverse learning challenges. Our schools need more learning support coordinators. They need more teacher aides. They need more teachers, and those teachers and all of the other education staff need to be better paid so that we can retain their skills and talents in this country.

There is a constant resourcing challenge in education, as there is in the health system. No one, including the principals and teachers in my local schools, would claim that our system is perfect. They want more resourcing and they want a better system. They want more professional development. They want better assessment tools, ongoing improvements to the Curriculum. Our education system needs innovation and it needs investment, but this charter schools bill is not it. It is an expensive fringe, ideological experiment in de-unionisation and privatising our education system. It is the last thing that our public education system needs.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to quote a few things—four quick points to close this great bill out. Te Kāpehu Whetū principal, Raewyn Tipene, said the school moved to the State system when charter contracts were cancelled. She said it involved a lot more bureaucracy—“We came back to mainstream and it was horrendous.” If I quote from Alwyn Poole, he said, “Our current state education system can be genuinely labelled a ‘failed experiment’ on a massive scale - and especially for Māori, Pasifika students from lower-income families and those locked into choiceless geographical location”. The state-of-the-art Stanford University CREDO study in the USA—Mr Twyford said there was no evidence—said the results are remarkable.

Finally, from my own electorate—well, actually, the Hon Minister Tama’s electorate, in Hamilton West, but we kind of share the glory a little bit—“Te Kōpuku High was established as a Partnership or Charter School funded by the Ministry of Education in 2016 as a result of an agreement between the National and ACT parties. We opened our doors to the first cohort of years 7 to 9 mokopuna in 2017.” Some of you will know the principal—Hemi Rau. “Partnership Schools were operated by sponsors and enjoyed greater autonomy than State Schools. Our main sponsor was Kia Ata Mai Educational Trust. … The primary purpose of the Trust is to initiate, develop and support Māori educational activities. In 2018, Te Kōpuku High became a Special Character school after the Labour-led coalition government removed Partnership Schools as an educational option.” And here’s the interesting thing: “Despite a change in status, we have rigorously safeguarded the integrity of our original teaching and learning programme.”

Finally, I’d just like to say it’s a good day for our colleague over in the ACT Party Cameron Luxton. I was inspired by his maiden speech several months ago in this House, where he said that the main reason he is in this House is for charter schools. If you want to know a little bit more about charter schools, I encourage you to read his anti-fragile maiden speech. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education and Training Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2)

Instruction to Health Committee

Debate resumed from 17 September.

SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment in the name of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan be agreed. Oh, sorry, we haven’t had the debate.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): 你好吗。Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Thank you. It’s wonderful to be able to take a call on the amendment in the name of Dr Xu-Nan. Effectively, Dr Xu-Nan’s amendment will extend the period of time that this bill will be in front of the Health Committee. I think, actually, whilst we would prefer, I think, the full six-month opportunity for this, in this circumstance, having an additional period of time—I understand to be six weeks—will actually be, I think, quite sufficient in terms of what the Government was otherwise proposing.

I intend to just cover off why that is, and I intend to reflect on the experience that I had as chair of the Health Committee during the previous Parliament when aspects of this bill were in front of it at the time, but before I do that, I do want to just indicate that I understand that the chair of the select committee, or the select committee, has currently called for submissions on this bill. OK, that’s an instruction from the House in terms of this bill being referred to the Health Committee; however, it does concern me if there is a situation where the submission period for that bill is going to end, it might be, this coming week—I’m not too sure on that. It could be, it might be, it possibly is. We have a situation where this House has not actually given an instruction to shorten that time frame. Why then do we have a select committee that is currently calling for submissions?

I see that the chair of the select committee is here in the House today—he may wish to take a call to respond to this—but I just have an issue with the fact that currently members of the public will be submitting on this bill with the understanding that they actually only have until the end of the week to do that. Now, how presumptuous is that? This House has not issued a shortened time frame instruction. So—

Sam Uffindell: And the committee hasn’t agreed to it.

TANGI UTIKERE: What’s that?

Sam Uffindell: The committee is yet to agree to it.

SPEAKER: No, we’re not going to have that cross-House dialogue.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, the issue, as I understand it, is that the committee has not actually agreed to it. Well, Mr Uffindell, I know, and he will know—Chair Uffindell—that the chair is able to call for submissions; members of this House know that, but as does the period by which the submissions close.

The issue that this House currently has in front of it, of course, and that the community and the public should know, is as it stands right now, if there’s someone out there who goes on to the Parliament website and wants to submit on this bill, they should be under the impression that it is a full six-month period, because there is no instruction that currently stands from this House that indicates anything other than that. I do think—presumptuous as I might think it might be—that there is a little bit of an issue around that. If we are going out to the community, there will be community members and other individuals—and I’ll get to that in a moment—who will want to submit on this. We all know that they do often play to the time frame. There will be folk out there, submitters, who are working their butts off to meet a time frame that this House has not actually set yet. That’s an issue that I think does warrant contributions from members in that particular space.

This six-week period, I think, will be very, very helpful. What was really interesting is that the Minister moved a time period through to 31 October, which is, well, six weeks away or thereabouts—five weeks away. This extra time will allow for a fulsome opportunity for people to have their submission. When the Health Committee of the last Parliament considered an amendment to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act, what was really important was hearing from the community. We certainly heard from, actually, lots of rangatahi and lots of young people, and that was a really pleasing thing to do. I think this process, in terms of extending it by six weeks, will give young rangatahi and others the opportunity to submit if they choose to, rather than having that opportunity gone by the end of this particular week.

In my own electorate, I know that there are schools who absolutely have views when it comes to vaping. There are three particular components of this bill that I think we would hear from as a Parliament or a select committee around what those changes might mean for them and whether, actually, they go far enough or not. On this side of the House, we are of the view that, actually, the bill doesn’t go far enough. Giving people more time, which Dr Xu-Nan’s amendment effectively does, would allow those who wish to submit the opportunity to do that.

One of the interesting things that the select committee in the previous Parliament—and I accept that the previous select committee is by no means binding, but I do think it is important to provide some empirical experience around what happened when issues of this nature have been previously before the Parliament. What was a very clear indication from the community was—so much so that we had former parliamentarians come and submit to the committee around this—that the committee went away from this place and went out into the communities to hear directly from them. The community, I know, had the opportunity for the select committee to have public hearings located in South Auckland, at the Fale. I know that there were some that were scheduled in Canterbury and other places if they were able to take place, and it made it easier for people to not just submit, to take up the opportunity to speak to their submissions.

With a shortened period, if that’s what the Parliament determines, then it, basically, curtails that opportunity. I think that would be a real shame to, effectively, put in place limitations for an opportunity to hear directly out in the community. It’s not to say that we don’t do that here, but it makes it easier to hear firsthand from submitters in circumstances where it goes out in the community. What I would say is that a decision of the previous Parliament’s Health Committee in doing that was because we wanted to make sure that we heard directly from the communities where this absolutely would make a difference. When this bill talks about inserting early childhood education (ECE) centres into a sensitive zone consideration, that is really important. Giving ECEs—even though it seems the Government doesn’t want to give them anything at the moment—effectively an opportunity to feed into that process is really, really important.

This is a bill that also talks about the banning of the manufacture, sale, supply, and distribution of disposable vapes. Now, undoubtably there will be manufacturers, there will be retailers—because certainly that’s what we’ve heard from previously—that will be interested in this particular space. They’ll want to hear from that. Providing an opportunity, even if it is an extra six weeks, I think, would make a huge, huge difference.

Some of the issues that have been raised, even though this bill has been on the agenda—yet the instruction hasn’t been given—are community concerns around access and accessibility to the actual premises. One of the, I guess, interesting things previously is that we were able to get an understanding of actually how many retailers were out there. Now, there are quite a few. I mean, we all travel around the place. We just need to see from time to time in our own communities where they’re located. This additional time will also give them an opportunity to submit.

The issue that I have with the shortened time period is that it is just too soon. I think what Dr Xu-Nan’s amendment does is—all it’s doing—is extending the period to replace the words “31 October 2024” with “15 December 2024”. This means that it gives the community just an extra period of time to submit on something that they should not have not just a closed mind on but a submission date that has been closed by a select committee or a chair or whoever at the moment. I really am concerned that the signal that’s out to those who may wish to submit to this is one that says, “Actually, no, we’re going to stick to things closing later this week.” OK. The chair may extend that. I think that’s rather untidy when we have a situation where this is an operation that is, basically, not in line with any specific instruction from the House, but it is currently open for submissions. The six-week period will give members an opportunity.

I want to thank Dr Xu-Nan for putting forward the amendment. It’s not a wordy one, and I don’t say that as a criticism. I think it actually nails it down quite nicely that this is, from the Government’s perspective, a shortened period. It is not appropriate, and his amendment is one that provides not just the select committee but also the members who are on that committee time to consider things adequately. I am very happy to support this amendment and I hope that members from across the House will do so as well.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (Whip—NZ First): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought it was the “Hon Dr Kieran McAnulty” for a moment there, and I was a bit worried, but thank you very much for this.

I must say that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan has, I think, struck a good middle ground. I mean, it’s clear that we’re deeply concerned about the very truncated select committee process. We do agree that the legislation and the objectives of it are something that we support, but the point is that we want people to have the ability to have a fulsome opportunity to make submissions. There will be submissions against it, I’m sure, but certainly what I’m hearing is that people would like to see the matters go further. I do think that in terms of the 15 December proposal, it isn’t asking for four or six months—it’s about six weeks more, I think—but what it does do is it gives people who perhaps aren’t professional submitters, if you like, the ability to gather their thoughts, put them on paper or on the laptop, and send them in.

I think there’s a real risk in having an extremely truncated report-back date that the Minister demanded, because she didn’t really ask. She just came to the House and didn’t give any reason, which I thought was quite outrageous. That very truncated report-back date and the report-back date that the deputy chair of the Health Committee has actually put out already, subject to the committee’s approval—the only people who can comply with that are people who, essentially, are lined up, ready to go, and have their thoughts in order already, and we know who that’s going to be. It’s going to be vested interests—the interests that that Minister is closely talking to on numerous occasions—and I’m deeply concerned about that.

I must say—and I see that the Minister of Justice is in the House—that there has been a tendency in recent times for Ministers to feel gung-ho and to have shortened report-back times, only then to realise that issues are a little more complex and that the select committees are actually really good at doing their job and have raised some issues that need addressing. Then the Minister, all of a sudden, comes back and says, “Oh, I know I said two months,”—or four months, or whatever it might be—“but can I have another month?” Now, that is actually quite undermining of the parliamentary process, and I do think that the lack of respect shown to select committees and the really diligent work that they do across the parties—Government members and Opposition members—is really undermined by this.

Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment gives the committee a relatively short but sufficient time to do a diligent job and, actually, I think Dr Xu-Nan’s amendment has got the wisdom of Solomon there because he hasn’t—perhaps as I might have—said to give us six months or five months. He’s actually kind of bought in to the Minister’s requirement that this is important legislation and that it should be on a slightly faster track than the six-month or four-month period that might be a little more normal. I think that’s very good, but at the same time, as I said, lay people, who are the mums and dads who are worried about their 13- or 14-year-old kid seeing the vapes in the shop down the road, or worried about the toddlers picking up disposable vapes and playing with them in the street—those are the people who actually have genuine and real concerns.

In my experience on select committees, you could listen to all of the fancy lobbyists, but every so often it’s someone who, perhaps unexpectedly, has an insight—a personal insight—from just ordinary human experience, and the light bulb goes off and you think, “Crikey! That had never crossed my mind. We need to address that gap in the law, or we need to make sure we go that little step further.” Those people aren’t going to be heard from if the Minister’s motion is passed as it stands, and so that’s why Mr Xu-Nan’s amendment is a good one. As I said, it’s 15 December—get it out of the way before Christmas. The public servants won’t be too excited by it because they’ll have work to do over the break, but then again, this Government is not too worried about that. They would probably want them in the office over the Christmas break, as well.

I won’t go on any further, but I do think that the amendment is a good one, and I think that the disrespect shown to the select committee by the extremely truncated period is concerning. The overall disrespect of select committees where that Government has just seen them as, essentially, their playthings to direct as they want is concerning. The actions by the deputy chair of the select committee in calling for a very, very truncated submission period is undermining of this House’s dignity and authority because it prefaces the very decision that this House is currently deliberating on, and I find that deeply concerning. With that, I very much support Mr Xu-Nan’s amendment and I absolutely do not support Minister’s Costello’s truncated report-back date.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. 大家早上好。我是新西兰国会议员Sam Uffindell. Happy Chinese Language Week, everyone.

I rise to speak on this, just in a short response—it won’t take up too much of this House’s time, Mr Speaker. I do note that the committee is yet to agree on that date—that two-week period. That has not yet been agreed to by the committee. Let’s just be clear on that.

I do appreciate that Duncan Webb called out, contrary to Mr Utikere’s assertion that it was the chair that had called for the submissions. He is correct: it was the deputy chair. The chair was not present in New Zealand at that time.

I will also say: like, we want to get this right; we want to get vaping regulations correct. If I cast my mind back to last year, the previous Government had an opportunity to and they got it wrong and the tobacco company—

SPEAKER: Those are debating points about the bill. We need to talk entirely about—and closely and tightly to—the motion on the floor from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, which is—

SAM UFFINDELL: The extension request. Yes, yes, yes. No, no, and we do note there are concerns about that. I will just say in regard to the concerns about the lack of period for submissions that the Health Committee has been conducting a briefing into youth vaping since early this year and we have heard a number of submissions come through on that. Vape-Free Kids NZ, the ministry—

SPEAKER: Yeah, no, look, that’s all fantastic. I’m sure it’s very interesting, but we’re debating the motion. Please speak tightly to the motion.

SAM UFFINDELL: Yes, Mr Speaker. Look, I do appreciate the concerns. We do want to have as good submissions as we can possible on this, but we will also work to ensure that we get good legislation into this House as soon as possible so that we can tackle the epidemic of youth vaping. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I’m moving a new motion, so I just wanted to move that the motion be amended to remove the words “and outside the Wellington area” and “195”—

SPEAKER: Sorry—say that again.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I move that the motion be amended to remove the words “and outside of the Wellington area”, and—

SPEAKER: Apologies to you—

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Do we have to finish this?

SPEAKER: The mikes aren’t too clear—could you start again?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: OK. I move, That the motion be amended to remove the words “and outside the Wellington area” and “195”.

The reason why we are moving this is because this is a standardised phrase and the Associate Minister of Health, the Hon Casey Costello, is trying to capture all possibilities, should the situation arise that we meet during those sitting days outside of the Wellington area. The way I read this is to allow for things to move on in a way that just would not require the Business Committee’s agreement and that this would also allow for members to not be considered as absent for leave purposes should we be meeting outside of the Wellington area during sitting days, but there’s reasons why we want to remove them—there’s two things. We’ve had other bills in the past that do genuinely require us to be face to face with those communities, particularly bills that affect, say, communities where there may be really heavy language barriers or we need to meet particular cultural issues, such as Teanau’s member’s bill, or, for example, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill that requires face-to-face engagements in communities like Northland.

In the case of this bill, I do genuinely think that there is nothing stopping us from meeting online on those sitting days and that it does not require members to actually travel outside of those sitting days to meet with those communities, and that we actually also have the ability to meet on days outside of the sitting period, and that if we want to do due diligence to the scrutiny of this legislation, there is nothing that should stop members from being able to meet completely outside of those sitting days—for example, meeting on Mondays or Fridays. As far as I understand it, by the rate that the Health Committee is going, most of the hearing days anyway will be during the two non-sitting weeks at any point. I think there is completely the possibility to be able to meet the deadline while not having to get members outside of the building to do that work outside of this place.

I think this is particularly important for parties that are smaller. We are particularly affected by having people be outside of the Wellington region to do select committee work when Parliament is sitting. It really, really affects our ability to fulsomely participate in the proceedings of the House. For that reason, we just want to sort of change those things because we just don’t simply think that they’re necessary. Should there be any hiccups or delays that require a reevaluation, this can just be discussed at the Business Committee anyway, but we think that, as a standardised procedure, we should try to avoid taking members outside of the Wellington region during sitting days, when we already know that we have duties to fulfil here during those days and we already have limited leave.

To repeat the key things that we’re looking for in this motion: the removal of the words “and outside of the Wellington area” and “195”, which is the relevant Standing Orders number. I’m looking forward to debating this motion and hearing constructive contributions from members across the House.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): I move, That debate on this question now close.

SPEAKER: Well, before you do that, I’ll have to say, members, that the question before the House, for debate, is that the amendment be agreed to. The amendment is now debatable together with the amendment in the name of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan and the motion itself.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’ve already spoken on the motion, but I have not spoken on the amendment, so I’ll limit my contributions to that.

I do also wish to speak in support of the tabled amendment in the name of Rachel Boyack, which I’ll get to in due course. Specifically, in reference to the amendment in the name of Dr Xu-Nan, proposing that the report back is extended by a mere six weeks, I hold the view that this should be a full select committee process, but given this is the only amendment in front of the House that looks at the report-back date, I lend my support to this. The reason why we should look to have a longer report date is because of the public interest in this issue.

There is not a region in the country where vaping is not of concern, and I get the sense that there is a broad view amongst the House that we need to work together to look to take every possible avenue to limit the impact of vaping, especially on young people. If that is the shared view of the House, how can we realistically expect to do that with such a short report-back time? Even an extension of six weeks, as proposed in this amendment, wouldn’t give the public the full opportunity that a six-month select committee process would have done, and I think that’s regrettable, but at least an extension of six weeks would give people more time. It is entirely possible that if submitters had more time, the committee would be presented with alternatives that might achieve the Parliament’s stated goals in a better way. I’m not sure that ways that other countries overseas have dealt with this issue could be explored properly with such a short report-back time.

It is also of concern that if members of the public were to look at the select committee web page, it would show that submissions close at 11.59 p.m. this Friday. Now, it’s possible—unlikely, but possible—that this House could still be debating this referral motion at the end of this sitting period, which could potentially—

SPEAKER: Can I offer the advice to the member that this debate is restricted to the motions on the Table, but also tempered by repetition, which is starting to come through very strongly. I think the member’s prediction, while interesting, is unlikely to occur.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: As conceded, Mr Speaker, but the point remains that the current close date and time of submissions is merely a couple of days away and this House is still currently considering this referral motion. Perhaps I should have prefaced my comments by referencing the amendment that has been tabled by Rachel Boyack, which would have made those comments perhaps a little bit more relevant.

Rachel Boyack has a tabled amendment that moves that the motion be amended to add that the committee extend the call for submissions to allow the public a chance to submit. Now, I strongly support this amendment. This, of course, is a proposed amendment to an instruction to the committee, so it is entirely relevant for this House to consider such an instruction. It should be of concern to the House that the committee, which currently does not have an instruction for the House, have moved on the basis of a shortened submission process without an instruction. That should be a concern to all of us, because as it stands, in the absence of this instruction being passed by the House, the select committee has no other information to go on other than it being referred to it under a full process, a six-month process. Yet, despite that, they have decided to agree that, as stated on the website, submissions close 11.59 p.m. this coming Friday. Rachel Boyack’s amendment addresses that.

This House, given the decisions made by the committee, can have no confidence that it will voluntarily decide to extend the submission date. How can it? How can the House have confidence it would choose to do that when it’s already chosen to have a severely truncated submission process when there was no instruction to do so? This House cannot simply, even if it agreed to Dr Xu-Nan’s amendment, have confidence that it would extend the submission process out. The only way in which to secure that is for the House to vote in favour of this amendment. I commend Rachel Boyack for doing this. It’s entirely appropriate.

SPEAKER: Can I ask the member to speak to the motion that’s on the Table. There is no motion on the Table from Rachel Boyack at this point. Please tighten up your contribution and resume speaking.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: A point of order, sir. When a member submits an amendment to the House Office and they confirm that that’s been accepted, are members not to take, on that, that there is an amendment for debate in this House?

SPEAKER: No, it needs to be tabled and it hasn’t yet been tabled. [Interruption] I’m sorry? That’s right. The member hasn’t had a call to move her motion. That’s the reference to tabling it. You can call that an arcane point, but it’s how we work. This whole debate is now becoming fairly repetitive, but the member will resume his speech.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Point of order. Can a member move a motion as part of a yield?

SPEAKER: No.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Well, it was worth a try, thank you. I will sit down and hope that she gets a call in.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment in the name of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 31 October 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My point of order is on the fact that I did table an amendment on the table in the House Office and also sought the call to move that motion, an amendment on the original instruction to the select committee. It was signalled in a speech by my colleague, also. Yet, given that, I sought the call in order to move that and had not had an opportunity to take the call on either the original motion or any further amendment, and, further, had actually tabled it with the House Office to go on to the Table.

We’ve had previous points of order and rulings in the past about members’ opportunities to speak to the amendments that they put forward, and I would seek your guidance around the opportunity for members to actually put what are genuine amendments on the Table, seek an opportunity to move those, and seek an opportunity to have a contribution on amendments, because the usual practice is that, when something comes through to the House Office and is tabled, there is then an opportunity for members to speak to it. As the mover of the amendment, I did not have that opportunity.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Assistant Whip—Labour): Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: Briefly, I hope.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a simple and brief point to direct you to Standing Order 128. On a straight reading of the rules between Standing Orders 123 and 128, where 128 says, “An amendment may be moved”, if moving means making a speech to the amendment, there is a rule here that says you may move it. A straight reading of Standing Order 128, in my reading, would say that Rachel Boyack was entitled to speak.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s an interesting interpretation—it’s not one I agree with. There is a difference between a committee stage and a full call in the House. The Speaker heard nine speeches to the amendments, a total of more than two hours of debate on the matter. They’d mentioned a number of times that we were getting into repetitive territory and, therefore, made the decision to put the vote, which has now concluded, and that should end the matter.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. There does appear to be some confusion, in terms of the distinction between a committee stage and a referral motion, and it’s quite possible that the ruling that you’ve just made might become a new Speaker’s ruling, and I hope, if that is the case, it provides some clarity. The concern, however, though, is that there is a higher requirement in an amendment to a referral motion that would be required in a committee stage, in that the member who is moving the amendment has to speak to it, apparently, in order for it to then be discussed. That was clearly not understood by us, and it wasn’t clearly outlined in the Speakers’ rulings.

I hope that, when it is looked at, it is, because what happened as a result of that—without disputing it; it’s simply providing an outline—is that the House was deprived of an opportunity, because of that requirement, of considering an amendment that was genuine and may well have actually got the support of the House. It’s quite possible that the two amendments that we voted on were opposed, as was the case, but the amendment that was referred to but not allowed to be considered or voted on might well have been accepted by the House, because it dealt with a decision made by a select committee that was outside the situation that they were dealing with—an assumption that a referral instruction would be passed by the House but yet hadn’t. Now we’re in a situation where the House will, if it did indeed hope that the submissions period would be extended, be relying on the goodwill of the committee without the opportunity to pass on that instruction.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for that contribution. I’m going to, firstly, acknowledge that there should be clarity for all members in the way in which the Standing Orders deal with these matters, and I will ensure that there is clarity brought around that, but the overarching point here is that accepting a closure is at the discretion of the Chair, in this case the Speaker, and that’s what I’ve done.

Bills

Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 5 December 2024 and that the Justice Committee has authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in week in which there has been a sitting in the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

In 2011, the marine and coastal area Act established a regime for managing interests in the foreshore and seabed. They carefully balanced the recognition of Māori groups’ customary rights with the legitimate interests of all New Zealanders to walk, boat, and fish our beautiful coastlines. As the Act’s preamble records, up until that point New Zealand had taken different approaches to managing those interests. Those approaches had ended up disappointing many.

One way that customary interests are recognised under the Act is through the award of customary marine title (CMT). Customary marine title comes with valuable rights. These include the ownership of non-Crown minerals, involvement in planning, and the ability to permit or decline certain resource consent applications, with some exceptions. CMT also provides holders with the right to be engaged when new significant infrastructure is proposed. These rights were included in the 2011 legislation on the basis that the test for CMT was exacting and recognises CMT only where customary interests had been maintained with sufficient strength right through to the present day. It’s for that reason that this Government believes that the Act was and is a strong affirmation of Parliament’s role in achieving fairness for all those who have interests in the foreshore and seabed.

Along with holding the specified areas in accordance with tikanga, section 58 of the current Act states that applicant groups need to have had exclusive use and occupation from 1840 to the present day without any substantial interruption. This is evidently a high threshold. However, in making decisions on applications over the last five years, the courts have interpreted the test for customary marine title in ways that have diluted some of these strong requirements. The Court of Appeal most recently has interpreted the CMT test in a way that effectively did away with the exclusivity requirement and the need for continuity, and significantly reduced the scope of what can constitute a substantial interruption.

I respect the role of the courts as one decision maker under this regime and the challenges in interpreting the CMT test in the context of the wider Act, but for this regime to work as Parliament intended, the balance between the strength of the CMT test and the rights that go along with it needs to be maintained. I note that the Crown has appealed the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court. However, with many applications currently in progress, we can’t afford to wait to address the Court of Appeal’s error in its interpretation of the test.

The purpose of these amendments is to restore the exacting nature of the test for CMT and to set aside the Court of Appeal and earlier High Court interpretations of the test that strayed from the meaning Parliament intended. The amendments provide significant clarity on how decision makers should implement the CMT test by expanding on the same test elements that were already in the Act. The amendments set the literal wording of the test above other framing sections of the Act, like the purpose and the Treaty of Waitangi sections. They further define what is meant by “exclusive use” and “occupation”—that it is both an intention and an ability to control an area to the exclusion of others. The amendments provide direction to decision makers on when they can draw inferences about the nature and extent of use and occupation. They clarify that any factual, substantial interruption can interfere with CMT, not just legislated activities. They clarify that applicants are required to prove all the elements of the test and clarify that the Act doesn’t revive customary interests that were previously extinguished, with the exception of customary interests extinguished by the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

Altogether, I consider this will reduce any ambiguity about the nature and strength of the test for customary marine title and ensure that there is an enduring balance between the strictness of the test and the rights that go along with an award of CMT. The restored test will be applied to any applications that were still undecided at the time of my policy announcement on 25 July 2024. This retrospective application is necessary to prevent further cases from being decided under an interpretation that doesn’t reflect the original intention of the Act.

I recognise that this causes some difficulties for cases that are in the process of being decided, and that is why I have proposed this legislation be progressed as a matter of priority. These amendments will not affect cases that already have decisions, including those that are subject of appeals.

I note the feedback I received from applicants and the report of the Waitangi Tribunal, but I stress that these changes are necessary and pressing. The marine and coastal area Act sets up a very deliberate regime that strikes a delicate balance between interests. The sole purpose of these amendments is to ensure that balance continues to be struck and is an enduring one for Māori and for all New Zealanders.

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

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak on this particular bill. To set out the Labour Party position from the outset, we will be opposing this bill.

The Minister has raised a number of matters that are of a delicate nature. What the paperwork that’s been provided to the House and tabled in the House clearly makes a point of recognising is the lack of consultation and the lack of engagement with Māori.

In 2011 when the legislation was considered and passed in this House, it offered two legs for those who wish to prove their customary title. One of those legs was a direct negotiation or an ability to directly discuss these matters and, should those discussions progress, negotiate with the Minister of the day. The other way was, of course, through the court. The court gave the opportunity for Māori—in particular Māori but not just Māori; in fact, for all New Zealanders, as the Minister has already made clear, in that it does strike a delicate balance between the rights of Māori and all New Zealanders.

What it did was it allowed people, and Māori in particular, and iwi who were going through settlement at the time or were in negotiation with the settlement, the ability to prove customary right through the court. Now, simply because a decision, as highlighted by the Minister, doesn’t sit well with this particular Government and the policy that this Government has signed up to, this doesn’t mean that those who wish to go to court to prove their customary title rights should be stripped of that ability to do so.

I am of the clear opinion that when the original legislation was passed in 2011, because of the date that was set when all applications had to be in by, what that meant was we saw a flood of applications to make sure that we can test that customary right through the court. Of course, that put huge pressure not just on the courts but also on those who wish to explore that avenue as per the legislation, which means that there was a flood of applications. It meant that the court processes struggled to deal with it. It meant that it comes at great cost for Māori and for those who do wish to enter into that pathway. What we’re seeing here is that ability to be able to test that right in court taken away.

I’ve already said that the documentation that’s been provided to this House has made it clear that this Government refuses to speak to Māori on such important matters. What it further does is prove that all of the policies that affect Māori have gone through a truncated process, as the Minister has already outlined in his speech. The proposal to have this done by 5 December—if I recall the date correctly—of this year once again shows that when it comes to matters relating to Māori, it’s OK to have a truncated process, and it’s OK not to consult with Māori, the very people who will be impacted the most by these decisions.

Sadly, what that also does is it creates a vacuum of misinformation. What that means is that it emboldens some groups to be able to point the finger at Māori and to accuse them of transgressing on their rights here in this country. We’ve seen it in the past. We’ve seen it in the most very recent past by Hobson’s Pledge, who have made a point to say that Māori are here to take away people’s rights to the foreshore and seabed. That’s what these rushed policies do. They create an environment of misinformation that continues to divide our country. Because we’re not going to consultation and because there hasn’t been an opportunity to debate these matters properly as there should be, we are going to continue to support the notion of misinformation that happens in this country and continues to divide our people.

As we progress with this bill in the House, we are going to be challenging it at every single point. We want to make sure that those who do get the opportunity to present to the select committee on this bill will be able to do so and not have their ability to do so hindered in any way. We want to make sure that all of the people that this bill relates to will get their opportunity to be heard, and we will be continuing to oppose this bill, because—and once again I make the point—this bill takes away the right of people to be able to test their matter in the court, and that should never be a place where we find ourselves in this country, and we should trust that system to have the right outcome.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There is a sinister symmetry to the order of bills in the House today: the confiscation followed by the exploitation. The bill before us today, the takutai moana amendment bill, is the raupatu—the confiscation—and it will shortly be followed by the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, which is the ban-on-oil revocation bill, and that is the exploitation.

I wonder at the idea that we are in a post-colonial era, because I think the test of whether we are is to answer the question: are the patterns and processes and means of colonisation still being practised? First, confiscation, followed by exploitation, is part of the long habit of colonisation. New Zealand’s first oil well was drilled in 1865 in Taranaki on land confiscated from Māori—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s true, Mr Abel, but this is the next bill that you’ll—can you speak about this bill?

STEVE ABEL: I am.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah.

STEVE ABEL: I am speaking about the takutai—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know you’re speaking about them both, but then you’ve gone on to oil. So can we please bring it back to the moana?

STEVE ABEL: Sure. I guess, Madam Speaker, can I clarify: am I able to speak about what I believe are the intentions underlying the takutai moana bill, which is—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

STEVE ABEL: —to extinguish Māori customary rights so as to facilitate exploitation?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and that’s related to the bill. So that’s—you are.

STEVE ABEL: Yes, that is what I’m speaking of. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would say that that is part of the long habit of colonisation: you have to first acquire the resources before you can exploit them, and so the confiscation comes first before the exploitation.

The whole invasion of the Waikato by Governor Grey was to access the land that Māori were very effectively being productive on—highly productive land as far as the eye could see; exports to California and to Australia. Grey built the Great South Road, and he came and took that land, and then it was exploited and handed out indeed to the very troops who’d committed the atrocities by which the land was acquired.

We have spoken here in this House with grave remorse on the Treaty settlement speeches about the wrongness of those raupatu, but like an apologetic, recidivist abuser who says, “I’m sorry, I won’t do it again”, here we are. This Government is doing it again. This is a raupatu of Māori customary rights. Twenty years since the foreshore and seabed legislation, there is a sinister symmetry today in the House. In 2004, the foreshore and seabed extinguished Māori rights and asserted Crown domination of the marine coastal environment. Shortly after, in 2006, a swathe of new oil and gas exploration permits were issued by Harry Duynhoven, the Minister at the time. First confiscation, then exploitation.

Those same permits were relinquished because of the campaigns by members of the community and iwi and alliance who got those oil exploration companies to relinquish their permits, one by one, against the public resistance. The ocean is a taonga to tangata whenua Māori; access to it is their right under tino rangatiratanga. The destruction of nature is part of the pattern of colonisation. Here, today, is yet another bill that takes away that fundamental customary right of Māori to their takutai moana and makes way for its exploitation and its destruction. I want to read from the finding of the Waitangi Tribunal on this piece of legislation. “At present, the Crown’s actions are such a gross breach of the Treaty that, if it proceeds, these amendments would be an illegitimate exercise of Kāwanatanga. We caution the Crown that, on the strength of the evidence we have received, to proceed now on its current course will significantly endanger the Māori-Crown relationship.”

Now, Te Tiriti o Waitangi is fundamentally about relationship. If you continually eat away and take a sledgehammer to the foundation of our nation in that founding agreement, you fundamentally harm the basic relationship on which our nation is built. I implore this Government to stop with these destructions and the undermining of tino rangatiratanga for Māori. It is for the harm of all New Zealanders that this Government proceeds with those actions, and we will not be supporting this raupatu 2024. Kia ora.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to support the bill that is being introduced by the Government today. There is a long and significant history, and, in the words of the member Peeni Henare, it has, yes, been a delicate issue for a very long time. Whenever an authority takes property rights, that is a serious, serious issue, and no matter how long ago rights were taken, they need to be addressed and amended in whatever way both parties can come to agree to.

Sometimes, New Zealanders don’t see eye to eye on some of those things, but in this particular case, a customary marine title has got certain elements of it that grant rights that are exclusive compared to others, and all rights around property are to the exclusion of others. When you have a customary marine title, it’s a non-transferrable title of property rights. If people are happy to take that, then that’s one thing, but it brings along with it some rights and responsibilities around the refusal of things happening in that area, on that seabed, in that marine area. Now, that is something which should not be taken lightly, and any Māori organisation or group who wishes to apply for a customary marine title must take gravely the responsibility that comes along with that ability to refuse, because New Zealand is a place that needs to grow. We need to have access for all New Zealanders to feel like they are part of this country, where they can go about their business or their leisure, and where they can enjoy something that we are blessed with, which is our marine and coastal environment—

Steve Abel: And the Waitangi Tribunal said that was not threatened.

CAMERON LUXTON: No, no, look, the balance needs to be taken, and this Government has made a step here, because in the past, the Government has created a test for customary marine title, and there’s been some decisions made in the courts which New Zealanders have questioned and which this Government does not necessarily see eye to eye on. After court decisions have been made—

Tākuta Ferris: It doesn’t see eye to eye with the court—its own court.

CAMERON LUXTON: —we’ve had to come to the highest court in the land, Mr Ferris, which has come along and said, “We are going to clarify what Parliament has already said, and we’re going to need to have some targets, some barriers which need to be crossed, exclusive use and occupation since 1840—that is a fair compromise. Some people will say it’s gone too far, some people will say it hasn’t gone far enough, and I can see both sides of that argument, but this is a country that has to come together, that has to find a way to heal the issues that have come up in the past.

This is, again to quote the Hon Peeni Henare, a delicate issue, which needs to be taken with tact and respect, and I hope that New Zealand can come together and discuss this as the adults that we believe we are. Thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and speak to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. Apologies, I have a bit of a throat thing going on—if my voice does break or I go into a coughing fit, my apologies in advance.

The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill—the aim of it is to amend the 2011 Act to provide much more clarity and certainty around how customary marine titles are determined now, particularly in response to recent legal judgments, Re Edwards, a case and point, that have created some confusion, some ambiguity, about Parliament’s original intent. This amendment bill is about, as Minister Goldsmith in his first speech this morning said, reducing that ambiguity of the test for customary title.

New Zealand First is supportive of this. It fulfils a coalition agreement between New Zealand First and National, so, therefore, it is a very much a pleasure to rise to speak to this. We believe that it addresses New Zealand First’s focus on the sovereignty of Parliament and on fairness and transparency in legal processes. We’ve heard already in speeches today a lot of white water coming from across the other side of House, a lot of victimhood-sounding white water. Undoubtedly, they’ll be pulled down by the undercurrent if they keep that up, because, really, this enables certainty and clarity, which is most important to ensure the sovereignty of Parliament.

We must also ensure that the fairness in the process of determining customary marine titles by requiring evidence of that continuous exclusive use of those marine areas, rather than allowing claims based solely on just cultural or spiritual associations. It is about correcting these legal loopholes that have recently been highlighted. We support the changes to close those loopholes that could allow groups to claim custom marine title without proper evidence of that uninterrupted occupation. Importantly, also, the bill reinforces that principle that the burden of proof lies with the applicant group, ensuring that those claims to marine and coastal areas are based on robust evidence. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I’m pleased to commend this bill to the House.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā tātou. Tēnā tātou i tō tātou takutai moana. Ka tīmata ake ahau i te ōrokohanga mai o te noho a te iwi Māori i runga i ōna whenua, i runga i ōna moana.

Te mana tuku iho o taua nōhanga mai i whakaūhia i roto i ngā māramatanga, ngā mōhiotanga, ngā mātauranga, ngā mahi a ngā mātua tīpuna; kaua i roto i tētahi tuhinga. Kaua ko te Whakaputanga, kaua ko te Tiriti o Waitangi, kaua ko tētahi ture nō tēnei Whare.

So, ara nei au ki te tuku i ngā kōrero a Te Pāti Māori mō tēnei raupatu, ka tika. Tēnei raupatu, ka tika. I tīmata, i ōroko mai i te tau 2004, nā te ringaringa o te Pāti Reipa. Āe.

I tohea e Te Pāti Māori, i whakamāmāhia i roto i ngā kawenga o te Nāhinara i raro i a Key. Engari kīhai te mana o te Māori i hoki.

Engari ko tāku he kī atu te Whare nei, kīhai te mana o te Māori i ngaro i te tuatahi.

[Greetings to all of us. Greetings to us with respect to our foreshore and seabed. I will begin with the origins of the inhabitation of the Māori people on their own lands and seas.

The bequeathed authority of that inhabitation was confirmed within the insights, the knowledge, the understanding, and the activities of the forebears and ancestors; not within any document—not the Declaration of Independence, not the Treaty of Waitangi, and not any law from this House.

So, I rise to offer the opinions of the Māori Party regarding this confiscation, that’s right. This confiscation, that’s right. It began, its provenance came in the year 2004, by the hand of the Labour Party. Yes.

It was contested by the Māori Party, it was softened by the actions of National under Key. But the mana of the Māori people was not returned.

But what I say to this House is that the mana of the Māori people was not initially lost.]

If I go back to where this trouble all started, just to clarify a few things up for some people in this House, in 2004, the then Labour Government passes a bill that they were told not to. They directly went and extinguished the right that Māori had that pre-existed any other agreement, the right that Māori had pre-existed the declaration of independence, the right that Māori had pre-existed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the right that Māori had pre-existed any law that this House ever made. That right is still there today, regardless of what piece of paper has some information on it about who owns the takutai moana.

That happened in 2004. It’s one of the biggest land confiscations in this country’s history. I’ll tell you how big it was: 15,000 kilometres of coastline, 12 nautical miles out. That’s 333,360 kilometres confiscated in one go in 2004—not 1904 or 1804, but 2004. The Pāti Māori comes along and fights for that and gets it dumbed down a little—

Hon Willie Jackson: Wasn’t John Tamihere there then?

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Yeah, he was there—bloody hua. It gets dumbed down a little to become the MACA, the marine area and coastal area, claims. Gareth Morgan describes this as a stroke of Key genius: we’ll say that nobody owns it and we’ll say that the Māori have to get over this test—quite a high test—to prove that they’ve been there for ever. Well, it was quite a high test, and what do you know? Māori got over it. Oh, well, we can’t have that, can we? No, no. Along comes the new National Government and says, “Right, we’ll just hike it up some more.” You just couldn’t write a movie script about this stuff.

I hear the Minister going on about how customary marine rights come with valuable marine rights—well, yes, that’s right, and we know that those valuable marine rights are what you’re most concerned with—and that the test will be exclusive use. Well, I consider the Government to be an applicant in putting their case forward to have ownership of the foreshore and seabed, the takutai moana, in their name. Why don’t you come and prove to us that any iwi rohe moana has ever shrunk since 1840? They haven’t, and iwi have the right to go anywhere within their rohe moana uninterrupted, unimpeded today.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Nobody’s stopping that.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And now Parliament’s the judge of the judicial system, because those cheeky Māoris managed to get over all of your hurdles and pass the test. It is ridiculous. The balance, eh? The balance that the Minister speaks about, a delicate balance between all parties who have an interest in the foreshore and seabed, with the caveat that that’s based solely on what the Minister and the Government think, not what the original constitutional rights holders—tangata whenua, mana whenua, mana moana rights holders—think. We’ll just leave them out of the deliberation.

Well, away you go. Keep going. Keep going down your merry road. It’s clearly evident where that road leads to. Oh, the sovereignty of Parliament? Parliament is sovereign by virtue of an Act of itself, not by the sovereignty of the land or the people. We do not commend the bill at all.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Obviously I support this bill. As the chair of the Justice Committee, I look forward to considering it when it makes its way through to us shortly—the first of five new bills we’ll be possibly considering over the next wee while. I probably did comment to the Minister that members of the Justice Committee were hungry for work, and he took that to heart and has obliged. I look forward to being able to consider this bill when it comes to us in a matter of moments. Every member in this House should be supporting this bill, and it is for the single reason that this bill reasserts parliamentary supremacy and reasserts the sovereignty of this House.

The background of the bill is very, very straightforward. In 2004, this House, under a Labour Government, enacted the Foreshore and Seabed Act in response to a judicial decision, the Ngāti Apa. That Act legislated over the top of Ngāti Apa. In 2011, this House, this time under National, enacted the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act to repeal that Foreshore and Seabed Act. The Marine and Coastal Area Act (MACA) contains a clear test for obtaining customary title. Parliament’s intent when it passed that Act was very, very clear from the content of the words in the statute and the context of the time in which it was enacted when the law was passed. Since that point, the courts have chosen to interpret MACA in a different way; in a way which we believe is contrary to the intention of Parliament.

The constitutionally proper response that every single member in this House should support is for Parliament to pass the law and make its intent clear to the courts. That is the constitutionally proper way of approaching this issue, and that is what we’re doing today, regardless of what members think of the substantive content of the bill. Any member of this House who takes their role seriously as defenders of parliamentary sovereignty and as defenders of the democratically elected branch of Government will support this bill. It is Parliament’s role to make the laws in this country. It is Parliament’s role to unmake the laws, and that is what we’re doing with this bill today.

I’ll just make one comment because we may receive a few submissions on this bill. I would encourage those individuals who do choose to make a submission to use the parliamentary function when doing so. It makes the job of the House and the job of the clerk of the committee much, much easier when submitters use the formal function through the parliamentary website. Those individuals, those groups, those organisations out there who are gathering support and gathering submissions, whether they be form submissions or whether they be individualised submissions, please use the parliamentary process. It makes the job a lot easier. It means we can hear more submissions throughout the whole process. I encourage people to have their voice heard.

This is the bill that is the appropriate way to respond to the relationship between this House and the judiciary. I commend it to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It is a real shame that this Government has not learnt from the mistakes of the past. The Ngāti Apa case divided New Zealand and caused real issues in our country, and it is an absolute shame that this Government is repeating history and making the same mistakes again. This legislation, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill, is yet another punch at Māori. It exemplifies how this Government sees Māori. And the fact that the Minister responsible for this bill, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, consulted the fisheries industry before even talking to hapū, whānau, or iwi exemplifies that there is no care factor in relation to the ongoing Treaty relationship.

The tribunal’s Takutai Moana Act 2011 Urgent Inquiry Stage 1 Report comes after the Government announced their plans to make any customary marine title harder for iwi to get, after a court ruling made it easier. And it again goes to the heart of a Government that does not respect the judiciary and does not understand what the separation of powers means. The report considered how Treaty-compliant the policy development process was and whether the Government had, in fact, amended the takutai moana, and the proposed amendments and whether or not they would cause prejudice to Māori. The tribunal found that the Government dismissed the official advice they were given—not untypical of this Government; failed to consult with Māori—also pretty typical of this Government; and breached the principle of active protection and good government by failing to properly demonstrate Parliament’s original intent and seeking to amend the Act before the Supreme Court could even hear the matter.

I think it is important that New Zealanders take note, and I support the words of the previous speaker: that all those people should submit to the Justice Committee regarding this bill. In fact, all of those who take offence at what the Government is doing in this space, we welcome your voices and your views at the Justice Committee, as this is your opportunity to object to this legislation. The report from the Waitangi Tribunal said, “the Crown’s consultation”—this is what the tribunal said—“with commercial fishing interests … while failing to consult with Māori … [in itself was a] breach of the principle of good government.” But, as we know from this Government, they’re going to rewrite the Treaty principles anyway, so maybe they’ll rewrite that one too! All this further erodes the relationship between Government and Māori, and it causes division within New Zealand society, but this Government doesn’t seem to care about that.

This is yet another act on behalf of this Government that hits at Māori, Māori rights, and Māori mana: disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora; repealing smoke-free legislation, yet still turning up for Smokefree Rockquest; repealing section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act; cutting Oranga Tamariki preventative services that would help whānau to cope and to prevent children from being uplifted; removing te reo from Government departments; introducing a Treaty principles bill that will attempt to rewrite the Treaty itself; attempting to disestablish Māori wards even though they are fighting back; fast-track approvals that ride roughshod over the Treaty of Waitangi and environmental principles; cutting funding to Māori housing; and Te Arawhiti, which is currently being restructured.

This is the long list of slights and punches against te iwi Māori by this Government in the short time that it has been in power. And what we hear time and time again is that the election delivered a mandate for them to be able to do anything. That, to other New Zealanders, smacks of being self-entitled, condescending, and born to rule, and it is disgusting that we have a Government that has absolutely no care factor for the ongoing relationship of the Treaty of Waitangi, which underpins our very country, and it is sad to have to stand and watch the mistakes of the past being recreated again and again by the shortsightedness of this Government.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): I rise to add my whakaaro to this conversation we’re having today on the first reading of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. This bill has been introduced by our Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, and it is going to the hard-working Justice Committee, chaired by my friend here, James Meager.

Essentially, what this amendment bill seeks to do is this. We’re going to be amending section 58 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011, and, essentially, we’re going to be providing clarity on Parliament’s original intent, especially in response to the Court of Appeal’s decision on a recent matter from 2023. Reducing ambiguity is one of the main drivers behind this amendment bill as to the test of customary marine title.

I would like to say that it’s been mentioned in this House today that it’s a shame that we don’t learn from the mistakes of the past, and here I’d like to highlight something that’s been highlighted earlier that happened in 2004. It’s called the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, and I know from speaking to some of my dear friends that are now in their 70s when they talk to me about the impact that that bill that was passed back then—what it has had on them, and on their outlook on the party that passed that bill for the rest of their lives. Yes, we do need to learn from the mistakes of the past, and I do want to reiterate that this Government is not rewriting the Treaty principles, so it’s not fair for that to be said in the House when that’s not what this Government is aiming to do.

As I said, we are speaking on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. It’s part of the New Zealand First and National Party coalition agreement, and we commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Yes, learn the mistakes of the past. That’s correct. That’s been made very, very clear, I think, today. We weren’t going to talk about 2004, but since it’s been brought up so much, I want to thank the ACT Party for supporting us in 2004. Hide, believe it or not, I say to my Te Pāti Māori friends, was one of the ones who came out and supported Māori in terms of property rights. It’s probably the only good thing he did over there in the ACT Party, but thanks very much for that. I remember it well, having been part of the process here in Parliament and leading our Māori broadcasting team up here as we, I suppose, had to confront what was happening because our beloved party had gone down that track. They’ve done a lot of wonderful things in that time, but this was their biggest mistake—of that, there is no doubt. Some of us thought we’d never ever join Labour again, but we did because we saw the new team coming in.

When you talk about learning from mistakes, Labour learnt from those mistakes. There’s no doubt about it. We’ve got a new team, and you saw Jacinda Ardern come in. The problem at the time was—and it was sad because it was such a racist strategy going on from Don Brash and National. They want to front up to the past too. We had a National racist campaign happening from Brash and his mates. Sadly, our mates in Labour panicked at the time, and we came out with this rotten legislation led by the Māori Party president, John Tamihere (JT) in 2004. And Te Pāti Māori know that—John Tamihere led the line in terms of the foreshore and seabed. We all like to have selective memory loss at times.

JT led that; Māoridom rallied against it—we said we had rights and we wanted access to the courts. That was denied. Then the courts were opened up, and now we’ve got an opportunity in the court, and now we’re saying no to the courts—we want to turn it all around. I heard Mr Meager saying that this is great and every member in Parliament must support this because it gives Parliament, Government, their sovereign rights. Here’s the problem. What happens if you’ve got a few maniacs in Parliament? That’s the problem when the mad people take over. You see, you might get redneck right-wing nutjobs.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Oh, come on.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, this is a fact. Let’s make this sovereign because Parliament knows best, but what if Parliament has got nutjobs? What if you get a redneck racist party? Imagine a redneck racist party turning up and going to Minister Goldsmith, who found his Māori language last week. He forgot it three weeks ago, but, last week, he became the great supporter of te Wiki o te Reo Māori. This is the problem that we have—a lot of our people are still not trusting us. I can’t say I don’t trust Parliament, because I do, although I’ve got a few questions at the moment. I’m still sort of trusting us, but when the mad people take over, what then? That’s what the people out there are saying. What do Māori want to do?

Jenny Marcroft: That was the last Parliament.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: You be quiet, Jenny Marcroft. We know that Winston Peters’ line back in 2004 was to deny Māori the opportunity to go to the court, right? Then he changes. Shane Jones changes. You’re a bunch of hypo—no, I won’t go down that track. What Māori are saying for the naive Jenny Marcroft over there—what all her relations are saying—is let’s trust the court system. That’s what they’re saying, and it’s been denied.

That’s what our people are struggling with, and we in the Labour Party are saying, “Let’s just go through the process.” Let’s go through the process and give our people an opportunity. We were rapt with what the Court of Appeal did a year or so ago, because the test of the threshold is far too high—far too high. It gave people an opportunity to access their rights—that’s what the court’s all about. The tribunal has said that this is a clear breach from this Government in terms of Treaty rights.

Why don’t we just follow that process? Let’s not turn on the courts when it suits us, Jenny Marcroft and Shane Jones. Let’s back the courts. Let’s back the judges, because otherwise we end up backing maniacs and, sadly, there are too many maniacs in the House at the moment. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): It’s always a pleasure to listen to the member across—

Jenny Marcroft: Special!

PAULO GARCIA: Ha, ha! I stand in support of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill, on its third revision.

This legislation, beginning in Helen Clark’s Labour Government, created the Foreshore and Seabed Act in 2004, which vested the ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown, extinguishing Māori customary rights and prescribing a very narrow opportunity for limited customary rights to be recognised. The 2004 Act was repealed in 2011 by the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, establishing a special category of land for the marine and coastal area and assigning a no-ownership status to the area, which paved the way for enabling whānau and hapū and iwi to have the ability to seek legal recognition of their customary interests.

The amendment bill deals with the Court of Appeal’s decision that appears to have misinterpreted the 2011 Act. The scope of the court’s decision making is, really, to apply the law as it stood at the time a claim is made, and on this basis, it seems that there is an imperative for this amendment bill to restore Parliament’s original intent in the making of the 2011 Act. What the amendment bill does now is to clarify and further define the “exclusive use” and “occupation” and “substantial interruption” words of the 2011 Act so that there is added clarity, and, with the added clarity, we will have the opportunity to align marine titles more closely with tikanga and address concerns raised by the courts. The new provisions establish a more transparent process and a more clearly defined pathway for claims to be decided. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Instruction to Justice Committee

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 5 December 2024, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there’s been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

As referred to earlier in my speech, the courts have interpreted the test for customary marine titles (CMT) in ways that have diluted some of the strong requirements that were originally intended by Parliament, which the Government is restoring. All parties to applicants for CMT that are currently in progress have been faced with legal uncertainty for almost a year since the Court of Appeal’s decision. We can’t afford to wait any longer and we don’t think that it’s particularly fair to all involved, which is why we are urgently progressing these amendments. I’m advocating certainty for everyone as soon as possible. The proposed amendments to section 58 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act are complex and the Justice Committee is most appropriately equipped to deal with it. I have every confidence in the ability of the Justice Committee, chaired by Mr Meager, to do so.

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

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have an amendment to move. I move, That the motion be amended to replace the words “5 December 2024” with “5 June 2025”.

I wish to explain the amendment, and I seek the Minister’s agreement to it. The reason for the amendment is that his proposed timing—that we have only just learnt about now and that was not made available to the Opposition earlier—is not enough time, given a very specific reason from the committee’s consideration of this bill in 2011.

In 2011, the committee’s progress with a similar amendment to the law at the time was significantly stymied by the short time that the Parliamentary Counsel Office had to prepare a revision-tracked-changes version of the bill. At that time, the committee—and it was the Māori Affairs Committee that considered it at that point; and my colleagues will return to that point—members of which included the Hon Kelvin Davis and Tau Henare, was not able to get a revised version of the bill. There were a number of changes which were sought by the Opposition, which were largely agreed cross-partisan. When a committee does not have the time that it needs to make the changes to the law that are suggested, it then comes back to the House at the committee stage to consider those amendments. Those amendments were not able to be then considered properly at the committee stage. They should have been able to be considered at the select committee. That is one of the reasons why the extended time frame is really important, to allow those changes to be made in a considered way that we can build cross-partisan support around.

Madam Speaker, you will remember that in 2011 it was a goal of the Government to establish some cross-partisan support. We’re not all going to agree with this bill—Labour members do not agree with this bill—but there are improvements to the, essentially, respect for the constitutional arrangements that this House has with our courts, especially the superior courts, which will be able to be improved at a select committee process. Four thousand submitters submitted in 2011, in a similar kind of time frame. Many were ignored. There was not enough opportunity at that point to hear the submissions, and so the committee needed to go through a triaging exercise of who they would hear from. They heard from the legal experts. At that time, they heard from the judiciary, who, almost unprecedentedly, made a submission through the submissions process and were able to offer pretty extensive commentary through their written submissions to that process.

This will happen again. This committee, the Justice Committee now, will be asked to prioritise, essentially, hearing from ordinary New Zealanders who have seen the ads in the newspaper—they have seen Hobson’s Pledge’s ads and they think that the beaches are being taken away from them. There will be people who want to come to this committee who are confused, but then there will also be legal experts who do not want to see a repetition of what happened in 2011 and, prior to that, 2004 and 2005, when legislation was made to extinguish the rights of claimant groups. There are 200 proceedings afoot that are being extinguished by this bill—200 proceedings that have multiple applicants. In the case of Te Whakatōhea and Te Ūpokorehe, there are 15 applicants in that one case. And there are 200 of those around the country.

There are a number of people here whose personal rights are being extinguished, and if the select committee does not give time to those submitters who come in good faith to parliamentarians around the country and say, “It’s not just remote for me; this is my family land that I am having my rights taken away from, my ability to bring a proceeding in the court, which are common law rights that have existed since 1840.” These are not rights that were created by any legislation in this House. If the committee is to deny their ability to make a submission in favour of legal experts, in favour of the people that they need to hear from most, then that would be a sad day for our parliamentary process, which is meant to hear from people who are affected by legislation. That is our primary job as parliamentarians: to understand the concerns of the communities who are affected by the law that we make about them and about their property.

I’m speaking to this and I’m urging the Minister to consider taking this out until June to give those applicants time to prepare their submissions, to take legal advice—because they all have counsel because of the system we have set up for them. We told them—the National Party told them in 2011—that they had a reasonable expectation to their day in court. These people are represented by lawyers. They need time to consider what their legal rights are. They need to make a submission in this process. It’s not fair to expect them to do that before the end of the year. When the Minister talks about the need for urgency on this to give claimants certainty, there is absolutely a need for certainty here, but the creation of uncertainty is because not only will this process not give people their day in court but they are also being denied their day in the select committee room to make their case to the parliamentarians who, in this case, are acting as judges, are acting in a judicial capacity, because they are taking away the appellant rights of hundreds of claimant groups around the country. It’s only fair to be able to extend that portion of time.

The reason I have suggested the June date is because the last time this was referred to a committee, in 2011, that is the sort of time frame that was allowed, and that was agreed. Everyone in this Parliament really understood that there was going to need to be a good allocation of time to be able to hear from submitters. This was not the Labour Party or the Māori Party giving a special amount of time to hear something that it felt was in some way political and was beneficial to the politics of the day; this was parties getting around the table and appreciating how sensitive this issue was, not only to Māori but to those landowners who are affected by these rights that have not been extinguished by the Crown’s radical title, because there are many landowners in New Zealand who are in that situation. It’s not simply iwi and hapū and whānau. It was appreciating that these things take time to work through. Even though Labour members came back to this House—the Hon Kelvin Davis came back to this House, and he questioned the process because those 4,000 submitters had not had an opportunity, all of them, to speak. Where they were asking for specific conversations with the select committee, like at the top of the South, where there are specific interests in the foreshore and seabed in the marine and coastal Act, the committee had not been able to go there at that time. There was still a recognition that there was a need for that.

Now, I’ll turn to the question of the referral to the Justice Committee. The Minister has set out why this is: there are a number of complicated legal issues here. He said they were complex. He said that the Justice Committee was best placed to do this. These issues are the same issues that this House dealt with in 2011, when similar legislation was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee. The Māori Affairs Committee is charged by this House with all affairs which are of relevance to Māori. This is core bread and butter business for that committee, and as a committee chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I am proud of the way that that committee operates as a bipartisan and cross-partisan forum for building not only debate about those issues which are important to Māori but also about finding the common ground. If we don’t use that Māori Affairs Committee to do this, we lock ourselves out as parliamentarians of a way to find a way through this, in a way that we can all hold our heads up, because we come to this House as parliamentarians elected by our electorates. But we are Māori. We are Māori politicians, who owe a duty to consider those rights of iwi, of hapū, of whānau, and the aspirations of rangatahi Māori, who look at us and go, “Maybe I could do that job one day.”

We owe it to those people who see us as leaders in our community to hear this out in the only forum we can do that, which is the Māori Affairs Committee, the only forum which is designed for a discussion of not only the common law, of the legislative powers of this House, and of tikanga Māori. That is the appropriate way to do it, and it is a huge shame that we have moved from a situation where the National Party in 2011 would refer this legislation to the Māori Affairs Committee—that they had parliamentarians who they respected in that committee to find a way through, who were representatives of their communities but were also Māori parliamentarians. We have that now. The National Party has that now. They should use the Māori Affairs Committee in the same way. We should not be using the Māori Affairs Committee only to consider Treaty settlement legislation. That should be a committee where we can find a way forward and we can find common ground, and this is a perfect example of that.

Mr Speaker, you can hear that I’m upset about this. I am upset about the process here. I am upset that we are not giving people their day in court, and I am upset that we are not giving people their day in the select committee. We should extend the timing here. Minor parties who are giving this their support because it is part of the coalition agreement should consider an extension of time, simply because it is the right thing to do.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to, first, speak on the referral motion before moving on to my colleague Arena Williams’ amendment.

Now, in terms of the referral motion, I think one of the things when it comes to the date that’s been really perplexing is the Government’s consistent need to shorten the select committee process. As we understand it, the select committee process is, on average, four to six months—six months, preferably—but over here, we’re seeing that, with this process, we’re having a referral motion date of 5 December. That’s a little over two months on what the Minister himself has said is an incredibly complex issue. I do not think that it gives the New Zealand public sufficient time to actually weigh in on what has been one of the most contentious issues in Aotearoa, particularly in the context of Māori-Crown relations, in history. I really think the shortened select committee process does not actually do this topic any justice.

The other thing that I’ve found really concerning when it comes to the shortened select committee process when you’re looking at the bill itself is this—in particular, to alter aspects of the law that are expressed in terms of some of the Court of Appeals’ ruling. Now, one of the things we have spoken about in this House is around the principle of comity. Other members of the House have mentioned that, yes, the judiciary should not be interfering with the legislature; however, that is a two-way street. The legislature should also not be making last-minute law changes and shortening select committee processes in order to interfere with the operations of our judiciary system.

Hon Shane Jones: Parliament is sovereign.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sovereign, but there’s also separation of power, Minister—there’s a separation of power. The reason we have checks and balances in Aotearoa, in the system, is so that we can do some of that. but you can’t have the cake and eat it too. This is not Marie Antoinette, Minister.

Hon Shane Jones: Democracy.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Talking about hypocrisy, this is the very example of hypocrisy, Minister. Going back to the—

Simon Court: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I’d just like you to reflect on when the member’s using terms like “hypocrisy” whether it’s likely to enhance or ruin the order of the House, and whether that’s appropriate language.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you for that point of order, and I do take that on board. Can I ask members to keep it to the narrow confines of this debate, and we will all get through it.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. I will keep it to the referral motion and the amendment, unless the Government parties decide to interject further or would like to take a call themselves.

When it comes to the amendment that Arena Williams raised, I think that is a really good amendment. I think this is something that the Green Party will be considering as well, both in terms of the date but also in terms of some of the other relevant Standing Orders that are expressed in the referral motion.

When it comes to the 5 June date, I think that does give sufficient time for the select committee to consider the issue. Why I also agree with the previous speaker in terms of the actual select committee response itself, I won’t be drawing too much into that, just because we have, unfortunately, already voted on that. I think we would consider 5 June as a sufficient alternative, but we would see there to be some more options being proposed in terms of what would be an appropriate end date for the select committee to report back to the House, factor into a variety of different considerations in terms of other key dates, perhaps.

We do not agree with the fact that we need to have a shortened select committee process for this very complex and very important and very emotive and very raw issue for a lot of people, but we would be open to considering an amendment date to move from 5 December 2024 to 5 June 2025.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the question for the House for debate is that the amendment be agreed to. The amendment is now debatable together with the motion.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the motion be amended to replace the words “Justice Committee” with “Māori Affairs Committee”.

The amendment that I propose here is important for a number of factors, for some clear arguments that I’ll outline for the House for its consideration. A number of the speeches and factors that were debated and discussed by the Minister of Justice, and members across the House, spoke to the matters of tikanga, spoke to the matters at the heart of this particular bill. I’m of the opinion, which is why I have this amendment, that the best committee to be able to consider that is the Māori Affairs Committee. It is, as my colleague Arena Williams has already mentioned, one of those committees that works in a very bipartisan way. While I accept that this is a shift from the Justice Committee to the Māori Affairs Committee, what we know about this Parliament and the role that the Māori Affairs Committee has played in it in the past is that they’ve worked collegially with other select committees. I put it to this House that the best way that we can lead this process is through the Māori Affairs Committee.

We’ve heard today that there are a large number of people who went to the court to seek recognition of their customary title. I put to this House in my amendment that the best place for those particular claims to be heard and for those matters to be heard is the Māori Affairs Committee. The reason I also say that is because I know a number of those claimants will be coming to present in Māori, in te reo Māori, they will be coming to present on matters of tikanga Māori—

Arena Williams: The lawyers, too.

Hon PEENI HENARE: The lawyers as well—yes, that’s right. The lawyers as well will be coming to do exactly the same. It is the opinion of, certainly, my amendment, and colleagues here in support, that the Māori Affairs Committee is the best place to do that.

I also want to just touch on the amendment that’s been proposed by my colleague here, Arena Williams. The extension of the time frame shouldn’t come as a surprise to anybody in this House. Why? Because the normal time frame is longer than the one that’s been currently set or proposed by the Minister. Also, every member in this House knows when the big Māori hui are on—they know. A lot of them show up, whether it’s in Waitangi, whether it’s in Rātana, whether it’s at Te Waru o Noema, whether it’s at the celebration—or the commemoration, I should say—of the signing of He Whakaputanga on 28 October.

Members across this House go to those events; it’s important. I put to the House that in order to hear the views of people—because of the challenge of the select committee process, not just for Māori but for non-Māori alike—that we actually consider the factors that bring us all to those Māori hui that we attend on a regular basis. That would fit in the time frame that’s being proposed here by my colleague Arena Williams. If it’s pushed to 5 June of next year, it will capture the big hui that I’ve certainly already outlined in my case to support her amendment here today.

Just finally from me, the Māori Affairs Committee has proven in the past, on large issues or significant and complex issues that impact Māori, that they can not only lead that process but they can work in collaboration with other committees. I think of the smoke-free legislation; I think of large health reforms that were undertaken by the Labour Government, which the Māori Affairs Committee played an important part in. I leave my amendment for the consideration of this House—that we replaced the words “Justice Committee” with “Māori Affairs Committee”.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Just to inform the House, unfortunately, your amendment to move it to the Māori Affairs Committee is out of order because it’s already moved to go to the Justice Committee. But I do, and I’m sure the House does, appreciate your explanations.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I move, That the motion be amended to remove “and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.”

Let me first begin by explaining why we’re moving this amendment, and then I’ll talk about the other amendments that have already been moved. The reason why we’re putting this amendment is because it’s really clear to me that there is absolutely no interest from the Government to do due diligence to this process. They are putting a motion to basically ram through the process of this legislation to get it over and done with as soon as possible when, actually, if the Government cared about doing due diligence to the process, they would have a much longer report-back date and they would then do all of their meetings outside of Wellington during recess weeks.

There’s another reason for that, and that is because for the smaller parties—Te Pāti Māori, the Greens, and ACT and New Zealand First included—doing select committee sessions outside of Wellington during sitting days has a disproportionate impact on our caucuses. Even though we would have leave, basically, granted and our vote would be counted, we’re still dragging people away from being able to perform duties in the House and to speak to legislation. I know that for the National Party members that may not seem to be much of an issue because most of the time they’re taking 10-second calls to just say they agree with the bill and adding little substance, but for us as Opposition it is important that we actually have our full caucus being able to participate. There is no reason why we cannot travel across the motu outside of sitting weeks to hear from submitters.

The other parts of the Standing Orders in which the Minister’s motion wants to sort of put aside is around moving, for example, when sitting in select committee to assist this bill during the sitting of the House. Once again, this has an impact on our ability to participate in legislation, and also on evenings when the House has been sitting.

Look, I’m all for select committees having the flexibility to accommodate submitters, but this is not the way, because this is not about accommodating submitters. This is about rushing through a process that seeks to once again trample over our founding document. Through all the heckles from members in previous calls, this is about undermining the sovereignty that Māori never really ceded. Again, I would love to, in good faith, see if the members opposite to me, from the Government’s side, genuinely want to accommodate submitters or if this is just about rushing through a trash piece of legislation.

Now, I want to touch on the previous amendment by Arena Williams, which I support because, again, Arena Williams’ amendment, what it seeks to do is to extend the report-back date. I think, in combination with my amendment, which would actually prevent us from having those select committee meetings during sitting days, what it would allow us to do is to give ourselves the time to adequately listen to the communities affected by this legislation. By giving ourselves more time, we also have more recess weeks to actually travel across the country. We have mornings on Wednesdays and Thursdays, for example, where if there’s no urgency, then we can meet.

We’ve got to remember that there’s a reason why this Government is wanting us to sit in select committees during the sitting of the House, and that is because they have quite a liberal use of urgency and extended hours. That is a choice by the Government. They’ve chosen to use urgency and extended hours quite liberally to pass through terrible legislation. This motion is of their own doing. It’s their doing in the context of their broader legislative programme.

Simon Court: What gaslighting rubbish, Ricardo.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Despite the heckles from Simon Court to my left, we’ve got to remember that the Government’s put themselves in a situation where, because of all the trash bills they’re putting through, they’re now asking us to sit in select committees while the House is debating other legislation.

I think this is a terrible process and a terrible way of doing democracy. It undermines the ability of the non-executive members of Parliament to do good work in addressing a bill that clearly is controversial—clearly is, considering we even have members of the ACT Party in the speeches in the debate talking about how this was a sensitive bill and how we needed to tread carefully, etc. If they actually meant that, they wouldn’t be putting through a terrible select committee process that seems to completely undermine this kind of notion that they’re acknowledging that this bill has a lot of baggage. It will also prevent a more constructive conversation across party lines on this bill. I mean the Greens have made it clear that we don’t support the bill, but we at least think that our communities deserve good processes around this.

Once again, to recap, I support Arena’s amendment to the motion, and I’m proposing one to ensure that we do good process, that we don’t mix the sitting of the House with the sitting of select committees, and I look forward to other contributions from members. I just want to note, finally, before I sit down, that we’ve got other amendments on this issue, including from Steve Abel, coming up.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the question for the House for debate is that that amendment be agreed to. That amendment is now debatable, together with the motion.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to bring into the debate the consideration of public interest, which I don’t believe has been given due consideration in either this debate or the one on the smoke-free amendment bill referral.

Public interest is a well-recognised jurisprudential principle underpinning the social contract between the estates of power, and it is something that must be given due consideration when there is a truncated process and when there is a matter that could be considered of great public interest, which I believe this matter is. The reason is that while the general definition of public interest would be what’s in the wellbeing of the general public, actually, in this particular situation we have the involvement of property rights, which by definition invoke great public interest, but also the reliance of hundreds of applicants who will be looking at the determinations made either before the courts or in this House as to how they will be able to proceed, and that, in turn, raises the spectre of whether they have confidence and faith in the constitutional process.

Now, there are many ways to look at public interest. In the normative way, it would be around what is normatively or ethically in the public interest, and I think there is an argument to be made that Māori need to feel that they have been included in the process and that they can trust it. What this whole process of truncation is doing in this rushed situation is really telling Māori who have relied on the processes that they were told to rely on that they cannot rely on them anymore. That’s a significant issue to consider constitutionally. When we look at where we sit politically these days with populism and with a very bipolar kind of fractured relationship in society, it is really important that we get trust back into the process, and so from a normative public interest perspective, it’s important that we do give this due consideration.

Consultatively, we need to be able to get the views from all of those who are impacted, because there is something about the trust that is built just through participation in the process and not just the outcome. There is also the pluralist argument for public interest, which is that the many voices need to be able to contribute.

Now, when we look at what’s been happening through this year, we’ve got 21 bills from this Government where there has been no select committee scrutiny, we’ve had nine shorter select committee times, and just this week, the Business Committee has had to make a determination to extend a select committee process on the sentencing bill, or the three-strikes bill, because the committee couldn’t do its work in time. All of these things by their very nature diminish public trust in the fact that this House should know what it’s doing and that it is applying the right time frames to the things it should be.

When I also look at the amendment that was put forward and has been voted against, I believe, around sending this to the Māori Affairs Committee rather than the Justice Committee, the fact that it cannot now go to the Māori Affairs Committee is another reason to say that the public interest in this and in making sure that the public interest is served is even more important, because those people who wanted it to go to the Māori Affairs Committee, who wanted to be able to present in te reo Māori, and who wanted to know that the constitutional elements under Te Tiriti would be considered properly and also with enough knowledge and expertise no longer necessarily have that faith and confidence. To send it to the Justice Committee and to enable a longer period of time for all of those things to happen that would have happened in front of the Māori Affairs Committee would help the public interest.

These are the reasons that I think that not only should the report back be in line with that which has been suggested by my colleague Arena Williams, but I also agree to support the Greens’ amendment relating to other matters with regard to this referral motion.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to promote and propose another amendment, please. I propose, That the motion be amended to replace “21 November 2024” with “3 July 2025”.

This is an extension by a further month on the proposal of Arena Williams, and the reason for that is not dissimilar to those that have already been articulated to the House. We have—and I find it strange to imagine these words coming from my mouth—the consideration of wiser heads in the former National Party in the form of the former Prime Minister John Key, who warned that if there was to be legislation such as this that you would see “hīkois from hell”.

Now, this is an example of where you have a fundamental theft of 4 million square kilometres of exclusive economic zone in the form of customary title and access of iwi Māori to that area. This is an issue that requires thorough and extensive consideration by the select committee. I’m sorry that the Māori Affairs Committee has been ruled out as an option, but that would have been the correct option I concur. If that is the case, then the date and the extent of the assessment by the select committee should be extended.

May I remind the House, Mr Speaker, that this is a piece of legislation that the Waitangi Tribunal pointed out—they had a damning report on this piece of legislation, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, and it said that it failed to consult meaningfully with iwi Māori. This is another example—this shortened date—of a failure to consult meaningfully with iwi Māori; that it violated the principles of partnership; it breached the principle of tino rangatiratanga by overriding Māori rights without proper justification.

To not have a thorough and extensive process of a select committee is to further exacerbate those criticisms of this very legislation in its fundamental nature. The Crown has failed to protect Māori interests actively by proposing retrospective amendments that would disadvantage Māori applicants. It is ideologically driven—“rushed” is the explicit language used by the Waitangi Tribunal; that the development process was rushed—and now we have another instance that this Government wants to rush the select committee process. We should not do that. There is no way that there can be any perception of a thorough assessment of the feelings and the impacted communities by this legislation than if it is rushed through the House.

It is “antithetical” to good government was the other language used by the Waitangi Tribunal. It is antithetical indeed to good government to not allow a thorough select committee process where the amendments can be considered; where the impacts on the right of iwi to make claims to their customary waters as fully evaluated and understood; and the impacts—as my colleague Arena Williams pointed out—on individuals in the extinguishment, this further active extinguishment of Māori customary rights, effectively, by the raising of the bar on those who have access to make claim to those customary rights. It is something that should be thoroughly considered by the select committee over the appropriate period of time.

Te Tiriti is a foundational agreement of this nation, and Governments are temporary; they do not have the right to disregard or trample on the binding contract between Māori and the Crown upon which our nation is built. To have a legislative process that indeed further tramples through its rushed nature is something that the House should disdain. We should indeed support an extension of the time frame of that select committee—as I propose in this amendment—from 21 November 2024 until 3 July 2025. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the question for the House for debate is that that amendment be agreed to. The amendment is now debatable together with the motion.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just supporting the previous speaker Steve Abel and, obviously, supporting Arena Williams in terms of this extension. The House has to ask itself: does democracy apply to Māori, because Māori start getting particularly—a lot of our people I run across, so many. I don’t speak for Māori, but I know that I probably access a heck of a lot of them, and coming to the tribunal or coming to Parliament is a huge deal for some of our people—a huge deal.

I know of koroua and kuia who prepare for a week or two, and some of them come down on the buses. As my colleague Arena Williams said, it’s such a process that has been ingrained in ao Māori, and I suppose our people have trusted this democracy process. They see it, as the Green member said, as such an integral part of their lives. To push this all into December is such a rush and, many will think, a breach of their rights—many will think it is a breach of their rights. Extending it out to June gives people an opportunity to plan.

Simon Court: We want to make sure you’ve got time to do your Christmas shopping, Mr Jackson.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I think that that member was missing earlier. I need to remind the ACT Party that they were supporters, so there’s no need to argue here. You were the party who were supporting Māori back in 2004 in terms of their rights over the foreshore and seabed. Rodney Hide showed some principles, for once in his life, and, actually—you’ll remember this, David Parker—he was talking about property rights and the opportunity for Māori to go to the court. So you should be supporting this because this is about Māori exercising their democratic rights again and being given the opportunity over the next few months to make a submission—a submission that has been supported by the Waitangi Tribunal, who are very clear that this is a breach of the partnership, who are very clear that this is a breach of tino rangatiratanga, and who are very clear that democracy is not being afforded to Māori.

I know that there’s a bit of a strategy going on from Shane Jones and his mates to sort of close down the tribunal, but we have to listen to the tribunal because the tribunal has been so influential in terms of shaping this country. Mr Jones has repented a little bit—and it’s good to see him back in the House. He has repented a bit. He’s had his hand slapped by his leader and by the National Party boss. They’ve told him, “You shush up when it comes to the court process.” That’s going to be just about impossible for him, as we all know. The reality is that it’s going to be just about impossible for him, but the tribunal has made its views clear.

I implore Mr Jones, given his history and knowledge of whakapapa—and he knows better than anyone else that his whanaunga, his relations, they love coming down here to Parliament. They love putting up submissions. How many, Arena—4,000 of them? There were 4,000.

Arena Williams: 4,000 submissions.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: 4,000, through the foreshore and seabed process, put up submissions. Those are Shane Jones’ relations, Hūhana’s relations, Arena’s relations, and we have to be respectful of that. We have to understand that if we want to talk about democracy, which is something that we all like to talk about, how does that apply to Māori? How does that apply to Māori?

Then we refer it to the Justice Committee, right? Well, you know, nothing against my old mate Mr Meager over there, but he’s not exactly an expert on tikanga Māori or Māori language or Māori full stop—good man that he is. He would probably say, “Well, I need some expertise.”, and that’s why, as the Hon Peeni Henare has said, the referral to the Māori Affairs Committee would be a much better way to go, because we’re going to have some of our people come in and they’re going to speak Māori. What’s he going to do? He’s going to come and rush over to you, Mr Speaker, or pull his mate Shane Jones in to do the translations. The chair’s going to be all at sea. He’s going to be all at sea because our people want to come in, kōrero Māori—

Hon Shane Jones: AI—AI.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: AI—oh, I’ll get the translations, according to Mr Jones. Why don’t we be culturally appropriate here, for once? I want to be clear to the House that this has been the most contentious political issue of my whole life—of my whole life. It has been the most contentious issue of my whole life and has affected so many Māori, and when you affect thousands—I tell you, people here would not know what it was like. I don’t know who was here in the House in 2004. Were you here, Arena? Were you here, Mr Speaker? I don’t know if you were here, Mr Speaker.

In 2004, 20,000 Māori and Pākehā, or it might have been 20,000 to 25,000—you might have been there, Stevie? They all turned up and they all wanted to strangle the Māori Party president, John Tamihere—it’s a fact. I notice that Te Pāti Māori has disappeared, but David Parker knows this. The Te Pāti Māori president, John Tamihere, led the kōrero with regard to the foreshore and seabed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): If you could bring it back to the bill. I mean, we all know—

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, I’m sort of going around in circles a little bit, I’ll grant you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Yeah, yeah. Come back to the bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ve still got three minutes and 30 seconds to go.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): We all appreciate that you’re an Oxford scholar, but back to the amendment.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Anyway, coming back to extending the dates—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Yes.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —all right—this is all part of it. It’s just to show that when you have history, when you have Māoridom already being denied access to democracy and already being denied access to the courts, do you want a repeater? That’s what we’re doing here—we’re repeating it again.

Māori were denied access to the courts in 2004, Māori were given an opportunity to go to the courts in 2011, the Court of Appeal came in in 2022 and said that the threshold was too high, and now this sovereign Government—this sovereign Government says, “Oh, hang on—hang on judiciary. We don’t think you’ve got that quite right and we know better.” I mean, look around this room—look around this room. Do you see all the expertise in this room? Is there mana exuding from the other side? Is there mana exuding from that side? I mean, the country’s got to have faith in all of this, but I don’t think so—I don’t think so.

When Shane Jones talks about the Parliament being sovereign, the problem is that you get some nut jobs who come into Parliament—that’s not you, of course, Mr Speaker. You get some—

Hon Member: And in the court—and in the court.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, it’s a fact. In fact, sometimes anyone can get into Parliament, and that’s the problem. The people have faith in the judiciary—[Bell rung]—not yet, Mr Parker. The people have faith in a judiciary because a lot of the courts—Māori have gone through this process.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): But have you got faith in this amendment? That’s what we want to hear. Let’s get back to the amendment.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’ve got total faith in the amendment. I want the amendment. Again, I’ll repeat that the amendment should be extended to June. Arena Williams is talking about 25 June. Why? Because Māori deserves an opportunity to access democracy, like Pākehā have for years and years and years. Given the history and the betrayal of previous Governments of Māori, now’s the time to make that up, and so we must give our kuia, we must give our koroua, and we must give our people this chance to come to select committee.

Now, having a select committee in December—and, with respect, in the Justice Committee some of them wouldn’t have a clue about tikanga Māori, te reo Māori; no idea—is not the way for Māori to access democracy. It should be going to the Māori Affairs Committee. It should be extended to June of next year—

James Meager: Māori Affairs is too busy.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —and te ao Māori will get their chance to exercise their rights to democracy, Mr Meager. You can come to the Māori Affairs Committee, too, and sit there quietly, shut your mouth, and listen to some expert Māori—

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, they’re a bit sensitive. Was that a bit hurtful? Oh, sorry about that, but I’m sure you can handle it. But, seriously, Mr Meager, we want you at the Māori Affairs Committee so that you can learn about the history of betrayal.

Māori deserve an opportunity. This needs to be extended to June of next year. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Kia ora.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m actually one of the few members in this House who was here in 2004, and I want to explain to the House why in my view the December report back is inappropriate; why it doesn’t leave time for the courts to do their business and why, really, it risks division in the country; why, in my opinion, this early report-back date fails to learn the history from 2004 of the mistakes that were made then; why, really, it should be extended until June 2025 at the earliest; and why any application by the House to bring that forward really is an example of fools rushing in where angels fear to tread.

In 2004, the Ngāti Apa decision of the Court of Appeal was founded, not on a Treaty argument, but on the finding that there were unexpired common law interests in the foreshore and seabed that had not been expunged. The Court of Appeal did not find how extensive they were. It didn’t set out the legal test, but a political controversy furore arose around the country and there were extreme things that were said on both sides of the debate. On the one side, we had members of the National Party—at least one of whom is still in this House—saying that access to the beaches would be prevented and that people wouldn’t be able to go and fish. That was never true. Rights of navigation and commercial fishing rights were already extinguished and beyond the purview of common law interests because they had been codified in statute. On the other hand, we had some people saying that the Ngāti Apa decision was, effectively, giving Māori freehold title and asserting that that’s what they were going to get, and that was wrong, too.

Now, at the time, the then Government, of which I was part, made some mistakes, and one of the mistakes that we made—perhaps the most significant mistake we made—was we didn’t let the issue play out before an appeal to the Privy Council. We didn’t let the appeal proceed to the Privy Council; we intervened.

Why should the appeal have gone to the Privy Council? Well, maybe some of the concerns in society would have been addressed by elucidation by the Privy Council. Some of the things that people disagreed with in the Court of Appeal decision in Ngāti Apa might have been overturned or they might not have been, but in any event, people would have had more time to get their heads around the fact that, actually, in the end, these foreshore and seabed disputes, they’re not going to change the world, because the remit within which foreshore and seabed rights are is relatively narrow. It doesn’t include commercial fishing—

Simon Court: Well, except to the judges—you just got it wrong.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —and it doesn’t, effectively, change the way in which people live their lives in New Zealand, and, indeed, the very fact that you’re continuing with an unexpired interest under the foreshore and seabed legislation means that that right is already being continued and it hasn’t been interrupted. So the continuation of it can’t be anything more than it already is.

At that time mistakes were made. The new Government came in and they passed the marine and coastal area (MACA) legislation, which, in the end, the Labour Party opposed for the reason that we didn’t think that it was wise for Parliament to take on its shoulders the codification of the statutory tests under the MACA legislation because we could get it wrong. We didn’t have a fear that somehow the courts were going to write up these rights—these unexpired common law interests—in a way that was going to change the future, because all that the courts could do is find what already exists and let it continue. They couldn’t create a new right under the foreshore and seabed; they could only recognise rights that were already in existence.

That’s why we opposed the Finlayson legislation. With the benefit of hindsight, I don’t think that was terrible legislation, and we haven’t moved to repeal it when we were in Government. I do think that there was a mistake made by this Parliament in putting a limitation period in, because the limitation period is what has caused this rush because everyone had to file their claim by 3 April 2017. After 200 years of not having to do anything, all of a sudden, Māori were given a deadline in 2017 that if they didn’t file their claim, they could no longer file their claim. That’s why there’s a backlog of hundreds of cases in the court: because everyone had to file by that date or lose their rights.

That’s what caused that, and now the Government complains that too much money is being spent on legal aid in respect of those claims. Well, the Government brought that upon society by putting a limitation period in. If there was no limitation period, people wouldn’t have had to file, most people wouldn’t have, and things could have sorted themselves out over the years. The legal tests could have been tested, they could have gone up and down the courts, and, eventually, these things would have been sorted out over a number of decades in New Zealand. In the end, no one would have got any more than they already had, which was an unextinguished common law right that went back to pre-1840, which cannot—in any way you look at it in the common law—be extended beyond what existed at the time people went to court. These fears as to somehow these rights being extended in a way that’s going to have a material effect on the way people live their lives in New Zealand are completely misguided.

Now, those things are complex. In the meantime—and this is one of the reasons why we shouldn’t allow this just to have a December report back—all these things should be traversed by the select committee. Would the best thing for New Zealand be to completely axe the legislation and leave it all to the courts? That’s what the ACT Party used to think, and maybe they were right. That’s actually where I got to by the time the MACA law was passed, but maybe events have passed that. Should the negotiation route be enlivened? It’s now alive at law, but it’s not actioned by the Government because they won’t finance it. How do you resolve all these competing interests within an area? Maybe you’d get around a table and sort them out, and maybe that needs to be considered.

More fundamentally, why don’t we let the Supreme Court have a look at the two alternative views in the Court of Appeal judgment? We’ve got the decision of Justice Miller, the minority, who, actually, basically agrees with much of what the National Party is saying should be the interpretation of the legal test. The majority—the two other judges—said, “Well, look, these rights are so narrow that have been conferred, surely the threshold test to get them can’t be that high? How would Parliament want to, if it had a Treaty clause and a purpose clause?” They put some weight upon the Treaty clause and the purpose clause. They said, “Given that once you get through all of those hurdles, the rights you get are so constrained, how could anyone in their right mind”—well, they actually don’t use that language. They said, “How could anyone in that circumstance think that the threshold test is as high as the minority judgment and the Government would put it?”

Let those arguments be discussed in the Supreme Court. Let them put a bit of light upon that issue before this Parliament decides whether it needs to react or not, and I hope that even if this legislation goes down, the Supreme Court stands up and does its job. They have accepted an appeal. They should set it down for hearing in two weeks’ time and they should do their job in the Supreme Court to hear the live appeal from the Court of Appeal, and maybe by the time this legislation passes or is brought before the House in a subsequent period, we will have some guidance from the Supreme Court as to what they think the current law is under the MACA legislation.

Maybe they’ll agree with the Court of Appeal, maybe they’ll agree with Justice Miller, or maybe they’ll agree on some points and disagree on other points, but that is the role of the courts, and I, for one, am calling upon the Supreme Court here to do its job—to set down the appeal which is currently before them and to hear that appeal urgently—so that this House has the judgment of the Supreme Court before this legislation is passed through subsequent readings. It would be good to give the Supreme Court more time by extending this date to June—

Arena Williams: That’s why we should extend it.

Hon DAVID PARKER: That’s a good reason to extend it. If they don’t, and if the National Party is so narrow that they’re not going to, the Supreme Court should call this for hearing in a couple of weeks’ time. These issues have already been traversed in the lower courts. Everyone can turn up again—

Hon Member: Ready to go.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —they’re ready to go, and they can go to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court can give advice as to what they think is the effect of the current law before this Parliament, going back to fools rushing in where angels fear to tread—before we do it in ignorance of what the Supreme Court might think.

I think there are good reasons for giving this some more time, as I have explained. I do think it should be extended, but if it’s not, I really do think we need the courts to stand up at the moment. We’ve got a Government at the moment that’s riding roughshod over normal processes, as shown by the fact that they’re having such a short select committee period on such a serious issue. In this sort of situation, it’s time for the courts to stand up for the people of New Zealand who they represent and to deal with the important issues that are before them, and there is no more important case before the Supreme Court going to the future peace and happiness of New Zealand than this particular case. Those are my comments.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Assistant Whip—Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m raising a point of order here with regards to Standing Order 116(1) and Speaker’s ruling 35/2. It relates to the interjection of Mr Simon Court at the beginning of my colleague the Hon David Parker’s contribution. This is a difficult issue for you to work through, so I’m not proposing that you deal with it now, but—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I didn’t hear what he said. He’s quite far away.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Mr Court is a member of the executive, and he observed that you cannot leave it to judges—is my understanding of what he said. The problem with that is that there are gnarly issues in this debate for Parliament to work through with regard to the second limb of the sub judice rule, which is comity between Parliament and the court. It is deeply inappropriate and a breach of the very rationale for the rule that is at Standing Order 116 in the Standing Orders for a member of the executive to criticise the judiciary in this way, in this kind of debate where we are discussing exactly these issues which Standing Order 116 is set up to determine. So my suggestion to you is that you give him an opportunity to explain himself, and then come back to this House with a ruling on what we should do with comments like that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): OK, I’ve just been consulting with the Clerks. I didn’t hear the comment, so the member might want to elucidate for the House. My understanding is that, if it’s a general comment about judges and the judiciary, then that doesn’t necessarily relate to that, but if it was a specific comment, then the member might want to—Simon Court.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Are you offering me an opportunity to speak to the point of order, Mr Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Yeah, to speak to the point of order.

SIMON COURT: Well, in that case, I’ll confirm it was a general comment related to the matter under debate.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I mean, in the context of me discussing a specific case which this overrules, it’s hard for me to accept—but, if that’s your ruling, I suppose I have to accept the member at his word.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): We will accept the member at his word. I’ll take the next call.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. He tū tēnei ki te kōrero e pā ana ki te tono a taku hoa, a Steve Abel, mō te whakarerekē i te wā ka tū tēnei pire i te Komiti Whiriwhiri mō te Ture. Nō reira he wāhi kōrero tēnei ki te tautoko i tāna tono ki te whakarerekē ki te 3 o Hurae ā te tau e tū mai nei.

Nā wai i teka, mā tēnei Kāwanatanga e whakatau kei a wai te mana takutai moana ki roto i tōku rohe, o Whangarei-terenga-paraoa? Nā wai i teka?

I tēnei wā tonu, kei te noho ngā hapū me ngā iwi puta i te rohe o Whangārei ki mua i te Kōti Teitei ki te wānanga me te tohe ki tēnei ture tonu. Nō reira kei a wai te mana? Nā mātou tonu. Kahore nā tētahi kōti teitei nei; kahore nā tēnei ture tonu. He mahi pōhēhē tonu nā tēnei Kāwanatanga ki te raweke i ngā mātāpono me ngā kupu o te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Mā te Tiriti o Waitangi e arahi ngā mahi a tēnei whare Kāwanatanga. Engari auare ake. Kahore ngā mema o te Kāwanatanga e tino pūmau ana, e tautoko ana i te Tiriti o Waitangi ki roto i tā rātou mahi.

Mea nei ngā kupu a te Pirīmia, kei te whakapono ia ki te Tiriti o Waitangi, engari huri rawa ake ia, ka tautoko ia i tēnei ture ki te raweke i te Tiriti o Waitangi me te mana takutai moana o ngā hapū me ngā iwi puta noa i Aotearoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to speak in support of my colleague Steve Abel’s request to amend the date when this bill will go to the Justice Committee. Therefore, this is an opportunity to support his request to change the date to 3 July next year.

Who lied, saying that this Government would decide who has authority over the coastal areas within my region of Whangārei-terenga-paraoa? Who lied?

At this very moment, the hapū and iwi across the Whangārei region are standing before the High Court to discuss and challenge this very legislation. So, who holds the authority? It is with us. Not with some High Court, not with this very legislation. This is a complete misunderstanding by this Government in meddling with the principles and words of the Treaty of Waitangi.

It is the Treaty of Waitangi that should guide the actions of this Government. But that’s not happening. The members of this Government are not truly committed to or supportive of the Treaty of Waitangi in their work.

The Prime Minister says that he believes in the Treaty of Waitangi, but then he turns around and supports this law that meddles with the Treaty of Waitangi and the authority over the coastal areas held by the hapū and iwi across New Zealand.]

I wish to stand and support the tono from my colleague Steve Abel to extend the duration to 3 July 2025. I ask that because my people within Whangārei right now are before the High Court; we’re in stage two of our hearings on these very matters. Then to lump us in to a shortened time frame—as well as having for our tribes to prepare evidence and present their evidence before the High Court—is a serious injustice to the people and the tribes of Whangārei. Why should they be put at risk from having their voice heard in this process while still having to clamber, prepare, and then present their evidence before the High Court just because the Crown, this Government, wants to go and shorten the process?

We require a full process to allow all New Zealanders—iwi Māori, whoever from the community, all of our kaitautoko—to come forward into the select committee process and provide their kōrero. We’ve already heard from the Waitangi Tribunal that this Government has undermined Te Tiriti o Waitangi; this Government has overreached and exercised illegitimate Kāwanatanga in mana takutai moana matters. The Waitangi Tribunal has been very clear in terms of the way that this Government has prioritised coalition agreements above and beyond their obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

This is once again another example of the way that this Government seeks to undermine the ability for the public of New Zealand to have their say on legislation—to have their say. Allow our community, allow iwi Māori, allow even the industry to have their say on this very piece of legislation. Allow it to proceed and be heard until, what, 3 July 2025? Why not? Why not allow our communities into this House to finally have their say? We have seen legislation after legislation by this Government undermining the very public process that our people voted us in here to do. They have truncated select committee processes. Allow the Justice Committee—since it’s not going to the Māori Affairs Committee—to sit properly and listen to the voice of all New Zealand on this very important matter.

Kua tae ki te wā me whakatikatika tātou i a tātou anō. Me mahi ēnei mahi i runga i te tika. Ina hiahia koutou ki te tūkino i te iwi Māori me tēnei ture, tēnei ture takutai moana, me noho koutou ki te whakarongo ki te tangi auē a te iwi Māori ki roto i tēnei Whare tonu. E te whānau, me whakatikatika tātou.

[The time has come for us to correct ourselves. We must carry out this work in good faith. If you want to abuse the Māori people with this legislation, this foreshore and seabed legislation, you should sit and listen to the mournful cries of the Māori people within this very House. To my family, we need to get it right.]

Let’s allow the public of New Zealand—and this is not just iwi Māori; this is everyone. Allow us the chance to finally sit, whether it be legislation on vaping; whether it be, oh well, fast track, or whatever—it’s always being truncated. Allow us to sit and listen to the voice of all New Zealand.

For the people of Whangārei that are right before the High Court right now and really, really busy—because, you know, our people have jobs, they have lives, they have commitments, and then ka huri rawa ake [they turn around] and they’re being pulled into this truncated process. Why? There’s no rationale. There’s no evidence for why it needs to be truncated. Why shorten it? We haven’t heard a decent rationale.

As you’ll hear from members of this side of the Whare, let’s be fair to the public of New Zealand. Let’s be fair to iwi Māori because, after all, you want to raupatu our rights to the mana takutai moana. Remember, us getting customary marine title (CMT) is not undermining the rights of Joe Public to be able to access their beaches. Us getting CMT is not going to undermine the ability for the public to be able to navigate our waters in the takutai moana, and it’s not going to undermine their rights to harvest the kai for their whānau.

That’s my issue: where I think, actually, we’re getting things wrong from the outset, and I support our colleagues on this side of the House who say to let’s give it a chance, eh? Let’s allow the public of New Zealand into this Whare properly so that we’re not stressed because we’ve been in a churn of response mode, day after day, week after week, as the Government brings legislation into this House that requires us to turn quickly and put submissions into the Whare. It’s not their job as the public to be watching the Government for every piece of legislation that comes through this House, and yet they do because it’s coming thick and fast to the people of New Zealand.

On behalf of my tribes—tribes who are in the Environment Court right now, tribes who are reviewing resource consents on the daily, tribes who are trying to put kai on their tables and feed and manaaki their people and keep the lights on at the marae—let our people have a chance to be able to respond to this legislation. Let them be able to put their kōrero forward and say, “He raupatu takutai moana tēnei ki taku iwi, ki taku whānau” [“This is a foreshore confiscation from my iwi and my family”].

We have rights to the land and the takutai moana abutting the moana in our rohe kāinga. This is our papamoana and we mahi tahi in our community to look after the taonga of Tangaroa. Let them have their voice heard. Nā wai i teka mā tēnei Kāwanatanga ki te iwi Māori kei a wai tonu te mana rangatiratanga ki te whakahaere i te takutai moana? [Who said that it is up to this Government to tell the Māori people who has the power of sovereignty to manage the foreshore?]

Aroha mai [I’m sorry] e te Speaker. I’m very passionate about this because I am worried for the people of New Zealand and our ability to exercise our democratic right for our voice to be heard. We have had nearly a year of seeing this Government cut it to the chase; push our people that are in a churn of putting submissions in week on week. This is my tono to the House. Me āta haere tātou. Me āta haere. [We need to tread carefully. Need to tread carefully.]

If we want to demonstrate that, as the Prime Minister said, he values the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi—and yet, if it’s a taonga, how come we’re doing this again? How come we’ve got another piece of legislation that undermines Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a foundation document that really helps our people move forward together? That’s the road map for mahi tahi, e tātou ma.

May I remind you: tino rangatiratanga sits within the iwi kāinga, wherever they are. This legislation needs to enable our people to come forward and talk about that rangatiratanga, talk about their kaitiakitanga, and talk about the mahi tahi that they do within their local communities to look after the taonga o Tangaroa.

I think about the people in Whangaruru, just recently they had a hui on these very matters because they’re worried about fish stocks and they’re worried about pollution going into the moana spaces. How about letting them come forward and say, “This is what we actually do on our daily and our iwi kāinga.”, and you guys, as in the Government, changing this legislation really undermines that work that they’ve been doing for years and years and years, hundreds of years, because after all, te iwi Māori—we’re intergenerational. Governments come and go, but we will still be here and we will still be fighting for Te Tiriti o Waitangi so that this House may respect the articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi set out by our tūpuna, signed with the British Crown of the time.

As the Waitangi Tribunal has said, it’s an illegitimate exercise of Kāwanatanga, so give us the chance to extend to 3 July to be able to have our voice heard. Kia ora tātou.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 2 p.m.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 1.01 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Privilege

Statements Made in the House—General Debate

SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from Jamie Arbuckle raising a matter of privilege about a statement made by Tākuta Ferris during the general debate last week. In the debate, Mr Ferris said, “A knowledge gap is a dangerous thing. It allows lies to be presented as truths. Politicians call this obfuscation—the art of making something unclear, intentionally vague, ambiguous, to conceal or obscure the truth, to confuse others. Lies, in other words. Many in this House are masters of it,”.

Following a point of order alleging that he had called members liars, Mr Ferris replied, “I haven’t made that statement.” There is an apparent inconsistency between Mr Ferris’ speech and his response to the point of order about it. The offence of calling another member a liar has long been regarded as an offence against the House, which operates on the basis that members behave truthfully and honourably. That would normally be dealt with as a matter of order. However, in denying that he made the statement, it is possible that Mr Ferris has, himself, deliberately misled the House. That is a matter for the Privileges Committee to judge. Accordingly, I find that a question of privilege arises and stands referred to the Privileges Committee.

Ministerial Statements

Northland Power Outage—Electricity Authority Report

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.

SPEAKER: Good.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I wish to make a ministerial statement following the release of the Electricity Authority’s report—

SPEAKER: Just one moment, Mr Brown. Can we check the microphones; the sound is not tidy. OK, you’ll be fine now.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Thank you. I wish to make a ministerial statement following the release of the Electricity Authority’s report into the Northland tower collapse on 20 June 2024. The Northland tower collapse caused immediate disruption and left 88,000 Northland residents and businesses without power. The economic consequences were vast. Businesses were unable to operate, and households faced disruption to their day-to-day lives. The report identifies a range of estimates between $37.5 million and $80 million of lost economic activity for Northland, and that without distributed electricity generation, it would have meant this figure would be even higher.

As expected, the report found the removal of the nuts on the tower’s base plates led to the tower’s collapse. The report also found that the underlying factors that contributed to this meant that the tower collapse was entirely avoidable. The report details an over-reliance by Transpower on service providers to ensure that critical assets are maintained. It also found that the identifiable risks were missed, including concerns that were raised internally. The report recounts how concerns were raised by a senior engineer within Transpower in 2021 regarding a gap in the knowledge of maintenance crews undertaking foundation work, but that the recommendations for improvement by Transpower were not acted on.

Transpower failing to act on these opportunities has led to terrible consequences for the people of Northland, and the report also identifies that the removal of all the nuts from the base plates from more than one tower leg was not a one-off event. Put simply, the report highlights that Transpower did not have the appropriate processes, assurance protocols, and training guidelines in place to prevent this from happening or to ensure the board of Transpower had appropriate oversight over the maintenance of some of its most critical infrastructure.

The report also found that the restoration of power after the tower collapse was carried out quickly, safely, and efficiently, and highlights the importance of distributed generation. Distributed generation was able to meet 45 percent of the peak demand, meaning that many customers could get up and running shortly after the tower collapsed. Without distributed electricity generation, the economic cost to Northland would have been far greater. The Electricity Authority estimates that having access to that distributed electricity generation saved Northlanders at least $26 million.

The report recommends a review of the rules which limit the amount of power that can be generated by electricity distributors, and the Government has already announced that we’ll be easing the restrictions that currently exist on electricity distribution businesses so they can increase electricity generation and bolster regional resilience. Details will be confirmed by Cabinet later this year.

The report identifies incredibly concerning findings and identifies 26 recommendations, including recommending that Transpower improve processes for maintenance work for base plate refurbishment and ensure that contractors are more appropriately trained, recommending that Transpower require its service providers to review and revise their work procedures for base plate refurbishment to ensure they align with technical specifications, recommending that Transpower ensure regular reporting and escalation of non-compliance by service providers to the Transpower board so that effective governance and oversight can be exercised, and recommending that the Electricity Authority develop options to amend the electricity code to allow for more regional resilience through distributors being able to generate more on their own networks. These recommendations are concrete steps for Transpower and the Electricity Authority to improve processes to ensure that an event like what happened in Northland does not happen again. While this report can’t fix what happened on 20 June, the report does highlight key changes that can be made to ensure that critical infrastructure, such as transmission pylons, are managed and maintained appropriately.

This event was entirely preventable, and Northland has paid the price. The Government will be working with the Electricity Authority as regulator to ensure Transpower implements the recommendations from this report. Cabinet has also agreed to change rules to allow for more generation of electricity to be made at the distribution level to increase resilience for local communities when power is cut.

I want to thank the Electricity Authority for this report, and the work of the review’s independent chair, Sarah Sinclair. The Government looks forward to these recommendations being addressed and implemented promptly.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the Minister for Energy for bringing this report to the House’s attention and allowing time for some discussion on it.

Labour supports the recommendations that are in this report, and I too want to thank the Electricity Authority and the independent chair Sarah Sinclair, who has carried out this review. I think there is not a single person in this House who thinks that what happened is something that is desirable in our country. When we have a series of recommendations in front of us about how this can be avoided in the future, ranging from the structure of our electricity market, how we can have our electricity distribution businesses (EDBs) move more into generation, right through to what the oversight of maintenance contracts look like, I think it is a report that needs to be taken seriously.

I do have a couple of questions that I’d be interested to hear the Minister’s response on. The report does some work analysing what the cost to Northland was from this event. I just have a question to the Minister, which is whether or not the Government is considering compensation and whether that will be provided to affected businesses and residents, and whether that is something that is being actively pursued by the Government.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): I thank the member the Hon Dr Megan Woods for her contribution. In relation to the question around compensation, ultimately, the answer to that question is that that is not a matter for me but, ultimately, it’s a matter for Transpower. The reality is that, as the report shows, Transpower has failed Northland, and the next steps in terms of what they decide to do are matters that Transpower must take into account following this report.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is this a matter that the Minister will be raising with the chair of Transpower?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): It is a matter that I have already been in discussions with Transpower over, in relation to what response they will have for the Northland communities.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Sorry, but, for clarity, Mr Speaker, what I was asking the Minister about is the matter of compensation and whether that would be paid. I wonder if the Minister could update the House, then, on what the nature of the conversation with the chair of Transpower was and what the options on the table around that are.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Well, the reality is that under the code, there’s no requirement for compensation in these instances. There have, obviously, been conversations in relation to how Transpower can recognise their failure, and those conversations are ongoing.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Sorry, Mr Speaker, I am still unclear from the Minister’s answers exactly what the nature of the conversation around compensation was and what the parameters of that conversation were. I would just be interested to hear from the Minister about, and for the House to have more understanding of, how broad ranging that conversation was.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): The key point here, in relation to this review, is that the issue of compensation was outside the scope of this review. I think the report does identify that there was a miscommunication by Transpower in relation to the issue of compensation. As I’ve already outlined, compensation is not something that is required under the electricity code, but there have been conversations with Transpower in relation to how they can recognise their failures, and those conversations are ongoing. But, as I would say, those are not issues that I can decide upon.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Has the Minister discussed the issue of compensation with Cabinet colleagues or at Cabinet or a Cabinet committee?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): I don’t discuss what happens at Cabinet.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): In my brief read-through of the broad range of recommendations in the report this morning, one of the things that I do note is that the Electricity Authority’s report, led by Sarah Sinclair, has not only come back with mentions of distributed energy and looking at how it is that we can allow our EDBs to generate more, but I also note that in the foreword of that report, Sarah Sinclair makes the comment that she hopes “that the recommendations in this report will translate into better outcomes for Northland, and for all electricity consumers in New Zealand, all of whom depend upon a safe secure electricity system to live, work and play. The reliable supply of electricity in every region is crucial. I hope, too, that [the] report helps foster industry cooperation in [investigating] the rapid changes the electricity system is undergoing, much of it driven by changes in technology. The move to more renewable generation, such as wind, solar PV and batteries, and a rise in distributed generation requires co-operation to plan”.

My question for the Minister is: has the Minister discussed with colleagues changes that will be made to increase the uptake of those new technologies, such as solar PV and batteries and more renewable energies?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Well, yes. In fact, this Government has made a number of announcements in relation to renewable generation and increased renewable generation. One of those is the fast-track legislation, which is critically important to ensure that we can have more generation approved faster. Secondly, as I mentioned in my statement, the Government has already decided that we are going to ease the restrictions on generation by electricity distribution businesses, and Cabinet will be making decisions on that later in the year. Of course, we’ve also announced the decisions around Electrify New Zealand, which is about making changes to the Resource Management Act processes so we can have more of this generation capacity actually built faster.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): My question to the Minister, then, is: how many new distributed energy projects have been facilitated under the Government’s fast-track consenting regime?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Yeah, I think that that question is well outside the scope of the particular report. But, in relation to the recommendation, which is to allow for more distributed generation—and actually changing the rules to allow for it is something that Cabinet’s already agreed to. This Government has agreed to it; the previous Government didn’t.

SPEAKER: Yeah, in these exchanges, the scope is broadened by responses.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wonder if the Minister can update the House with what the time line for implementation of the recommendations will be, what we can expect to see this year, and what the ongoing work streams will be. There are a large number of recommendations there.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): I think one of one of the recommendations is that the Electricity Authority will be getting a six-monthly report from Transpower in relation to the implementation of all of the recommendations, and I expect to be fully engaged in that process.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to respond to the ministerial statement on the Northland transmission tower collapse report. I think it is really important that the practicalities of the energy transition are understood and appreciated by decision makers, so I welcome the statement from the Minister for Energy, who hasn’t really been particularly active in the energy space to date—[Interruption]—except if we think about fossil fuels—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough, thank you.

SCOTT WILLIS: —because the energy crisis is not just some bolts missing and some poor processes at Transpower; it’s also a bigger picture of systemic underinvestment, underinvestment in renewable electricity generation. That’s the result of successive Governments’ unambitious decisions, including this one’s to continue to rely on harmful, uncertain, risky fossil fuels—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’m just going to stop the member there for a minute. Look, all the barracking—his time should have stopped as well, I don’t know what the story is there. All the barracking in the world is not going to end up with somebody else on this side of the House getting a speaking opportunity. Just listen, even though you may not agree with what’s being said, with some respect.

SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and certainly I appreciate that the Minister will take this report to help put more attention on the energy portfolio, because the tyranny of fossil fuels is costing us $10 billion a year when we can have clean, renewable energy. And what this report does do is highlight the importance, as the Minister has correctly stated, of distributed electricity, distributed renewable energy, something that is really dear to my heart. Work to fix the broken electricity market will help liberate all of those underutilised distributed energy resources. It’ll stimulate new renewable electricity generation. It’ll help provide resilience to our communities.

As the report indicates, there are massive gains to be made. There are cost savings to be made from prioritising distributed energy resources. And that’s when we add flexibility. We can take things even further, because no one really benefits when there’s no consensus around infrastructure, and other similar-size countries have managed to build infrastructure—nation-building infrastructure—through successive Governments. My letter to the Minister on the 17th of this month to meet to discuss how we can work on the energy transition together is, in all seriousness, an important request to let us work across the House to fix our broken electricity market. Let’s try and find the solutions together, because we have got a real, urgent need to fix the problems that we see.

We’ve had the Resource Management Act reform Minister, Chris Bishop, reveal that the six-month deadline for a new national policy statement for renewable electricity generation has been missed, and that would have required councils to issue consents for renewable power generation within a year of application. That’s been missed. That’s been missed because there’s been the mistaken focus on fast-track legislation, when we already have—

SPEAKER: Can I just ask the member to come back to the ministerial statement. It’s not an opportunity for a policy statement.

SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the reminder. Let’s see, one of the recommendations is that the Electricity Authority develop options to amend the electricity code—which is good; we know that the code needs amendment—but to allow for more regional resilience through distributors being able to generate more on their networks.

Now, my question to the Minister is: why should electricity distribution boards be able to own generation? Why should that fall to them rather than merchant generators, rather than the call from 350 Aotearoa, from the Community Energy Network, for community-owned energy assets, rather than the call from so many people around the motu to democratise our energy system? Why are we simply allowing the electricity distribution boards to own further generation? Is there another way that we can work on this to ensure that merchant generators can function? I’ll sit down and allow the Minister to answer.

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister for Energy): Point of order. Sir, can I direct your attention to Standing Order 365.

SPEAKER: Just a moment—I’ll have a wee look.

Hon SHANE JONES: Yeah. You know as well as I do, sir, that questions have to have some faint connection with the ministerial statement. And talking about the democratisation of power, or whatever relationship it might have with the Soviet Union, hardly cuts the mustard.

SPEAKER: Well, that might be the member’s opinion—it’s not how I see it. The ministerial statement talked extensively on the reliance that was placed on distributive electricity during the crisis as a result of the extraordinary removal of bolts from the tower. I think reflecting on how that might expand a little bit more in a comment on a ministerial statement is not out of order. Are there any other statements about this?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): I’m happy just to briefly address them. Well, I just thank the member for his contribution. Ultimately, the report has made some recommendations regarding distributed energy—this Government’s open to that. There’s a range of different types of distributed energy which need to be enabled—we’re open to that—but we also need to make sure we’ve got the ability to consent large infrastructure, which is why we have fast-track consenting.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you to the Minister. We do know that more can be done, and we look forward to working with the Minister. And I welcome a response to my letter. I hope we can work together.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Minister, for your fulsome statement. I also want to thank Sarah Sinclair, who is a well-respected infrastructure governance professional; Transpower should listen very carefully to the recommendations in the report that she’s provided, and they should accept them and implement them.

Now, before I ask the Minister for Energy a few questions, I just want to point out that the comments we’ve heard from Labour and Green Party contributors today have been surprising, because, for the last six years, a Government led by Labour was in charge of the Government’s electricity assets, so it’s a surprise to me that they are surprised about the events that have occurred. In fact, I think it would be helpful if Labour and the Greens stayed as far away—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I refer to Standing Order 365. Comments and questions about ministerial statements must be: “(a) comment on the ministerial statement: [or] (b) [to] ask questions to the Minister who made the ministerial statement, to elucidate more information [on] it.” It doesn’t say anything about the comments from previous contributors to the debate.

SPEAKER: No, it’s very hard to imagine that, in a debating chamber, a comment that’s made from the floor about a ministerial statement might not be referenced in a future contribution, but I would ask the member to try and confine himself a little bit more to the ministerial statement.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Speaker is right. This is not a safe space for sensitive ears.

Transpower’s failure has led to losses estimated between $37.5 million and $80 million to the Northland economy. They are not just numbers; they are people who went to work and couldn’t work. They are people whose homes were dark and unheated. They were large-scale manufacturers employing hundreds of people who couldn’t produce products, had trucks parked up, and couldn’t fulfil orders. It is a real material hit to the Northland economy and to the people of Northland who depend on reliable infrastructure.

Now, one thing that I reflect on is that electricity distribution companies, commonly known as lines companies, transitioned largely into community or private ownership, Minister, back in the 1990s and since. Having that private sector involvement at governance level, at senior management level, private sector skin in the game, private money; actually, even our super funds or our local communities’ trust funds—skin in the game—means that the electricity distribution companies, the lines companies, have a very good track record of keeping the power on and restoring services. That is because they make it their business to make sure that they listen to their engineers, they train their workers, and they keep the lights on and the power flowing to the businesses and homes that need it.

So, Minister, is it time to consider whether an asset 100 percent owned by the Crown, like Transpower, actually needs to be 100 percent owned? When we look around at the model, say, for Genesis and Meridian and some of the other mixed-ownership model power companies, it turns out that they’re quite capable of generating electricity without being 100 percent owned by the Crown. My first question to the Minister is: does he think this is a good time to look at whether having private sector governance and, potentially, private sector capital involved and having skin in the game in Transpower is a good idea?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Well, I don’t think that was the key focus of this particular report—this report was focused in regards to the events of 20 June. The Government’s response now is to ensure that the board of Transpower takes accountability and ensures they implement all of the recommendations to ensure security of supply.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Speaker’s ruling 150/1 requires Ministers to address the question. Now, you are the sole adjudicator as to whether a question is relevant; you did not say that it was irrelevant. The House deserves an address to the question as to whether the Minister supports privatisation.

SPEAKER: Yeah, see, I’m trying to be fair to all. The Minister was asked about compensation from the member’s own party, where, in fact, the Minister had said on three occasions that he had no responsibility for that. That was outside of his ministerial statement. Mr Willis asked about distributive generation law changes that might come to facilitate that—I think; if I’m paraphrasing a little bit. That is outside the ministerial statement. I felt it would be rather unfair to Mr Court when he asked a question of the Government he is a part of about what the future policy position might be. I think what the Minister has said is that there is another forum to discuss that—if I’m paraphrasing.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that. Just for absolute clarity: I’ve got no issue with the question; I just want to know what the answer is.

SPEAKER: I’m sure there’s a lot of people who would love to know the answer to that.

Scott Willis: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Ugh. Speaking to the point of order.

Scott Willis: Ha, ha! It’s not my desire to cause the Speaker any pain in this point of order. But, simply, distributive energy is in the report. I contest that I was making a point that was related to the—

SPEAKER: I didn’t say you weren’t. Don’t be so sensitive. I was simply saying that I’m trying to be fair to everybody here. Mr Court, the Hon Simeon Brown has answered; do you want to finish your contribution?

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Very briefly. Now, I noticed that the report shows that concerns were raised by a senior engineer in 2021 at Transpower regarding a gap in the knowledge of the maintenance crews undertaking foundation work but that the recommendations for improvement by Transpower were not acted on. Does the Minister have any concerns that, at this time, in 2021, Transpower had signed up to a voluntary climate leaders coalition where they were going to voluntarily measure their carbon emissions and talk to all of their staff about climate, have a whole lot of whiteboard sessions on climate—

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s good. Do you think you could narrow it up just a little bit closer to the ministerial statement?

SIMON COURT: Mr Speaker, this is material. Was Transpower spending enough time focused on engineering and safety, rather than actually attending all of these voluntary climate coalition sustainability conferences and so on, and will the Minister be directing the board of Transpower to actually focus on their core business?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Well, I would say that the report is very clear as to what the priorities of the Transpower board should be. My expectation is that they will implement the recommendations from it. I will be working with the Electricity Authority to ensure that they are and that they’re being appropriately held to account.

In regards to the final question in relation to the specifics around the board, that’s a matter for shareholding Ministers, which are the Hon Paul Goldsmith and the Hon David Seymour.

SIMON COURT (ACT): I’m just wondering if the Minister could enlighten the House and listeners as to what additional policies he might be considering that will help actually get more generation built and more transmission built faster, navigating the labyrinth of the Resource Management Act, so that we can actually get more generation and transmission up.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Well, this Government is delivering fast-track legislation, and that is critically important. I say to all members of this House, if you want to see more generation, more distribution, and more transmission, vote for fast track.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the Government’s financial position?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The interim financial statements of the Government for the 11 months ended 31 May 2024 were released in July. They show core Crown tax revenue running slightly higher than was forecast for those 11 months in the Budget update. Core Crown expenses were slightly lower than expected. As a result, the operating balance before gains and losses, or OBEGAL as it is commonly known, was better than forecast in the Budget update though still in deficit, and net core Crown debt was slightly lower than had been anticipated.

Dan Bidois: When will the year-end financial statements be released?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The financial statements of the Government for the year ended 30 June 2024 are currently being finalised and audited. They are due to be released in just over two weeks’ time on 10 October.

Dan Bidois: What factors have affected the Government’s financial position?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Interest rates were high throughout the 2023/24 financial year. The Reserve Bank judged that this was necessary to constrain demand and therefore squeeze high inflation out of the economy. As a result, economic growth was low or negative in each quarter of 2023/24. These economic factors flow through to the Government’s financial position. Low growth has a negative effect on the Crown’s revenue, whereas high inflation tends to raise both its revenue and expenses. And, of course, the fiscal position for 2023/24 is affected by big spending decisions taken by the previous Government in 2023. The net result of all these factors will be reflected in the year-end financial statements.

Dan Bidois: What impact will the Government’s fiscal strategy have on its financial position?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: To bring revenue and expenses back into balance, the Government which came into office towards the middle of the 2023/24 financial year is focused squarely on controlling spending and restoring fiscal discipline. We are committed to reducing core Crown expenses as a proportion of GDP and returning to an OBEGAL surplus. With prudent control of spending, the Government does not see any need to seek major additional sources of revenue such as a wealth tax or a capital gains tax. Sound financial accounts are at the heart of good government. Our Government is committed to improving the books and is taking the steps necessary to do so.

Question No. 2—Regional Development

2. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Development: What announcements has he made about regional development?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister and I visited Ōpōtiki to mark the completion of new breakwater walls at Pākihikura, the Ōpōtiki Harbour. This development, started under the former Minister Steven Joyce and completed by Ministers including myself, represents the first major harbour built in New Zealand in decades. It reflects Government investment, boosting resilience; it will have a host of benefits, not only economic but addressing under-investment in a part of New Zealand where, sadly, much of the economy has passed them by.

Jenny Marcroft: How is the Government supporting better economic outcomes in the Eastern Bay of Plenty?

Hon SHANE JONES: The Eastern Bay of Plenty is an area where the Whakatōhea tribe is located, along with a host of other iwi with a proud history in te ao Māori. From time to time, the Crown, in order to address problems in the market will take a risk and make investments. An investment over the last six years was made in improving the resilience of the mussel industry in this part of Te Ika-a-Maui, the North Island. During our visit up there, it was confirmed that the Crown will continue to work with private sector, including the Craig investment group, the Whakatōhea tribe, a host of other Māori investors, to grow the platform of the mussel industry, to improve the prospects of the local community, but, as my leader said, most importantly, to deliver a message to the pakeke, the rangatira of that area. The Crown will take a modest risk from time to time, but Māori leadership must send a message to our own young people: the day of staying at home on the dole is over. If you do not work, society does not owe you a living.

Jenny Marcroft: How else is the Government supporting economic development in the Bay of Plenty?

Hon SHANE JONES: A regional summit was held in Whakatāne—well attended—at the Baptist Church building. It was attended by a host of people who were present to hear the words of salvation from my good self. Civic representatives turned up, various iwi representatives, and they bought a veritable collection plate of proposals. We shared with them that a host of Ministers, some more flinty than others, will consider the various co-investment proposals. But, most importantly, we expect regions themselves to be better organised and where there are opportunities for the Crown to de-risk projects; we want the resources; we want the opportunities in regions to be developed in such a way that it leads not only to employment but better resilience; and we want councils to ensure they are not putting barriers, impediments in the way of the private sector doing their own investments. I look forward, as I shared in Whakatāne, to productivity growing as a consequence of not only the extension of marine farming permits till 2050, but also the fast track—150-odd proposals.

SPEAKER: Before the member asks another question, let’s remind the Minister of my advice to the House last week about the length of responses to questions from Ministers. So far, much as it may have been delivered in the form of a gospel, it is far too long. We’ll have one more try—Jenny Marcroft.

Jenny Marcroft: Why is the Government investing in the regions?

Hon SHANE JONES: It’s important that we spread the resources of the Crown in terms of the reforms that we are making, the opportunities that we support, and that we remind people that Parliament has to serve all of the regions—not just select professions, and not just the areas that have continually been supported by parties with narrow interests, such as the Green Party.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s actions and statements?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to replace the Resource Management Act (RMA). The Minister responsible for RMA Reform, Chris Bishop, was right when he said on Friday that the RMA has become a vehicle to stifle growth, which is exactly why the Government has committed to replacing it. It comes as part of a wider programme of RMA reform, running from fast track to electrifying New Zealand and other changes to existing legislation. It’s all designed to clear away the barriers to the homes, the energy, exports, and jobs that New Zealand so desperately needs to thrive. We were committed to it before the election, and the good news is: now we’re all delivering.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why did he remove Mark Mitchell’s portfolio responsibility for firearms and give it to Nicole McKee, and what does that say about his confidence in Mark Mitchell when he thinks such a responsibility is better placed with a gun lobbyist?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I just say I have tremendous faith in Mark Mitchell. I think he’s an outstanding Minister of Police and he’s doing an absolutely brilliant job. I think he will go down as one of the best police Ministers since World War II in New Zealand, actually. Because what he’s doing is he’s getting police out on the beat, he’s going tough on the gangs, he’s sorting out serious young offenders, he’s getting the job done and that’s what’s important. He’s restoring law and order in New Zealand.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is correct—

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I just seek your guidance on the reflection made on a member at the end of that previous question. It appeared to imply that a Minister is not actually committed to serving the Crown but has some other incentive. I think that’s unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.

SPEAKER: Look, I did listen to that. It would not have been unusual in past times to have similar sorts of comments made. I don’t think it reflects well on the person asking the question because it is a statement and not necessarily a question, but I will look at it in the light of a Hansard review and come back to the House.

Hon David Seymour: Well, speaking to that, I wonder if the easy solution is not to offer them the opportunity to withdraw it.

SPEAKER: Sorry, I couldn’t hear that for some reason.

Hon David Seymour: Adding to the point of order, I wonder if the easy solution is not to allow the member to withdraw it if you’ve said you don’t believe it reflects well on them.

SPEAKER: Well, as you know, that would be up to the member. What I’ve just said is that I’m going to review it to see whether it is a transgression and I’ll come back to the House in due course. If the member, on reflection, thinks it might have been, then that’s a course of action open to her.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is correct: Nicola Willis, who said on 1 July that an announcement about replacement ferries can be expected within the quarter and then, on Monday, by the end of this year; himself, who yesterday morning said by the end of the year, early next year; Matt Doocey, who said in August that an announcement was imminent; or Paul Goldsmith, who can’t even commit to a decision this year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ll just say to that member, you’re going to have to do a better job if you want to be leader of the Labour Party—just stealing Tangi Utikere’s questions from yesterday. It’s just a replay, and I just say to you very clearly: we are determined to get the right ferry solution on the strait. What we’re not prepared to do is take a $700 million project and turn it into a $3.2 billion project. We know what we’re doing, we’ll sort it out, and we’ll get a solution.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who does he agree with: Christopher Luxon, who said he’d march in the street to end modern slavery; or Brooke van Velden, who has ceased all work to end such practices in New Zealand because that is just not a priority for her? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, sorry. I’ve been very firm on the fact that you don’t talk or interrupt someone who’s asking a question. There were three interruptions there. I won’t name members, obviously, but I will ask the member to ask her question again—and to be given the respect of the House’s silence.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who does he agree with: Christopher Luxon, who said he’d march in the street to end modern slavery; or Brooke van Velden, who has ceased all work to end such practices in New Zealand because that is just not a priority for her?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ll just say to the member that that’s another repeat question from yesterday. I just say to the member, the Labour Government had six years in power and for the last three years they had an absolute majority. They were working on a modern slavery Act and couldn’t even deliver it with an absolute majority. We’re a Government that has a big work plan ahead of us. We are clear about our quarterly activities. It’s not something we’re focused on right now. We may well be in the future.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who—

SPEAKER: Wait. The House’s sort of rowdiness could just drop a volume when a question is being answered.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who does he agree with: David Seymour, who complained ACT was not consulted about New Zealand’s position at the UN General Assembly and “expects a more open dialogue”; or Winston Peters, who said he won’t consult with ACT about UN resolutions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Winston Peters is doing an exceptionally good job as New Zealand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, and he is lifting the intensity and urgency of our relationships across the whole of the Indo-Pacific region. He’s our Minister of Foreign Affairs—he’s doing a great job.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who does he agree with: Andrew Bayly, who endorsed the Grocery Commissioner’s proposal to regulate the supermarket duopoly; or David Seymour, who called the same proposal outlandish?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What a petty line of questions from the deputy leader of the Labour Party today. My goodness! I just say to you: this is a Government that’s focused on the issues that New Zealanders care about—restoring law and order, rebuilding the economy, delivering better public services.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is to blame for the coalition Government’s confusion and different views on fundamental Government priorities and actions: everyone else who he has blamed this week; or is it simply a reflection of his inadequate leadership?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, I don’t—it’s amusing. I just say it’s a bit rich coming from a deputy leader of a former Government that couldn’t maintain a coalition very well at all. We have a great Government here. We have been able to actually put together three parties that are very united on the core things that matter most. The New Zealand public see it; they like it because we’re getting things done.

SPEAKER: Questions like that will have the House somewhat animated, but we’re now going to all calm down.

Question No. 4—RMA Reform

4. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What announcements has he made regarding reform of the Resource Management Act 1991?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): On Friday last week, I announced that another commitment has been fulfilled, or at least the start of it: our plan to replace the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The RMA has hindered economic growth and productivity and failed to improve the environment. Reforming and replacing our planning system is a key step in this Government’s plan to rebuild the economy. Cabinet has agreed on new design features for our new system, which includes our intention to narrow the scope of this system, and establish two bills with clear and distinct purposes: one to manage environmental effects, and another to enable urban development and infrastructure.

David MacLeod: What are the other new design features for the new resource management system, as agreed to by Cabinet?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The new system will strengthen and clarify the role of environmental limits and it will provide for greater use of national standards to reduce the need for resource consents and simplify council plans. We intend to use spatial—

Hon David Parker: This is all in the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBEA).

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that was the only decent part of it, Mr Parker. We intend to use spatial planning and a simplified designation process, realising efficiencies by—and this is another one that was also in the NBEA—requiring one regulatory plan per region, jointly prepared by regional and district councils.

Hon David Parker: That was in the NBEA too!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: But unlike the NBEA from the last Government, we won’t be putting in place a co-governed regional planning committee over the top of the existing regional and district councils; we’ll uphold Treaty of Waitangi settlements—

Hon Phil Twyford: Shameless.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —and provide for faster and cheaper processes through the system.

Hon Phil Twyford: Shameless, borrowing Parker’s work.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, he’s very good.

David MacLeod: How important will implementation be in developing this new system?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, just in response to the Hon Phil Twyford’s interjection before: the Hon David Parker—he said the Hon David Parker’s done such a great job, which is precisely why we stole the fast-track legislation. [Interruption]

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Sorry, come back—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order

SPEAKER: Yeah, come back—I’m just in the middle of it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I apologise; I couldn’t hear so wasn’t aware that you were addressing that, so I’m happy to withdraw if you are in the middle of it, sir.

SPEAKER: Well, I am. I’m just going to tell the Minister to stick to the question and not divert back to what he might consider to be interjections requiring a comment.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I get so few real questions from the Opposition I just felt like to had to—

SPEAKER: No, I tell you what—no, sit down. Look, comments like that will terminate a question. It’s not necessary. We’ll try it one more time.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Apologies, Mr Speaker. Implementation is very important in the new system. We’ve made it clear that establishing the system is going to be ambitious and we want to be pragmatic about how we do it. These changes we’re making through phase three are designed to be implemented as quickly as possible. We have an extensive work programme under way around phase two of the RMA reforms, and the aim is to transfer the changes we are making through phase two in national direction and amendment bills over into phase three to enable a smooth transition. Some RMA settings currently will transition over to the new system so we can carry forward with minimal disruption and uphold Treaty settlements.

Simon Court: How will the replacement resource management system restore property rights in line with the ACT - National coalition agreement?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it is indeed true to say that that is an important part of the National - ACT coalition agreement, and I want to thank the member for his work as Parliamentary Under-Secretary. The new system will embed into law the principle that restrictions on how someone uses their property must be constrained to managing the effects of a given activity undertaken on that property, so we will be embedding into law the importance of property rights through the system, and actually the original RMA back in 1991 started with that fundamental principle. In fact, some people at the time described it as libertarian planning statute. But as we now know, after 33 years of implementation and various court decisions, that has been eroded to the point where the RMA is now an active block on growth and we are changing that.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Does he agree with the ACT Party press release titled “Three cheers for Simon Court” that states: “the Resource Management—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on. A question’s being asked; the rules apply to the side from which the question is coming, as well.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Shall I start again?

SPEAKER: Yes, OK.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Does he agree with the ACT Party press release titled “Three cheers for Simon Court” that states: “the Resource Management Act is being replaced with a law whose central concept is the enjoyment of private property. The starting point is that you have a right to use and develop your own property. The second result is that you have a right to object only if your own property is affected.”

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, but I’d give it two cheers.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It wasn’t a press release—

SPEAKER: Hang on, sorry. Points of order are heard in silence.

Hon David Seymour: It was not a press release; it was the ACT Party’s Free Press, and if anyone would like a subscription, see me after question time.

SPEAKER: As the member knows, that wasn’t—

Hon Member: I’ve got enough toilet paper.

SPEAKER: OK, one all; leave it there.

Hon David Seymour: I’m sorry, you can’t use it for toilet paper; it’s on what’s called a computer. It’s online.

SPEAKER: I suppose this is the last week of term; I suppose that might explain some things but let’s just calm it. David MacLeod, have one last shot at this question.

David MacLeod: What are the next steps the Government is taking to deliver this new resource management system?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We’ve established an expert advisory group; it’s a high-quality group. Janette Campbell’s chairing the group—she’s a barrister, RMA lawyer for 25 years—also, interestingly, a former director of the Environmental Defence Society. We also have Rukumoana Schaafhausen from the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group; Kevin Counsell, who’s an economist; Gillian Crowcroft, an environmental scientist; Mark Chrisp, an RMA consultant; Paul Melville from the agriculture sector; and Christine Jones. This group is going to prepare the blueprint and our aim is to get legislation to the House next year so we can replace the system and have a new series of Acts by the time of the next election.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

5. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and, in particular, our action to keep public transport workers safe. There has been a worrying increase in abuse and attacks on public transport workers in recent months, and that’s totally unacceptable. So we’re introducing tougher consequences for the cowards who engage in this kind of behaviour, with changes introduced as part of the Government’s sentencing legislation. We’re also setting aside funding to respond to the problem, with local authorities soon able to apply for funding for safety improvements like retrofitted safety screens, real-time CCTV monitoring, and better facilities for drivers. All New Zealanders deserve to feel safe at home, at work, or in the community, and we’re taking steps to make sure that’s the case.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister tell us the average time that it takes for a new oil and gas field to come online from exploration to production?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. If you’d like to ask a specific question to the relevant Minister, I’m sure we can come back to you.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that the average time it takes for an oil and gas field to go from exploration to production is 16 years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I am now, so thank you for telling me.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister not think that before pursuing a public policy decision to reopen oil and gas exploration, perhaps he may have availed himself of the data and evidence about how long it takes an oil and gas field to go from exploration to production?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, all I can say is that I observed a previous Greens climate change Minister and Labour Government do a “just transition” which meant we stopped producing domestic gas and we ended up importing huge amounts of foreign coal.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why is the Prime Minister committing our country to more production of oil and gas, not only today or tomorrow but 16-plus years into the future?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we’re going to need gas in our electricity system to make sure we can keep the lights on. We want to double the amount of renewables in our system, we’ve got plans to do that: Electrify New Zealand, fast-track legislation. I’d really welcome that member and her party’s support for that, so that we can double the amount of renewable electricity. But we’re going to need gas for some time, and we want to have domestic production of that, and we’re going to continue to do that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How exactly does the Prime Minister expect the Green Party to support his fast-track legislation when he is actively keeping the projects contained within it secret, while also making it pretty clear that those projects include the likes of coal mines?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The good news is the legislation will be coming forward very soon, and the member and the party will get a chance to vote on it.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement on 1 July 2024, “You’ll find out about the ferries once Ministers have made decisions. And I expect that will be within the quarter”; if so, can we expect an announcement within the next five days?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, because that was my expectation at the time. Ministers are focused on getting the right solution for a safe, reliable, and resilient Cook Strait ferry service. We are taking the time to get it right, and an announcement in the next five days is unlikely. Unlike the previous Government, we are determined that the solution will be fiscally responsible—unlike the iReX project, which blew out from $750 million to more than $3 billion.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Who is correct: David Seymour, who said there “hasn’t really been a discussion amongst the parties”; or herself, when she said the governing parties were “all engaged in the process, testing proposals and asking questions”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I think that if you were to ask David Seymour whether he has engaged in discussion with me about the ferries, he would happily confirm that, yes, he has.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn’t it the case that Ministers from the three Government parties have met to discuss the ferries but were unable to agree on the replacement?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What I will say is that a decision will be made once Cabinet is clear that it has the best option to provide a safe, reliable, and resilient Cook Strait ferry service and that the option is fiscally responsible. We will not repeat the mistakes of the previous Government with its disastrous iReX project and enormous cost blowouts.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the real reason why this matter has not gone to Cabinet, given she has had the ministerial advisory group advice for months, that the three Government parties cannot agree?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am not going into details of ministerial or party discussions. What I will say is that we are taking advice and carefully considering that advice to ensure we make a fiscally responsible decision that ensures a safe, reliable, and resilient Cook Strait ferry service.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What specific issues still need to be agreed to between the governing parties before she can take a paper to Cabinet?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A paper will be taken to Cabinet in due course, and I will make announcements thereafter.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, almost a year after cancelling the iReX project, does her Government not know what the costs of the alternative ferries will be, the cost of the landside infrastructure we’ll need, and the cost of breaking the Hyundai contract?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We have information about all of those factors, and we have judged that it is in the public interest to make our decisions known when we have made final decisions, and that is when we will make announcements.

Question No.7—Education

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): My question is to the Minister of Education and asks—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. Can we just have a bit of quiet while the questions are being answered.

7. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Education: How have the Government’s plans to introduce structured literacy next year progressed?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Since June, around 4,000 teachers have had training in structured literacy. Another 3,000 will start shortly. Two thousand schools will receive decodable books and resources for teachers to use in class, free of charge. Schools will receive up to $5,000 a year, every year, over the next four years to buy extra resources if they want them. Consultation on the new curriculum has just been completed and 76 schools are trialling the new phonics check before it gets rolled out next year. Less than a year ago, we came into Government and said we would roll out structured literacy in every primary, and 10 months later we’re showing what can be achieved when you move with pace, clarity, and purpose.

Tom Rutherford: What specific actions have been taken to invest in Rangaranga Reo ā-Tā, the structured literacy equivalent in te reo Māori?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The refresh of Te Marautanga o Aotearoa will provide teachers with knowledge-rich, year-by-year curriculum to support reading and writing in te reo Māori. And for the first time, schools will be able to use a purpose-built phonics check to see how a child is progressing and reading through te reo Māori over the course of four checks over two years. We’re also delivering structured literacy in teacher guides, new decodable books, and classroom resources in te reo Māori. Up until now, teachers have had to make their own. We are committed to excellent Māori outcomes; it’s a priority for me to support learning through te reo Māori to achieve educational excellence.

Tom Rutherford: What positive feedback has she received from principals about the nation-wide introduction of structured literacy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: One principal wrote to me to commend the action the Government is taking, leading changes in education. After three years of structured literacy in their school, the principal said, “We have seen radical improvements in outcomes for our learners. They are engaged, encouraged, inspired, and heartened, and we continue to see great gains with our students with clear scope and sequence, whole-school consistent approach.” We are ensuring that all children have the same opportunity to thrive and get the best start in literacy.

Tom Rutherford: What has she heard from school leaders about how these changes will benefit New Zealand students?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: A deputy principal wrote to me to say that “Good schools who have been using this approach in their teaching and learning programmes are finding it to be a total game-changer. The benefits are immense. Data is improving, delivery has improved. Children now feel that learning and progress is happening to them. It is really exciting.” This Government has clarity, determination, and purpose that sets up our children for success, and through structured literacy we’re on the right track.

Question No. 8—Energy

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): When, if at all, will the Minister take action to fix—

SPEAKER: No, no, just read it as it is on the sheet. Yeah, you added a word in there. It’s all right. Just read it as you see it on the sheet.

8. SCOTT WILLIS (Green) to the Minister for Energy: When, if at all, will he take action to fix the electricity market and ensure a rapid and effective transition to a fully renewable electricity system?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): The Government’s number one priority is to ensure New Zealand has globally competitive energy prices for Kiwi households and businesses. Moving to a 100 percent renewable electricity target would be prohibitively expensive to achieve. To ensure confidence for our electricity market and to support greater investment in renewable electricity generation, the Government is taking a number of actions: we’ve stopped Lake Onslow, which was having a chilling effect on the electricity market; we’ll reverse the ban on oil and gas to ensure adequate supply of gas generation to firm renewable generation; remove the 100 percent renewable electricity target; fast-track consenting to allow renewable generation projects to be able to be consented more quickly; developing an offshore renewable energy regime; establishing an Energy Competition Task Force to drive more generation, investment, and strengthen competition; and undertaking Resource Management Act (RMA) changes to enable doubling of renewable generation by 2050 through our Electrify New Zealand policies.

Scott Willis: If the Government considers consenting to be one of the major issues for renewable electricity, why are there over 30 consented projects being sat on by consent holders that haven’t started construction?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there’s a number of reasons for that. Ultimately, that is why the Electricity Authority and the Commerce Commission have also set up the Energy Competition Task Force work programme to ensure we have a more competitive market, and that’s ultimately what we need. I’d also make the point that it’s not just around the consent; that is why we have the fast-track one-stop shop, which looks at all of the elements that are required to actually get projects delivered in New Zealand, and I encourage the member to support the bill.

Scott Willis: How was the move to make liquefied natural gas (LNG), or rather fossil gas, part of the electricity market and energy mix—how is that going to give surety to investors to invest and build renewable electricity generation?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I’ve said in the House on a number of occasions: when you face circumstances like we have this year—where we’ve had the lowest lake levels since 1992, we’ve had less wind than was expected, and we’ve had a significant downgrade in gas production—we’ve ended up with record high prices, and so ultimately we need the supply of energy needed to be able to firm renewable projects. LNG will be required to fit the gap if we don’t find indigenous gas in New Zealand, and so that’s where it can play a critical role so that there is confidence, so when the sun’s not shining, when the wind’s not blowing, there’s the ability to be able to have the gas to firm those renewable generations and increase renewable sources of generation in New Zealand.

Scott Willis: Why has the Government moved faster on chaotic fossil fuel initiatives such as opening up oil and gas drilling than it has on its purported goals to electrify New Zealand and provide solutions to the electricity market, like separating generation and retail functions of the gentailers?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I completely reject the answer to that question. One of the very first pieces of legislation this Government brought in was fast-track consenting, which is about enabling renewable generation in New Zealand. I want to acknowledge the Hon Shane Jones and the Hon Chris Bishop for their work in bringing that legislation to the Parliament. I ask that member to support the bill.

Scott Willis: When, if ever, will we finally see a consultation or even a simple announcement about a national policy statement for renewable electricity generation and a national energy strategy, or has it taken a back seat like the rest of the Government’s climate change initiatives?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Minister for RMA reform has made announcements around our approach to national policy statements and bringing legislation to the House to enable that to be changed far more effectively, efficiently, and consistently, so that we can have an enabling framework for national policy statements. That legislation is being progressed by my very good colleague the Hon Chris Bishop.

Question No. 9—Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations

9. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Yes, in the context in which they were given and undertaken.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does he stand by his statement “My focus in Government will be building on the good outcomes of colonisation and fixing the bad ones”, and are the amendments to the marine and coastal area (MACA) Act an example of good or bad outcomes of colonisation, and, if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, in relation to the work we’re doing in MACA, what we’re simply doing is trying to restore the test that was included in the legislation in 2011, which a Court of Appeal decision manifestly changed. So that’s what we’re doing, and it makes good sense.

Hon Willie Jackson: Can the Minister provide an example of when he has acted in good faith with Māori iwi in regard to meaningful consultation?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, we continue to, and this bill, as we just said before the House today, is heading off to select committee, where everybody—iwi and all New Zealanders—will be able to have an opportunity to have their say on this legislation. We continue to have many meaningful discussions up and down the country around a range of Treaty issues, including MACA, and we listen very carefully on all those occasions.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does he stand by his statement that he’s committed to settle Ngāpuhi’s Treaty claim, and, if so, how can Ngāpuhi trust him when he chooses to consult with the seafood industry before he has spoken with Māori in regards to MACA?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, in regards to the Ngāpuhi settlement, I’m committed to doing our very best. Ultimately, if you are coming up with a settlement, it needs two parties to agree to a settlement and to have somebody to settle with. So we’re working very enthusiastically towards that. I think, if you think about Northland, there are two things that will make a real difference to the Northland regional economy: one will be to build a decent road, and, secondly, it will be to make progress on the Ngāpuhi settlement. We’re doing our very best.

Hon Shane Jones: The takutai moana bill just introduced to the House—is it true that it merely restores the language originally in the bill, as voted for by the Māori Party in 2011?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, the purpose is to restore the test. And it’s a high test, because what we have, of course, is that all New Zealanders have an interest in what goes on in the marine and coastal space, but the legislation allows for customary marine title to be granted to applicant groups, which gives them valuable rights that are not available to all other New Zealanders. So Parliament set a high threshold, and that is what we are restoring in this legislation.

SPEAKER: I appreciate that the question was the result of creep in the supplementaries coming from the Opposition to the Minister, but it was not entirely in line with the primary question.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How many iwi are currently taking the Government to court or are preparing to take the Government to court for breaches of the Treaty, and how does this help to grow a positive relationship between Māori iwi and the Crown to deliver meaningful Treaty relationships?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, of course, I could not be expected to know how many iwi are planning to take the Crown to court, because there may be a large number of people planning to do something but whether they will or not remains to be seen. And, of course, the reality across our history is that there has been a lot of litigation under previous Governments, and this Government, and all we’re trying to do with the takutai moana legislation, of course, is to restore what Parliament meant and said in its legislation.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does the Minister still consider Don Brash as “a true New Zealand patriot”, and will he be adopting the same language as Brash and his supporters, and use such words as “Māori separatism”, “Māori privilege”, “special deals for Māori”, and with words added for effect, like “race-based”, “Apartheid”, and even “Nazi Germany”, and, if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m not quite sure how that relates to my ministerial activities. I wrote a biography on Don Brash 20 years ago. The member might be jealous because I haven’t written one on him, but I only write about successful people.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe at all that the Minister has addressed the question. The question is: does he—

SPEAKER: No, no, I heard the question, and it’s a bit like bowling at the wickets and missing by quite a wide margin. So the member might like to try a different question.

Hon Willie Jackson: Are you saying it’s not a point of order?

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Hon Willie Jackson: It’s not a point of order?

SPEAKER: What did you say?

Hon Willie Jackson: I’m saying that I don’t believe he’s addressed the question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s a point of order, and I’m just saying that the question doesn’t need to be addressed, because it was so wide of the wicket that he couldn’t possibly hit it no matter how wide he swung his bat. So if the member wants to ask a different question, without penalty to his side, then go for your life.

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you—

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon. Who made that comment?

Hon Willie Jackson: Tama Potaka.

SPEAKER: Those sorts of reflections are not going to go well for any side.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister whether his officials were correct when they advised him that any amendment to the takutai moana Act was likely to attract significant litigation, reputational, constitutional, Treaty of Waitangi, Māori-Crown relationship, possible damage, and wider public perception risk, and, if not, why not? Was he advised by his officials about that?

SPEAKER: The Minister can answer but he’s not the Minister for Crown-Māori relations; he is the Minister for Treaty negotiations. In so much as he has ministerial responsibility, please attempt an answer.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Point of order. The question was about my statements and actions. I’m not quite sure what the advice of my officials was in relation to my statements and actions, but I’m happy to answer it. But it seems a long way from the primary question.

SPEAKER: No, we’re not going to have that sort of exchange. Do you have another question?

Hon Willie Jackson: Yes, yes, thanks, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister honestly say that the actions by him and his Government are honouring the Treaty, and, if so, what specifically can he point to where he is doing that?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, we’re working very hard to continue the Treaty settlement process, which has been carried out by many Governments over the last 30 years, and that’s why we’re negotiating hard. We managed to pass the Whakatōhea legislation, which was started by the previous Government and a work that we’ve continued. And that is an important way in which we can honour the Treaty relationship.

Question No. 10—Mental Health

10. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for Mental Health: How is Health New Zealand delivering on the Government’s priority to grow the mental health and addiction workforce?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): I would first like to acknowledge that this week is Mental Health Awareness Week. This year the theme is “Community is … what we create together”. I want to particularly acknowledge our mental health and addiction workforce, who make a difference in vulnerable Kiwis’ lives every day. Yesterday, Health New Zealand published its mental health and addiction workforce plan, which sets out how we will grow the mental health and addiction workforce over the next three years and achieve the Government’s workforce target of training 500 mental health and addiction professionals every year. One of the biggest barriers to timely mental health and addiction support is our workforce vacancy rates. That is why one of my top priorities is growing the mental health and addiction workforce, and it’s pleasing to see Health New Zealand respond with a plan that will make meaningful increases to our workforce.

SPEAKER: Good. We’ll have brief answers from here.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How will this plan contribute to the Government’s mental health and addiction targets?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: This Government has introduced five mental health and addiction targets—the first time in New Zealand—to drive performance in the health system and to hold us accountable. We have a specific target of training 500 mental health and addiction workforce professionals every year. We’re currently training about 423. Under this plan announced yesterday, we will grow that to the 500 target in its first year.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why does New Zealand need a mental health and addiction workforce plan?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Our hard-working mental health and addiction workforce is under considerable strain. Workforce shortages are a significant barrier to Kiwis getting faster access to mental health and addiction support. This was actually one of the key findings in the recent Auditor-General report earlier this year. The report called on the Government to prioritise a mental health and addiction workforce plan because there was no plan under the last Government. I’ve made this development a priority, and I’m proud to have delivered it.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What initiatives are included in the mental health and addiction workforce plan?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: We’ll deliver on the Government’s commitment to double Health New Zealand clinical psychology intern numbers by 2027. This will grow clinical internships by 100 percent, from 2023 to 2027. We’ve also begun a new registration associate psychology, where students will begin training in 2026 and enter the workforce in 2027—on top of that, new funding for peer support training that will grow that workforce by 90 new places every year.

Ingrid Leary: Why does his mental health workforce plan fail to address immediate workforce shortfalls caused by a front-line hiring freeze that he refuses to acknowledge?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Really pleased to talk about the workforce plan that will be delivered out of baseline. And if that member wants to talk immediate response, then she might want to reflect why it didn’t occur for six years under her Government.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Can the Minister just describe for us in your plan and your target for young Māori men, who are predominantly the highest of all at risk of suicide—could you elaborate on that for us, thank you?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, what we want with our mental health workforce plan is to grow the pipeline of all the mental health, addiction, and suicide prevention professional roles. Not only that, within the training pipeline we want those pipelines representative of New Zealand’s communities.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Specifically to young Māori men—it’s possibly a point of order, actually, Mr Speaker; I’m not quite sure now. It’s that that I’m looking for a response to: young Māori men—how does your target and your plan and your workforce cater for culturally accurate responses to young Māori men?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: As I answered in the previous supplementary question, we want a mental health, addiction, and suicide prevention workforce that is culturally competent and represents the communities of New Zealand.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

11. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga) to the Prime Minister: Does he agree that his commitment to support the Treaty Principles Bill through to select committee is a reasonable and responsible action for a Prime Minister of a country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister—oh, OK, right, good, off the mark fast.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry. Do you want me to repeat the answer?

SPEAKER: Yes, just—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he agree with Justin Tipa, chairman of Ngāi Tahu, regarding the Treaty principles bill, when he says, and I quote, “David Seymour and ACT are misconstruing history. You can’t have a reasonable debate with a person or party who distorts the truth”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have a very clearly established coalition Government position. We are supporting the bill to first reading and there is no commitment to support it beyond that.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he agree with Justin Tipa, chairman of Ngāi Tahu, who says, and I quote, “One of ACT’s original Treaty principle ‘definitions’ suggested that ‘tino rangatiratanga’ applies to individual citizens and boils down to a protection of property rights. This was a deliberate attempt to define rangatiratanga out of existence.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I refer the member to my last answer. But we have a coalition Government Cabinet decision to support this bill to first reading, and not beyond that.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, I want to direct your attention to Standing Order 390—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: What? Don’t eat in the House.

Hon Shane Jones: —“Content of questions”—

Hon Willie Jackson: Have another lolly.

Hon Shane Jones: —and whether or not quoting indiscriminately—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: As all members know, points of order are heard in silence. While there might be a desire to give the member taking a point of order advice as to how they should present themselves, it’s not for other members to do that. Have you swallowed yet?

Hon Shane Jones: I could reciprocate.

SPEAKER: No—just take your point of order in the House in silence.

Hon Shane Jones: The point of order I’m raising with you, Standing Order 390—surely that question ought not to have been allowed. You can’t indiscriminately quote things that are not factually correct.

SPEAKER: If we were to rule out quotes in this House, factually correct or otherwise, we’d become an incredibly bland place. Now, the member asking a question is asking “Does he agree with?”, and that is a perfectly legitimate question. If the following assertion is wrong, then the answer could well and truly point that out. Tākuta Ferris, ask the question again.

Hon Member: He’s got the answer.

SPEAKER: Oh—no, hang on, we’ve had an answer. Sorry—next one.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he agree with Justin Tipa, chairman of Ngāi Tahu, when he says, “Now, in [the] latest attempt, ACT suggests if iwi and hapū are to exercise rangatiratanga … as guaranteed in Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi—that may only be done with express permission of the State.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I’ll say the same thing. The coalition Government has a commitment and a decision to support this bill to first reading and not beyond that.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he agree with Justin Tipa, chairman of Ngāi Tahu, when he says, “The Treaty Principles Bill is a great example of why the ACT Party is not equipped to lead us in important conversations about our identity as New Zealanders, or where we are heading as a country. Seymour’s efforts are naïve, politically clumsy, and ultimately unproductive for New Zealand.”?

SPEAKER: That is an unnecessarily long question with a fairly unspecific aspect of a question. If it was asked generally—“Does he agree with the comments of Mr Tipa?”—then that might be straightforward, but, for such a broad question, you’re pushing the Standing Orders as far as they’re prepared to go. Yeah, the question is to the Prime Minister.

Hon Simeon Brown: Point order, Mr Speaker. I mean, the questions are in relation to someone’s comments, and the Prime Minister doesn’t have responsibility for someone else’s comments.

SPEAKER: No, he has responsibility for his own reactions to those comments—that’s what he’s being asked about. Ask the question again.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he agree with Justin Tipa, chairman of Ngāi Tahu, when he says, “The Treaty Principles Bill is a great example of why the ACT Party—

SPEAKER: Yep—OK. That’s enough. We’ve got it. I just wanted to find out how you prefaced the front of that question, and it is in order. Prime Minister.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve said to that member, we have a Government decision—speaking as Prime Minister—to support this bill to first reading and not beyond that.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today you made a point of reminding my good self that answers had to be succinct. You’ve got no business letting that question go on because it’s not concise.

SPEAKER: Well, the question has gone on and it has been answered. And while it was not concise, I had made that point to the member just a little bit before, if you check out the Hansard. In general, I’ve got to say the answers to questions have become progressively long. I’ve been watching the clock today to see how long, and there is a point where the value of the answer becomes lost in the length of the diatribe that goes with it. That brings to an end oral questions.

Dr Tracey McLellan: No—no.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry—Tracey McLellan.

Question No. 12—Health

12. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his answer to written question No. 39136 (2024) that “the practical completion date for the Whakatuputupu - New Dunedin Hospital Outpatients Building project is anticipated for July 2026, and that the practical completion date for the Whakatuputupu - New Dunedin Hospital Inpatients Building is anticipated for November 2029”; if not, why not?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes, in the context in which it was given. That was the advice provided by officials at the time. However, as the member should be aware, the full answer to that question also stated that, “… forecasted completion dates may be subject to change based on various factors, including system/cost pressures, necessary approvals, etc. There are key stage gates where accuracy of an estimate is enhanced, these are generally a business case decision, at the end of each design phase and main contract award.” As all members will acknowledge, this is an incredibly challenging project. However, what I can assure the member is that this Government will build a hospital in Dunedin.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Can the Minister then commit to ensuring there will be no downgrades to the design or to the services of the New Dunedin Hospital, given the widespread concern from not only health professionals but the whole community?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, what I can commit to is this Government will build a hospital in Dunedin.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Is it correct that the in-patient building is being changed to one that comprises a number of smaller buildings?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: What is correct is that this project is under review. We need to ensure that we are building a hospital that delivers for the health needs of Dunedin.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Does the Minister agree with a statement from former Southern District Health Board Chairman Pete Hodgson that “To set out to redesign or make a lesser thing would basically end up costing more in the long run.”; if not, why not?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, what I can agree with is that this is an incredibly complex project. Ministers are looking at this closely to ensure we can deliver better health outcomes for the people of Dunedin.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Isn’t it correct that he can no longer keep his pre-election promise to the people of the southern region because of reckless tax cuts?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: What is correct is the Dunedin project remains under active consideration as the Government works to deliver an important health facility that represents value for money. We’re committed to delivering better health outcomes for the people of Dunedin.

Bills

Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill

Instruction to Justice Committee

Debate resumed.

SPEAKER: We will resume the interrupted debate on the instruction to committee and amendments proposed to it on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. Is there someone taking a call? The question is that the amendment in the name of Arena Williams—

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Mr Speaker, I’m sitting right next to you and I can’t hear you, sir. There’s too much noise.

SPEAKER: Is there?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yes, there is.

SPEAKER: Right. Well, I generally thought there was far too much noise during question time, so I assumed that members were comfortable with that noise and decided to carry on with the House’s business. However, we will take a 30-second break while those who are leaving the Chamber to do other business do so without discussion and without excessive noise.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Hold on, I haven’t called you yet. Unbelievable. I call the Hon Dr Duncan Webb.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I must say that I find it deeply concerning that the referral back proposal from the Minister on this bill is so truncated. This bill, I understand, is going to be referred not to the Māori Affairs Committee—where you might have expected it to go—but to the Justice Committee. Whilst I’m on that committee and I consider myself competent to consider a lot of the material that goes before the Justice Committee, this bill in particular will be a technical challenge—

James Meager: Oh, you’ll handle it, Duncan.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —well, you may say that, but the fact of the matter is that there are concepts in here which are quite unfamiliar to me. I hope the other members of the House will have a crack at reading the decision that prompted this because—

Tim Costley: Don’t punish everyone with your incompetence.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, the fact is—

SPEAKER: That cross-House conversation can stop. It’s a very tight debate, and it’s unnecessary to put in cross-House objections.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My point is simply this: in terms of the material put before the committee, it will require some upskilling so to speak. There are issues which are at the heart of this bill which go to customary title and tikanga, and they’re not things which I’m particularly familiar with. I would have expected, quite likely, that we will need an independent adviser on that committee who will also require time to put advice together for us, because the key issue before the committee, it seems to be, is: what is the appropriate test for whether customary rights in respect of marine and coastal areas exist?

Now, that question was examined in considerable detail by the Court of Appeal. The Government doesn’t like where it’s landed and wants Parliament to have a have another look at it. If we look at the very extensive analysis of the Court of Appeal, I’m sure the Government would not want the select committee to spend less time and have a less robust analysis than the Court of Appeal. Whilst the lens at Parliament is somewhat different, the fact of the matter is—and it’s going to have more political content and, of course, it is able to create law rather than simply interpret it.

Nevertheless, the fundamental question is the same, and you’ve got to remember what’s happening here. I think the Minister for Regulation, the Hon David Seymour, will be particularly interested in having something to do with the select committee because, in his own policy documentation, he talks about the Ministry for Regulation having input into laws which affect property rights and making sure that any rule—any law passed by this House or other Government agencies—which affects property rights are subject to proper scrutiny.

I’m not sure it quite fits, but in his party’s policy documentation, he talks about there being a proper cost and benefit analysis, and he also talks about property rights being protected and not arbitrarily taken away. Now, that is the sort of submission which I expect the Ministry for Regulation will want to put to select committee, because the Minister has said—at least, prior to election in his policy material—that’s what his ministry is going to do. Now, to do that, they’re going to need time. In fact, it would suggest that the Ministry for Regulation will be doing some kind of economic analysis or at least a cost-benefit analysis—and anyone who’s seen Treasury’s cost-benefit analysis will know that that’s no small task.

The other point is that this engages with article 2 of the Treaty in the sense that the Crown’s got an obligation to protect and preserve—in the English version—the lands, forests, and fisheries of iwi and hapū, in Māori. We need to understand exactly what that means, because if this proposed bill is now taking away rights which exist—the whole point is that this original legislation doesn’t create rights; it recognises rights. If we’re going to understand what the Crown’s Treaty obligations are, we’ll need to delve into that, and Treaty issues are not something which traditionally comes before the Justice Committee.

I think the Minister has presented this as a sort of—well, my real concern is that it’s been presented as a rubber stamp: bump it off to the Justice Committee, listen to the naysayers, and get on with it. Well, that’s not good enough. The select committee needs to do a genuine and robust analysis of what’s going on here.

The whole idea of aboriginal title, customary title, and customary rights which underpin the original marine and coastal area Act (MACA) and the decision and the amendment that’s now proposed is important. I can’t accept that the Minister’s just saying, “Oh, we just want you to tweak it to say what we originally meant.”, because it actually misconstrues the job before the select committee that we need to look at, which is: what is the framework for the decision? What’s happening there is the common error when two legal systems meet, which is that the dominant legal system calls the shots and says what the rules are, where the question is really what the tikanga Māori approach should be.

We need to understand that tikanga Māori approach. Now, whether that’s through an independent expert, a pūkenga, or whether it’s through a good and robust submissions process is yet to be seen. But I can tell you that having sat through the Māori wards material through the select committee process, one of the complaints of many submitters from iwi and Māori organisations was that the resourcing required to give really helpful submissions was inadequate and they needed more time and more resourcing. The truncated select committee period is really going to constrain the quality of the submissions that come to us, because I don’t accept that there’s only one way to solve this problem.

I guess the other point is this: this is actually constitutionally important, and that’s another reason why it shouldn’t be rushed through select committee. It’s constitutionally important because it’s actually taking away vested rights. People whose rights have crystallised—it’s generally considered to be when you have put in place the proceedings to recognise those rights. We know that there’s plenty of MACA applications, both before the Minister and through the courts, and this actually changes the rules under them. It’s got that retrospective aspect, and that means, when you’re doing something which is that important, that actually is doing something which runs counter to some pretty fundamental constitutional principles, we shouldn’t rush it.

Now, our position on this is clear, and that is to leave it to the courts, but this Government has said they want—on the hoof; while the decisions are still being made—to change the rules. Well, it’s the Government prerogative to put a bill before the House, but it’s a real concern, when you’re dealing with removing property rights, retrospective legislation, Treaty rights, and customary title, to do it in a rush. We fiercely object—

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, I’ve listened carefully to the member’s speech. This is a narrow issue. He is referring to the Hon Peeni Henare’s contribution that the matter be referred to the Māori Affairs Committee. This is not an opportunity for him to share his view about colonisation, aboriginal title, or his view about the constitution. Please, I beseech you: get these contributors to bring it back to a very narrow issue. The narrow issue is outlined in the referral motion.

SPEAKER: I have respectfully listened to the point of order brought by the Minister, and he should trust that the matters that he is raising are understood by the Chair and will be considered at a point where the debate might conclude.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was going to touch on Mabo, but, given the member’s comments, perhaps I’ll leave that. My fundamental point is—and it has been throughout, and it remains—that given the importance of these matters and the fact that they cut across many important issues, issues that can be divisive, we need to approach this in a deliberative, careful manner which is not hysterical but is time sensitive. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment in the name of Arena Williams be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

SPEAKER: The question now is that the amendment in the name of Steve Abel be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 5 December 2024, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there’s been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Crown Minerals Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): I present a legislative statement on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill.

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

Hon SHANE JONES: I move, That the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 31 October 2024, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

For the benefit of the House and the broader community tuned in, I shall now focus on the key changes in this bill and explain why the Government is pursuing them. Our Government inherited a dire situation where gas supply has been tight and demand grossly exceeds supply. Why does this situation exist? It exists because of an ideological urge to reject the value of an indigenous resource in New Zealand called natural gas that represents a key contingency fuel that offers security to New Zealand’s energy system. There is an irrational belief that this valuable resource represents a threat to New Zealand’s reputation, New Zealand’s stamina, economically. Our Government rejects that ideological claptrap.

We need natural gas to provide electricity generation at a time where our hydro lakes cannot service demand. Yes, there is an appetite for more renewable resources to create energy. Sadly, our current fields are in decline. We need more investment, but who will invest when regimes come into place in New Zealand and go out of their way to demonise and stigmatise investors, indiscriminately destroying rights, undermining certainty, and going out of their way to trivialise the ambitions of economic investors?

Methanex, recently—a large international company—halted all production. This is a type of deindustrialisation, a direct consequence of an ideology driven by this vain pursuit that New Zealand can be a world leader, in the vain hope that New Zealand alone will save the planet—something that I personally reject. New Zealand must look after itself before it cares for the planet. Without secure energy, without affordable energy, we are going to see the closure of industry in New Zealand, just as the last regime closed down the only refinery in New Zealand.

That’s why this bill will create additional certainty and enable investment to take place. It will reverse the ban on offshore gas exploration put in place by the last Government. It will re-establish New Zealand as a place attractive to overseas investors and halt the slip of our reputation towards a Venezuelan destination. Not only will the reversal of the ban create good outcomes for energy security; it will open up new opportunities and enable the Crown to receive fresh applications for offshore exploration. But, at a more fundamental level, my message to Kiwis, is that the last Government did not put a large sign up for the rest of the world to believe that we’re open for business. They set up a closed-door approach, showing that we were the “Hermit Kingdom”. No, this bill clearly identifies that we most certainly are going to trust in our own ability to deliver secure energy and we will pursue gas, which is a better outcome than imported coal.

I have taken account of the concerns of the industry. The bill makes three key changes. It will reduce the burden on permit holders while continuing to protect the Crown, private landowners, and ultimately the taxpayer. We will bring more flexibility to how mandatory financial securities are held. We will limit the trailing liability to the immediate prior permit holder. We’re not going to go back to the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve, with you believing that you can pursue liabilities to multiple corporate generations and that having the effect of destroying confidence. Therein lies the ideological difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. They overstate risk and understate cost. In addition to that, we are going to ensure that small-scale mining can proceed with minimal bureaucratic interference.

Now, something might be said about the impact on our emissions. We remain dedicated to an energy transition, but not to the point of hollowing out jobs and deindustrialisation. That type of fuzzy communist thinking has no place on this side of the House. I repeat: natural gas is critical. It will have a place until at least 2050. Increases in emissions from gas supply are vastly preferable to our reliance on coal, but the reality is we need all of the options if we are to deliver affordable, secure energy. No one is going to invest in our economy if we cannot provide a menu of security. No one is going to trust a Government, a regulatory environment, if their rights are going to be indiscriminately destroyed, as it happened under the last regime. We’re going to hear apocryphal stories that the planet is going to boil and that jobs are going to suddenly appear because of clean green energy. Jobs follow investment. Investment dies at the feet of uncertainty and indiscriminate changes as a consequence of capricious bureaucracy, something that characterised the energy policy of the last Government.

In conclusion, this bill introduces a set of changes to the Crown Minerals Act to immediately improve the economics of the petroleum investment in New Zealand and the regulatory efficiency of the Crown minerals regime. It removes the ban on new petroleum exploration beyond the shore of Taranaki, signalling that NZ is open for business. It adjusts the decommissioning regime and moves away from these apocryphal stories, exaggerations, and we will have a response that is proportionate to the risk that is being managed—something sadly absent from the responses from the last regime. And it will boost gas production to improve the security of supply—something sorely needed by garden variety Kiwis and businesses. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Labour will be opposing this bill, and Labour will be opposing this bill in a very strenuous way, because this is a dark day for New Zealand. This is a day when the three-headed monster of a Government is taking New Zealand backwards. It is taking New Zealand backwards not based on any benefit to New Zealand, certainly not putting New Zealand first, but it is taking New Zealand backwards for the sake of it and for the sake of political sloganeering.

I am not going to spend the time of my speech reminding those on the opposite benches of the large body of climate science that tells us about the need to keep oil and gas in the ground—I’m taking that as a given. I’m assuming members opposite actually do engage in that literature. I am going to spend my time in this speech talking about how today signifies a time when the three parties of this Government firmly plant in the ground their backwards-looking plan that is no plan. All three parties in this coalition are showing their true colours today. They will be judged by their actions for generations to come. This is a bill that certainly does not put New Zealand first; it puts New Zealand at risk. This bill is quite simply climate denying, populist, right-wing virtue signalling.

Why are they doing this? Let’s go through the stated reasons why they are doing it. Let’s read from the explanatory note. They’re saying it’s “to ensure that gas remains a transition fuel until viable and cost-effective alternatives are in place.” Well, let’s go through those claims. Let’s examine it. Ensuring that gas remains a transition fuel: the reality is entirely different, and they know that because their own regulatory impact statement for the bill tells them that. Paragraph 37 tells them that “Exploration activity in New Zealand has been declining since 2014, before the 2018 ban on new petroleum exploration outside onshore Taranaki. This is consistent with global trends in upstream oil and gas”. They have, in black and white, the fact that gas production in New Zealand had been declining.

They need to face reality. There is no guarantee that investors will come—their own advice tells them that—and there is no guarantee that anything will be found. Even then, if they did find something, it takes on average of 16 years to take it from exploration to production. Any crocodile tears and claims that we hear about how this is an immediate panacea for our energy situation are simply false. It will be 2040, at a minimum, before we would see any of the gas from the reversal of this ban. But the Minister has come up with a plan, and what he sees is the fact that internationally people are not investing in new oil and gas. It simply isn’t here in New Zealand, and it hasn’t been commercially viable for a couple of decades. The Minister has a plan, and that has been cooking up what inducements he can offer to offshore multinational big oil and gas companies to come to New Zealand. When his officials told him that he couldn’t really use the taxpayers’ dime to underwrite the risk for these multinational companies to come to New Zealand, he’s gone back to the playbook of Muldoon, and he’s said he wants to put in place Muldoon-esque 30-year offtake gas agreements—once again putting the New Zealand taxpayer at risk.

Make absolutely no illusions, this bill is the wish list of the oil and gas industry. This is not the wish list of the New Zealand public. This is not putting New Zealand first. Certainly, the Minister’s plans around decommissioning are once again putting New Zealand taxpayers on the hook for the hundreds of millions of dollars that it cost to clean up big oil and gas’s mess after Tui, and they are once again going to be on play, because this is a Government that is beholden to the oil and gas industry. They do not have New Zealanders’ interests at heart; they have the big end of town’s.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. If we are to have a future on this planet, the oil and gas industry and the coal industry must have no future. Now, is it convenient to transition our energy system from the means by which we have powered most of the world for the last 200 years? No, it is not convenient. Is it something we do for a laugh? No, it is not something we do for a laugh. It is something we do because the science of climate change—which the other side of the House are in rabid denial of—tells us that we have to move away from oil, gas, and coal.

Now, the Minister spoke about the rights of the industry. What about the rights of future generations to a livable planet? The head of the United Nations, António Guterres, talks about us sentencing future generations to untold human suffering. That will be the consequence if we do not avert the worst effects of global heating by the end of the century, when we start heading towards 3 degrees of heating. That is why we must make a transition. I absolutely agree with the Minister that this is not about New Zealand being on some personal crusade—far from it. In fact, we are an absolute laggard in terms of reducing our gross emissions. We are way behind many countries in the world on doing this. It’s actually about us being part of the global community and addressing this existential global threat.

In regard to the reinstatement of oil and gas exploration, it is very important that we give a very clear message to the industry. That message to the industry is that it should be on notice that the consents granted during a climate emergency by this Government to oil and gas exploration will be revoked by a future Green Government.

Sam Uffindell: Vandals.

STEVE ABEL: That is—vandals. It’s interesting that the party that wants to vandalise the functional viability of the atmosphere on which all humanity and, in fact, all life on Earth depends, by continuing to pollute it with carbon dioxide, is calling those of us who want to stop the destruction of the viability of life on Earth the vandals. In fact, that’s exactly what we’re here to do: to stop the vandalism.

One thing that industry needs is a certainty in terms of their political future. I had the privilege of being part of the seven-year campaign against offshore oil and gas exploration. What I can tell you is that, one by one, the companies that came to this country were chased out of this country by alliances between members of the public, non-government organisations, and tangata whenua Māori—beginning with Te Whānau-ā-Apanui on the East Coast against Petrobras. The gentleman from Petrobras was so moved to tears by the commitment of the iwi at the top of the East Cape when he went there to meet them that he said that in the 20 nations where Petrobras operates, it had never encountered such resistance as it did in Aotearoa New Zealand to their oil drilling, and Petrobras left. Ngāi Tahu chased Anadarko away from prospects off Kaikōura. Likewise, Ngāpuhi sent Statoil packing. These companies, one by one, departed New Zealand, even before the ban came into place in 2018. This is a distant prospect. New Zealand is a terrible prospect because there is no political future in oil and gas exploration, and there is no future for any of us if we do not bring an end to it and move to clean energy.

What I also want to speak to briefly in the time remaining is how destabilising it is for industry in this country to have these massive flips in the wrong direction by a reactionary Government like this, because industry do want us to be in a general trajectory towards clean energy, towards actual sustainability, rather than destruction of nature and destruction of the climate for the profit of a handful of industries.

What I would say to the Minister is that it feels like the decisions are being made by older men who condemn future generation to that untold human suffering that the head of the United Nations warned us of. We absolutely condemn this bill. We will certainly be voting against it. When there is a Green Government at some time in the near future, perhaps in a couple of years from now, we will reinstate the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration, we will invest in renewable energy, which is what we need, and we will revoke any permits issued by the Luxon Government. The industry is on notice. Thank you.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Nothing says “buy now, pay later” like Labour’s announcement of 2018 that they were going to ban oil and gas exploration. Kiwis are paying for that announcement now in high energy bills, factory closures, and jobs being lost in the regions. Thanks, Labour.

When I heard that news, I was working as a civil engineer, and I couldn’t believe it. I thought, “That’s insane. What country in the world would pull the rug out of its energy industry, which supports industry, businesses, jobs, livelihoods, and people?” Well, the former Labour Government was that insane. No Government in the world has said they care so little about progress and people that, instead of promoting the use of minerals and resources that make people wealthier, they would just manage them—whatever that means—but that’s what the previous Government did.

It was that issue, amongst many others, that led me to ACT and led me to this Parliament. That is why I’m so proud to be here today supporting this bill, a bill that ACT campaigned on, and the policy changes that are in the ACT-National coalition agreement: to update the Crown Minerals Act, to restore its role as promoting the use of Crown minerals, to explore the potential for a critical minerals list, where such minerals would have a preferential pathway to access—that’s a separate piece of work that Minister Jones, the Minister for Resources, is undertaking with my support—and to repeal the ban on offshore gas exploration.

Now, I know this is going to trigger the anti-progress, anti-human lynch mob in the Green Party and their military wing, Greenpeace, but they should know that the ACT Party and the coalition Government are actually doing this for them, because ACT supports mining so that the Green Party and Greenpeace can have mobile phones. We don’t agree with them live streaming the thuggish behaviour when they locked up all of those terrified people at Straterra’s office yesterday, but we still want them to have a mobile phone. That’s why we support and promote the use of minerals. We support removing the ban on oil and gas exploration so that the Green MPs and their mates in Greenpeace can fly around on jet planes to climate conferences and back and forth to Parliament every week. We want the Green Party and Greenpeace to have the same benefits that we think all New Zealanders should have access to. That is what oil and gas and mined minerals deliver for all of our society.

New Zealanders need better jobs, they need higher incomes, the businesses they work for need to get back on the productivity cycle, and that is what mining minerals and oil and gas for energy and raw materials offers New Zealand. New Zealanders who wonder how they’re going to get ahead in life and are thinking about a career in mining or the oil and gas industry will have another option. Until now, it’s been, “How much is a plane ticket to Australia?” We want them to have an option to be able to work in these highly skilled, high-paid industries right here in New Zealand, particularly in the regions and the provinces where they might choose to live because that’s where they and their families feel comfortable.

New Zealanders need more certainty about gas supply, and that is what repealing the ban on oil and gas exploration offers. Increasing the availability of natural gas means that manufacturing and high-paid jobs are more secure. It means that businesses can invest with confidence when they can obtain the energy and the raw materials they need in their supply chain. It means that New Zealand is more resilient to energy and supply chain crises, such as we experienced during the COVID lockdown period. It means that household energy bills are more affordable than without indigenous natural gas. Nothing says this coalition Government is delivering real change like repealing the ban on oil and gas exploration and promoting the use of Crown minerals.

I’m proud to support this bill on behalf of the ACT Party and all the New Zealanders who voted for this coalition Government. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): On behalf of the National Party, we will be supporting this bill, the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. A significant part of this bill reverses the ban on oil and gas that was made in 2018, which we believe, along with ACT, was harmful for our economy, harmful for our environment, and harmful for our energy sector.

This bill is about energy security. It’s about economic growth, improving productivity, lowering the cost of living, and helping us transition to a low-carbon future. It is good news for the people of Northcote who rely on energy and have concerns about cost of living, it is good news for the businesses in Northcote who rely on a high amount of energy to meet their production needs, and it is good news for the people of Northcote who are concerned about New Zealand’s transition to a low-carbon future.

I look forward to the select committee process as a member of the hard-working Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and I commend this bill to the House.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero a Te Pāti Māori mō tēnei o ngā ture e kīia nei ko te Crown Minerals Amendment Bill.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to us all. I stand to give voice to the comments of Te Pāti Māori about this particular legislation known as the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill.]

We lovingly call it the “Ram-raiding Truck and Trailer Bill”. This bill and the takutai moana bill are a truck and trailer straight into iwi coastlines all around the country. As I plot my way around the coasts of this country—Ngāi Tahu, the bottom of the south, ngā iwi o Te Tauihu—they are all not interested. Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Porou, the whole eastern seaboard—not interested. Whakatōhea had to deal with Rena—not interested. Tīkapa, you know, Hauraki—not interested. Mariameno’s crew, Te Tai Tokerau—not interested. All the way down to Taranaki—not interested. Gee—not interested. It’s a lot of not interested iwi.

The bill aims to lift the ban on offshore oil and gas, the opening up of onshore exploration across the country and even in Department of Conservation (DOC) land. DOC land—I mean, come on! DOC land—really? Clean, green New Zealand, Aotearoa skiing, and all of that, shiny rivers—all up for grabs, pretty much. The Government talks about the declining reserves. Well, surely if you had declining reserves, you’d be really focused on a transition plan, rather than a “We’re going gas to 2050” plan, like old Mr Jones wants us to believe. A transition to renewable energy should be the focus, not just fossil fuels and maintaining the status quo, but you guys are keen on the status quo—we all see that.

Additionally, if I reflect on Te Pāti Māori policy, the statement says to end new onshore oil and gas permits, withdraw existing onshore and offshore oil and gas permits within five years, and aim to decommission sites by 2030. Here’s the rationale. The rationale is that Māori have been the vanguard, at the front of resisting international big oil and seismic testing interest in our coastlines, and all of those iwis I just described have all put up fierce defensive action over the last 10 years. So who are they?

Well, in 2011 Te Whānau-ā-Apanui stood up. If you don’t know where Te Whānau-ā-Apanui is, it’s where Rawiri’s from. They stood up and pushed back against Petrobras deep-sea oil exploration, and they won. They buggered off. That’s in the Raukumara Basin, if you’re wondering about it—for all the fishos in Aotearoa, that’s the blue fin run, right? In 2013, Sir Mark Solomon led the opposition against Anadarko’s arrival in Kaikōura—seismic testing. So Ngāi Tahu, Sir/Tā Mark Solomon, not interested in it.

In 2015, the hapū of Tai Tokerau, where Mariameno’s from, resisted the deep-sea oil exploration of Statoil, and in 2016, my home iwi of Ngāti Kahungunu, the eastern seaboard of this country—their rohe starts just over the hill, over there and goes all the way up to Māhia. They launched in protest against one of the biggest seismic blasting ships, the Amazon Warrior. They launched their waka hourua fleet to sail out to sea on a vessel that’s powered by wind and that’s travelled to Rarotonga, Tahiti, Hawaii, San Francisco, San Diego, all the way down to Mexico, out to the Galapagos, across to the Solomon Islands, and anywhere else in the world you want to go. That’s where that one’s been, with no power. They stood up and pushed back against those foreign interests, and they’re all foreign interests.

None of these big companies are from Aotearoa. None of the money they propose to make is going to stay here. It’s going to go overseas, and they’re all getting a kai and kōrero with Matua Shane down there.

After that, in 2018, in Wairarapa, my cousins on that Matau a Māui, the waka Hourua, stood up and did a big haka, like literally. They opened up the airwaves on Channel 16 so everyone could hear, and they did a haka from Kahungunu. It’s called Tika Tonu, and they knew the fullas on that ship would hear. After that, that led to 80 coastal hapū signing a declaration, unanimously rejecting exploration that was ratified by the national iwi chairs to oppose all seismic testing and oil exploration in Aotearoa. I doubt Shane has talked to any of them. So you can see why we oppose it. Yeah, we oppose it.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of National in support of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. The purpose of this bill is to remove the ban on new petroleum exploration outside onshore Taranaki, and the reason that we’re doing this is to wind back the tokenistic, virtue-signalling effect from the previous Government that put our energy systems at risk.

This ban has had a lag effect, which we’ve all felt this winter. Our economy needs energy. The price of gas has skyrocketed as a result of the restricted supply, and that hurts industry, and that hurts working people that that side of the House is supposed to support. In order to transition to a greener economy, we must do that in a way that keeps the lights on and keeps the economy running. On our side of the House, we are focused on emissions reduction and meeting that target by 2050, but we know that pragmatic change needs to be done in a way that can be accepted and supported by most people. We are driving a bus, not a bulldozer. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to discuss this disgraceful Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. There are three things I want to cover in my short contribution: firstly, a climate change issue; secondly, the liability changes in this; and then, thirdly, the purpose of the Act that this bill would be amending.

Going first to climate change, I want us to spend a moment going back to 2018 when the ban was first put in place. Of course, this was two years after the Paris Agreement, and we have to get real about reducing our emissions. That is something that the National Government signed up to, and I would like to remind National members of that commitment. The year 2018 was before the zero carbon Act and all that bipartisan work that went on in this House before I was privileged enough to be here. All our climate change assessments were based on the fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report. This was before the Climate Change Commission, and it was before our emissions reductions plans. A lot of work happened in those six years—a lot of work to get real about our climate emissions, our energy work, and our energy use, and to decrease those emissions, not just by offsetting but by actual decarbonisation, which is of critical importance.

What have we seen since November when this Government took office? Well, of course, we’ve seen the abolishment of the CERF, the Climate Emergency Response Fund, and that funded a whole lot of decarbonisation measures. Instead of talking about mitigation measures, all we hear from this Government are little bits and pieces to do with adaptation and planting pine trees, nothing to reduce our emissions. What’s happened to conservation measures for energy installation? Gone. What about half-price public transport—getting people out of cars? That’s gone, too. In fact, this whole Government’s raison d’être seems to be to have more petrol cars on the road, and it is disgraceful. Because of this, we’re now justifying—or the Government, not this side of the House at all—gas, a fossil fuel. It’s got to be transitional. I remind everyone that this ban came into place in 2018, six years ago, and there has been a lot of transitional movement, and this Government needs to continue with that decarbonisation rather than just putting their head in the sand and saying, “Oh, we need to continue with gas exploration.” In 2024, exploring for gas is simply backwards.

Now, we talk about liability. There are some changes in this bill that seem rather peculiar, and that is that the Minister wants to stop the requirement for financial instruments and instead rely on perpetual liability. If you have a lot of gas being explored and you have a plant—and it needs to be decommissioned at some point—we know that that is expensive. We know that the Government had to fork out $443 million for the Tui oil field, for that amount of work, and that is not fair for the New Zealand taxpayers—that could, instead, have that public transport, have that insulation—to be paying for somebody else’s pollution—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Hospitals and schools.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Hospitals and schools, even. There are so many opportunities for what you could do with $443 million that the taxpayer should not be paying. Perpetual liability doesn’t work if the company—if the offending company—that has created the pollution has gone bankrupt. That is why you have financial instruments, such as bonds, to avoid that possibility.

I hope that there are many submissions on this particular point, because, again, it just seems like a total backward step, as does changing the purpose of the Act back to promoting more oil and gas rather than managing it. This is a clear shift in emphasis to financial gain over environmental stewardship. This is totally consistent with everything else that this Government is doing, where the economy—a very short-term view of the economy, not a long-term view—overrides any of our environmental protections. It will only make our economy worse.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Natural gas is critical to our energy security. Without gas, we’ve got to rely on more expensive Indonesian coal brought in from overseas—other sources of energy. I have seen firsthand the devastating effect of not having a reliable and affordable energy supply. I’ve seen the devastating effect of the deindustrialisation of rural New Zealand with the closure of Winstone Pulp and the loss of 170 jobs.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Go beyond your talking points.

SUZE REDMAYNE: Don’t you care? The devastating social and economic impact on Raetihi, Ohakune, and Taihape—in fact, the impact of it across the Rangitīkei. We’ve also seen the trickle-down effects—the Napier Port profit warning. Yesterday, KiwiRail announced the loss of jobs directly as a result of the closure of Winstone Pulp.

This bill gives confidence to industry, it will foster economic development, it will grow New Zealand, and it’ll give us surety of supply. Affordable and reliable energy—that is what we need, and it is a vital part of our plan to get New Zealand back on track.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): The previous speaker, Suze Redmayne, just talked about deindustrialisation of regional jobs and asked if we cared. Well, we care, and that is why in 2018 the decision was made. It was around certainty, and it was around looking to the future. The future was one we’ve all agreed to, which Sir John Key signed up to, which was around decarbonising our economy. Making that very clear back in 2018 was around how we move forward from here.

The Rt Hon Dame Jacinda Ardern said that the transition to a zero-carbon economy must start somewhere. We began that in 2018, and we were getting on with it, and now that’s all being peeled back. Why? I live in Taranaki. I live in the place that this has impacted the most. It was around creating certainty for the future, because at some stage, someone has to flick the switch and say, “We are going to move forward.” We didn’t ban. We, of course, didn’t reissue any new offshore permits. Obviously, we continued with onshore—that continued—but it was around creating certainty for our transition, because, as we know, there are many, many consented renewable energy projects that are ready to go. There are things that we can be doing.

I just want to make a quote, and it says this: “Today is a historic day because there’s been a clear line of sight as to what happens when three parties come together for a common purpose.” That was the Hon Shane Jones back in April of 2018. Obviously things have changed, and he’s found some new friends, and he’s flipped the lid, but the challenge I have in this is the fact that he spoke around things like his mokopuna, around the challenge for them and their future, and what he was doing back in 2018 for their safety and for their future. We’ve got countries like Ireland and Spain and France and Greenland and Denmark and New Zealand, for a little bit longer, who have made commitments around ending oil and gas exploration.

There’s a lot of stuff going on in this legislation, and obviously we are specifically talking about oil and gas, but if you look at the reintroduction of offshore permits and you look at the change to the decommissioning, of course, this Government, the taxpayers, you and I, the people on the streets of the towns you live in, have spent almost half a billion dollars—almost half a billion dollars—in the decommissioning of the Tui oil field, which was an action that was taken by a company that upped sticks and left, and left us in the lurch. We created regimes around the decommissioning, which, again, are about to be repealed. There are also the amendments to the purpose we’ve talked about but also to small-scale gold mines, which I’m curious to know about.

Finally, I’m listening to some of the comments that were made in the departmental report and other statements on the Table, and some Taranaki iwi are concerned around this. We need to heed and listen because there is a lot going on, on the Government’s side of the House, which really is an attack on iwi. I look here in terms of the general explanatory notes around removing the restrictions on access to conservation land on onshore Taranaki. Now, we need to delve into this more and understand this, because I know that the people of Taranaki do not want that. I know that the majority of people in Taranaki are on the journey—are on our 2050 road map—to a low-carbon economy and are working with things like green hydrogen, things like offshore wind, things like solar, and things like biofuels. Those are spaces and opportunities that we can take, and we should take, to ensure that we decarbonise, that we are good ancestors in this House, and that we make courageous decisions in 2018—that we make courageous decisions today, potentially—and cross the floor and support the stopping of this piece of legislation.

Now, is anyone going to come back and start digging for oil and gas? Well, the fact that the last major discovery was in the year 2000—the last major discovery was in the year 2000—I think not. I think we are looking for better ways; we’re looking to innovate. We set that standard in 2018 around looking to the future for the sake of Taranaki, for the sake of the nation, and for the sake of us moving forward to decarbonising and finding new ways to fuel Aotearoa New Zealand.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Look, I just want to talk about this facepalm moment from 2018 that we are here to correct. This facepalm moment was a foresight of the fact that the plan hadn’t been made properly. What we were doing then, which we are undoing now, was the inability to plan for the future, a future which now we see has companies like Pan Pac uncertain about how they can proceed—$800 a megawatt in one week to $9.38 the next. This is unmanageable and untenable.

Now, the most astounding thing is that members opposite won’t even support our Fast-track Approvals Bill, which is going to help us get renewable energy built faster. We need to do both of these things so that we don’t have an absolutely unmanageable and untenable energy sector and energy crisis in New Zealand. This is important. We have these natural resources, and to go and ban them in the first place, to make us have to go back and do this as we are now, while fast tracking the ability to build these renewable energy sites—whether it’s wonderful wind farms, solar farms, hydroelectric, geothermal. This is important for us to do. This is important for us to do, and we need to make sure that we do this quickly alongside other measures to reach our targets. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill be considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Instruction to Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): I move, That the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 31 October 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

The reasons for asking the House to agree to a shortened select committee process are the same as the reasons why the bill is needed at all. This is to address our current gas supply issues and high prices. Without more investment in existing and new fields, these issues will continue to plague us. It’s the view of the Government that it’s essential this bill is enacted as soon as possible. It remains desirable for it to undergo, however, a select committee scrutiny, albeit briefly.

To enable the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to meet the deadline that we are setting, the motion also includes the usual arranged permissions to meet at times outside of the parameters normally allowed by the Standing Orders. The motion will also give the select committee the flexibility to hear from submitters around the country. Naturally, I wish the committee well in its work. I’m advised that there is a great esprit de corps within the wairua of the committee, and I hope that these proposals enable the bill to be advanced expeditiously to the advantage of the public. Thank you, sir.

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

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in favour of the amendment tabled by my colleague Glen Bennett, which has suggested a more appropriate report-back date, being 17 March, and not just because it’s Saint Patrick’s Day, but because it would give us six months to consider this. I want the House to consider the breadth of this bill.

Not only is this bill bringing back the ability to grant offshore petroleum permits; this bill also covers off decommissioning regimes. It also is changing the purpose of the Crown Minerals Act, and it is also addressing some regulatory issues in regard to coalmining. This is a large piece of legislation that is making multiple changes that are going to require more than the paltry weeks that the Minister for Resources is asking for the bill to be reported back in. It is insufficient time for stakeholders to prepare submissions. One only has to look at the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that has been prepared—in fact, the two regulatory impact statements that have been prepared—to sit alongside this piece of legislation to understand the detail and the complexity that sit within this proposed legislative change.

We’re told by the Minister that this has to move at pace because we need it to address the current electricity crisis we’re in. The Minister knows there is a 16-year lag between exploration and production of oil and gas permits in New Zealand—that is how long. So if the Minister thinks that 16 years is a quick fix to what we’re currently seeing in our energy sector, then I have serious doubts about the Minister’s ability to come up with solutions. Giving submitters five more months to consider the implications of this in the context of a 16-year—and remember that’s on average—lag between exploration and production I think shows that the Minister hasn’t considered actually what part this legislation is going to play in any solutions. I think that is exactly the kind of thing that submitters need to be able to have the time to look at in detail.

One of the things that we’re continually told, for example, and I’m sure that submitters will want adequate time to go through the data on, is that the 2018 ban on oil and gas exploration has had a chilling impact on investment in the existing exploration permits that we’re allowed to continue. Now, I’ve had a first look at the data that sits on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website, which shows the investment in permits. It shows the investments in wells, and what we can see is that, actually, in that period of time, there’s been $1.3 billion that has been invested in existing permits and in existing wells. I would posit to members that I think it will be in the interest of many stakeholders to go through and consider that if we’ve already had $1.3 billion invested in those existing wells and permits in the period of time since 2018, maybe it is demonstrable that there just isn’t this El Dorado of oil and gas sitting offshore that this Government considers to be the answer. These are serious problems that are posited for our country in terms of what this legislating is seeking to fix.

Within the regulatory impact statement for this legislation, it is clear that officials have been telling the Government and have been telling responsible Ministers that many of the assumptions they are making are simply not correct. Officials are making it really clear in the advice they’re providing that actually there has been a decline in the production and investment of oil and gas in New Zealand since 2014. That was way before we had the legislative change in 2018. This is because we’re not seeing commercial finds in New Zealand; in fact, there hasn’t been a commercial offshore new find in New Zealand since the early 2000s.

It’s also following international patterns, as the RIS points out—and submitters are going to want to engage with this. Around the world we’re seeing Governments and, more importantly, we’re seeing commercial entities realise that their future is not in fossil fuels of the past but in being energy companies of the future. In the time that we were in Government, the six years in Government, we saw Statoil, which was the State oil and gas company of Norway, transform into Equinor, away from being an oil and gas company to being a company that invested in energy, renewable energy. It knows that its future and the economic prosperity in the future lie there.

One of the areas that we’ll want engagement on, which we heard the Minister address in his speech when he introduced the legislation—and I know that submitters will want to be heard on this—he talked about the fact that moving away from the fossil fuels of the past will lead us to deindustrialisation. I think there will be a lot of groups, not least our unions, that will want to engage with this. These are unions that have seen things like the initiatives that the previous Government put in place, like the partnership that we put in place with New Zealand Steel to co-invest with them in the technology of the future, to move them away from fossil fuels. Those unions and the representatives of those workers and those workers know that the way to shore up their jobs and to ensure that they have well paid, meaningful, skilled work into the future is to ensure that we are keeping up with the future.

One of the things that submitters will want to engage with and want to have the chance to have a say on is that if we say that fossil fuels are our future—be that oil, be that coal, or be that gas—we are consigning New Zealanders to a future of the most expensive energy that we can think of producing. Instead, I want to hear and engage with submitters and with stakeholders about the potential for the least-cost energy and electricity that we can produce in New Zealand, and that is renewable energy.

I also want to hear from stakeholders—and I want to hear from submitters about what is the fastest way for us to make sure that we do have that security of supply. Is it through a form of energy in terms of looking for new oil and gas—which we know on average takes 16 years to move from exploration to production—or is it the faster deployment of things like solar and batteries? We already know that it is a far cheaper way for us to deliver energy to New Zealanders, but I want to hear from stakeholders in the course of this select committee process about what that means for our security of supply, what it means for the fact that we can make sure that we are providing New Zealanders with that certainty and with that security, and how we can work with more companies like New Zealand Steel to ensure that they have their certainty and security to invest not only in new technology.

This is the kind of thing stakeholders will want to engage on when they come to this. They will want to have that conversation about what are the ways we protect the jobs of the future and what are the ways we ensure that New Zealand does have an industrial future, because it sure isn’t through oil and gas exploration. We have no idea if there’s anything out there, we have no idea whether anyone will come and invest in it, and I want to hear from stakeholders and submitters what they think about the ideas the Government has been punting up about investing New Zealand’s taxpayer money in providing incentives and inducements to multinational offshore companies to come and de-risk their business in New Zealand so that they can take their profits offshore.

I want to hear from stakeholders about whether we should be investing in New Zealanders and in their jobs here at home, or whether we should be giving corporate welfare to multinational oil and gas companies, because I know what we on this side of the House will pick every day of the week, and this is a conversation that we need to have with stakeholders as we come to consider this bill. Reporting back by the end of October is certainly not enough time to have the conversations just about this one aspect of the bill that I’ve covered here. Even leaving aside decommissioning, even leaving aside the purpose statement of the bill, and even leaving aside the changes to goldmining legislation, there is complexity in this legislation, and we do need that six-month period to adequately consider it as a Parliament.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I beseech you, this is a very narrow question we’re addressing. Standing Order 112 requires your stewardship to ensure the contributions are focused on the wording of the question. What we’ve hear is a recitation of a speech that has already been imposed upon the House this afternoon—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): OK, Mr Jones, let me cut you short. If you’ve been listening, you would have actually seen this quite experienced member frequently reverted back to the reason around timing of this. I was listening very carefully for it—I suggest you do the same.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I move, That the motion be amended to replace the words “31 October 2024” with “17 March 2025”.

The reason, as my colleague has already alluded to, is the complexity, and we’ve heard from the Minister that this is simple, this is just a process, and there’s not much going on here. But when you look at the legislation and you look at the different elements of the legislation, I reckon some of this is by stealth.

One of the points I want to pick up—and it is why we need to have a full select committee process—is around goldmining, because I don’t believe the Minister or any of the Government members even alluded to it in the first reading speech. That’s important because there are things around shorelines and there are comments around riverbeds and the foreshore. We don’t fully understand the implications of this, so I’m imagining that since this was tabled, the informed public is frantically reading and trying to understand the legislation, but we need a fuller process because of the tier 3 permits on goldmining in order to understand this better. But OK, that goes on. Obviously, the offshore permits have continued to be discussed and debated, but, as we’ve talked about in earlier bills and legislation today, it’s really about the trust in this institution—the trust in Parliament—and the fact that we need to take people with us.

Now, I feel like with the fact we have just a 31 October report-back date, what that’s going to mean is that few people will have a chance to submit and those submissions might not be as fulsome as they would be if there was more time given—for example, a full six-month period. Also it’s around making sure that if this is the way the Government is going—and obviously it is—the t’s are crossed and the i’s are dotted, because it is in many ways relitigating and re-bringing up things that we have been through this House time and time again since 2018. For my representation in Taranaki, I need time and I know the people of Taranaki need time to dig into the legislation to form their opinions and views, and then be able to put those opinions and views and evidence on paper.

Hon Nicola Grigg: Have you ever met anyone that lives in Taranaki?

GLEN BENNETT: Someone just said, “Have I ever met anyone who lives in Taranaki?” Well, that’s funny because, yes, I have; it’s where I live. In fact, it’s where my family lives. In fact, it’s where I go to the supermarket.

I’m going to stick to the bill. I’m not getting into an argument, Mr Speaker, because I know this is very, very narrow. It is a fact that, as I get around New Plymouth, there are few people who are singing praises for this announcement that came earlier in the year. People are concerned and people need to make sure that they can have their say. If we want to ensure the trust in this institution and if we want to ensure the fact that people actually at least vaguely get to engage in this, then we need to extend the period.

Now, I have no issue with it going to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee (EDSI). I believe that is probably a good committee to go to. In fact, I note that the previous Minister, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, sent it to the exact same committee back in the 52nd, 53rd Parliament or whatever it was in 2018—

Camilla Belich: The 52nd.

GLEN BENNETT: The 52nd—thank you. They were able to litigate, they were able to listen, they were able to be informed on this, and so that’s why I have no issue with it going to EDSI, but it is around timing. I mean, there are four key things which you can’t really do. I’m guessing it’ll be a two-week process for submissions in terms of, as the Hon Megan Woods said earlier, around not only the offshore permits and how massive that is with the decommissioning—that’s huge. There is the change from “managed” to “promote” and the implications of that, and then of course there are the small-scale goldmines, which I’m still really struggling with.

Finally, because this is in the Crown minerals bill on the Table—and, of course, I’ll get to that as well—it’s around the Government policy statements on this. New section 12—and, again, we’ve got to work through this and understand it, so I guess that the public does as well, which needs time—allows the Minister to issue one or more Government policy statements at any time with the purpose of this around the Government’s objectives and priority in relation to the mining of Crown-owned minerals. This is giving, again, power to a Minister to be able to make these decisions, and we need to be able to engage in a select committee process. The public needs to be able to engage in that space.

Then, of course, I did speak about it before, but this is the one which I am struggling to understand, and forgive me if I’ve read this wrong and I’m confused, but that’s why I believe we need time. It is around conservation land and conservation land in Taranaki. Now, as I look at, I think it was clauses 31 and 32 of this bill—if I flick through, it talks about the restricted access to Taranaki conservation land, and it also amends in clause 32 access arrangements in respect of Crown land and land in common marine and coastal areas. Then it drops in around tier 3, which brings us back to the goldmining. So there is a lot. You know, we get from the other side of the House “Oh, this is just basic, it’s just flipping things around.”, and all that kind of thing, but it actually is complicated. It is complex, and it changes everything.

Of course, being a loyal resident of Taranaki, we’ve had these hard conversations before, and it has not been easy. When I was the local MP, it was not easy turning up to the boardrooms of the energy industries and speaking with them, but I know that I’ve turned up at those conversations. When we look at our young people, for example, I know our young people will be wanting to make submissions on this. I’ll just note that this Friday, I believe, is the student strike for climate—

Hon Shane Jones: Oh, more woke stuff.

GLEN BENNETT: —and it’s woke; it’s absolutely woke. If woke is being awake and being informed, then I am proud to be woke today. The question is that this Government—not only the previous Government but the Government that sits in the Treasury benches today—has made a huge commitment to Parihaka. Funding has been put in from this Government, and I’m glad to say thank you to the Government—can’t believe I said that—but thank you for the fact that they have recently put more funding into infrastructure in Parihaka, which is a village within my community. What are the implications for a community that is looking to restore itself, to regenerate itself, but also fierce advocates for legislation for ensuring that it’s done right and, around conservation and conservation land, which they sit on?

I know that the Minister’s already made his statement on this and around meeting, but I believe that the select committee should actually go to Parihaka. I believe they should actually sit on the marae there, in fact, sit on all three marae at Parihaka and have this conversation because they have been fiercely supportive of the previous Government and decarbonisation. They have been world leaders, in fact. Back in the 19th century, what they were doing around land protection, mitigation in the future.

So I litigate all these things and I know that it feels like I’ve moved around a bit, but that is because this is so complicated; this is so complicated, and I fear the fact we just flick the switch and go back to 2017. It’s going to be different; it’s going to be a challenge. I believe that we also need to do this and do good diligence because, as the Minister said in his speech, but also he said in the motion he’s just moved, it’s around New Zealand being open for business. How do we make sure we do this cautiously? How do we make sure we do this carefully, because the challenge is, evidently, the world is watching. They want to make sure that we are creating good laws; they’re making sure we are a good democracy. They’re wanting to make sure that we are consulting and engaging our people in terms of this.

The reason I brought up Parihaka and the reason I brought up iwi earlier is because it’s not a tick-box exercise, and we can’t just expect 31 October to come along, and suddenly we’ve made it. “We sent an email.”, which I often hear from hapū and iwi groups in Parihaka. “Oh, we sent them an email. We didn’t hear anything. We did this.” But it’s actually face to face—it’s connecting with people—and this legislation, I believe, is a moment in time. This is a pivotal point in terms of where we go as a nation, and this isn’t something we can just play around with and expect next month for it all to be signed, sealed, and delivered.

This is concerning. We have to consider the fact that we need to have a full select committee process on this legislation.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Members, the question before the House for debate is that the amendment be agreed to. The amendment is now debatable together with the motion.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I speak on both the original referral motion and also our colleague Glen Bennett’s amendment, I would also like to move an amendment. I move, That the motion be amended to remove the words “and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside of the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196”.

Before I speak to my amendment, I would just like to address the original referral motion and subsequent amendment that Mr Glen Bennett has put forward. Looking at this bill, the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill, first of all the original referral motion has a report-back date of 31 October. That is less than five weeks away, in which all of the consultation, the writing of the report, and the hearing of evidence must take place. We have actually been debating referral motions quite a few times in the House over the last few weeks, and for bills of various lengths. This is not a short bill. In fact, it’s 26 pages. That’s substantial, and we’re only giving the New Zealand public five weeks, fewer than that if you’re including the time needed to write reports, to consult on this incredibly important issue.

There are a couple of things that we need to touch on when we are looking at this, and yet, I won’t mention the points that the previous speaker mentioned, around the nuance of the energy requirement, the 16-year gap it takes to set things up, our energy crisis, etc., but one of the things I would like to address, from an energy perspective, is that this bill has enormous ramifications, both in terms of the agriculture and fishing industries in Taranaki—we have heard previously that there is a conflict of interest between some of the ministerial portfolios—but also, even if we are only purely looking at an energy perspective, Taranaki is one of the areas that is currently being reviewed for offshore wind farms. Regardless of what the members or anyone thinks about offshore wind energy, it is one of the sustainable energy sources that is currently being investigated. By looking at that and by allowing something like this to happen, what we are actually doing, despite what we’ve been hearing in the House, is that we are pitting non-renewable energy, such as oil and gas, up against possibilities of renewable energy, such as offshore wind farms. That is not something that you can tease out within five weeks.

In addition to that, there’s another angle to this, just to give you an example of the complexity and of what is needed beyond the five-week requirement that has been mentioned in the referral motion. One of our biggest investment funds, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, also invests in offshore wind energy, particularly around Taranaki. Now, this particular investment fund is looking at our future, looking at our seniors or our elders when they retire. This is the funding that we’re hoping to use to address some of the issues that we have, so that people can live in dignity when they are older. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund invests in options and investigates opportunities such as offshore wind energy in Taranaki. By putting something like this through without proper consultation, only giving five weeks or fewer for consultation, it means that we are actually jeopardising one of our biggest, if not the biggest, investment funds, the Government investment fund here in Aotearoa, which looks at our elders and our future living as well.

This is an incredibly complex issue that goes beyond the bill itself, which needs to be addressed. That’s the first thing. The second thing that I would like to address, in terms of—

Tim van de Molen: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am just trying to seek some clarity. As I understood, the member at the start of his speech moved an amendment to the original motion. Now, I understand there’s already an amendment that has been moved by the previous speaker, Glen Bennett, and Speakers’ ruling 64/1 notes that a separate amendment may not be moved when there is one under consideration. There could be an amendment to that first amendment, but not an amendment to the main motion itself. The member, as I believe, moved an amendment to the main motion, which is out of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’ll just get some advice on that. I will continue to get some more advice on that, but, if the member could speak to that amendment, that would be helpful.

Camilla Belich: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just speaking to that point of order, this is now the third, I think, referral motion that we’ve debated in recent days, if not the last day, consistently within the House. In that period of time, the Speakers in the Chair have allowed motions to be moved to the original motion and for those to be debated. I accept the assurance in the member’s point of order, but that has not been the practice of the House over the last few referral motions.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Yes, I understand that, but, I guess, the advice that I’m trying to get is whether Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan is amending the amendment or amending the motion. They’re two kind of separate things, but I do take your point that we’ve gone through a number of these, and there is the ability to put amendments. It’s whether those amendments apply to amendments to motions. I’ll get Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan to continue until I can get some advice about the point that Mr Tim van de Molen brought up.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and yes, clarification around that would be very much appreciated by the House. When we are also looking at the other issues around having a much shortened select committee process, we also need to consider some of the bigger complexities around our obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi as well, in terms of consultation with the local hapū and iwi. I think this is also incredibly crucial in the context of Taranaki.

I would like to now draw on the third part of the concern that I have with the original motion, before speaking to Mr Glen Bennett’s amendment, which is the fact that the changes will allow the responsible Minister—so it allows, essentially, one responsible Minister—to receive and assess the applications. Again, from a position as the legislature scrutinising and providing those checks and balances on the executive, it also doesn’t give the select committee and the New Zealand public sufficient time to determine whether that alone is the right move to make. When we are looking at this, this is not simply that we need to meet a particular deadline. This is not about efficiency. This is akin to tyranny, to be honest.

Moving on to the amendment being proposed by Glen Bennett, we do support the move to extend the select committee process to 17 March 2025. I believe that, for something as serious as this, it does require a full six-month select committee process, considering the magnitude of this bill. We will be in support of that. We may also propose different suggestions for dates, because that is on the basis that we’re looking at exactly six months—actually, a little bit less than six months, because it’s not the 17th today.

Moving on to my amendments—and, again, this is something that we have seen in previous referral motions, when they have the stock standard phrase on the exclusion of Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. But, for those three, there’s no reason to exclude these three Standing Orders when we are looking at the select committee process. If we do undertake a proper consultation process, which is six months long, there is absolutely no reason why we should be sitting on a Friday. There is absolutely no reason why we should be in select committee when the House is sitting, particularly in the evenings. There certainly is no reason for us to be sitting outside of Wellington during sitting days. One of my previous colleagues, for another referral motion, mentioned the incredible burden that some of these Standing Orders will place on smaller parties, and particularly parties such as the Green Party, Te Pāti Māori, ACT, and also New Zealand First.

The fact is that it’s not so much about being able to have that leave from Parliament and being able to count it towards your attendance, so to speak, but it’s more about having to reshuffle speaking orders, and all of that. It does place a burden on the smaller parties, but also, it places an incredible burden on the staff and on the officials from the ministry when we are looking at a shortened process. It is simply unfair for those people. It is very easy for one Minister or for Ministers or for the executive to dictate some of these shortened processes, but it is unfair and it’s undemocratic in terms of what we are trying to achieve in this Parliament, in Aotearoa New Zealand, when we’re looking at allowing the public a say. That is what the purpose of the select committee process is, and we have seen way too many times—frankly, far too many times—over the last few weeks an incredibly shortened and unnecessary select committee process for the purpose of a box-ticking exercise.

For that reason, I would seriously ask the Minister to consider taking up both Mr Glen Bennett’s amendment as well as my amendment.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the question for the House for debate is that that amendment be agreed to. The amendment is now debatable together with the motion.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for your ruling on that. That is consistent with my understanding as well. The call that I want to make today is on the procedural nature of this particular motion before us. This is not an area that I have a lot of experience in, unlike my other colleagues like Dr Megan Woods, who has a lot of experience working in energy and had a lot of policy reasons as to why this period was too short, and like my colleague Glen Bennett, who also, through living in New Plymouth, has had a lot of involvement with it.

The call that I want to make is really around the appropriateness of the extremely short period of time of until 31 October for the select committee to meet. I don’t think that’s an appropriate time. I also want to move a motion in the case that the six-month motion is not accepted by the House, a motion that it be five months. I think we’ve had five weeks, so my motion that I’ve tabled is for it to be five months—17 February—which I would also like the House to consider.

The reason for that, really, is because when I look at the motion that has been tabled by the Minister, and, of course, we’re aware that when you have a shortened report back, if it’s so short you actually have to provide reasons for that. Because we’ve had so many of these referral motions, we’re actually in a position now where we can contrast the reasons given by different Ministers as to whether they are really a good enough reason to have a shortened report back. This is a very short report back, even looking at the last motion.

The reason that the Minister said that we needed a shorter report back, and it was written and it was stated in the House, is, he said, “The reasons for asking the House to agree to a shortened select committee process are the same reasons as why the bill is needed at all.” Well, that is not a very convincing reason. It’s almost like a truism: we need this bill to go through the House because we need this bill. It’s not a sufficient reason to override the normal practices of Parliament, which is a six-month committee process. To the Minister’s credit, he does give a few other reasons, but, really, they are not sufficient, in my view. He says that it’s still desirable to go to a select committee process.

Now, I need to remind the House that we’re in a unicameral system here, which does not have an Upper House. Select committees are the main check and balance that we have on the Parliament. The way that our Parliament and executive focuses, we don’t have a separate executive that has a kind of separate veto power like some jurisdictions do. Essentially, what the executive puts into Parliament comes out as a law. The only break we have on that is a select committee process, so even for that language to be used, that it’s a consideration—“Oh, should we send it to a select committee or not? Oh well, OK, it’s desirable, but we’ll only send it there for five weeks.”

Those of us who sit on select committees, which is all of us in the House, will know that five weeks at select committee doesn’t mean five weeks of submissions—it probably means two weeks of submissions. And this is a very complex bill. I haven’t had the opportunity to read through this whole bill—like most New Zealanders, I imagine, who would be expected to submit on this—but what I have had the opportunity to do is look at the regulatory impact statements that have been provided and tabled in the House in relation to this bill, and I was interested to see what the regulatory impact statement said in relation to the report back. We know, in some situations, if the regulatory impact statement states that there’s been extensive consultation, if this has been well traversed, and if this is, say, a bill that has been before the House before and is reinstated—that type of thing—there might be something in the regulatory impact statement to support the Minister’s reasons for having a shorter report back.

What I found in the regulatory impact statements, when I read them, was actually quite shocking. I can quote from these: “These proposals have not been the subject of formal public discussion.” What this first regulatory impact statement that I will speak to says is that “The consultation that MBIE has undertaken has been with the oil and gas industry.” Well, we know that these are the same people who have been lobbying for the reversal of this change. It doesn’t seem to be particularly sufficient to have that highlighted as the main area of consultation.

Then we do see that engagement with iwi took place—two days of engagement with iwi, and then written feedback. This is not the kanohi-ki-te-kanohi feedback that iwi and hapū would expect, that my colleague Glen Bennett referred to. This regulatory impact statement directly contradicts the Minister’s reasons for having a shorter report back. There has not been sufficient public consultation, and you don’t need to just take it from me—you can read it in the regulatory impact statement and read the independent advice provided to the Minister.

What does the second regulatory impact statement on this bill say? Well, another thing that does not support a shorter report back. It talks about “the tight time frames set by Ministers for the legislative process to pass amendments to CMA that will remove the ban on offshore mining. These time constraints have affected both the quality and the analysis and what consultation was possible.” Wow. That doesn’t sound like a very good reason to have two weeks at select committee. In fact, I think that should point the House towards accepting some of the amendments that we have on the Table, which are to allow a full six-month report back.

We keep going: “There has been limited opportunity to engage with stakeholders.” This is quoting directly from this. “We also do not have up-to-date data on the resources and time that it takes to process permit applications and other functions performed by the regulator. … It will provide the basis for setting … fees”. But they do not have time to assess what those fees would be. It also goes on to say that the only consultation that they’ve been able to do with “hobby” miners—which, apparently, is a relevant part of this bill—has been indirect and anecdotal information.

We need to have a look at ourselves in this House if we are going to be getting advice like this from officials and looking at that advice and seeing the deficiency of the information available and then proposing to this House that not only do we have a shorted report back on the original six-month period, but that we only have five weeks. I mean, this is not even taking it by half.

As I go back to the Minister’s motion, which we’re debating, the Minister has not provided any reasons as to why it needs to be a short process—none that I can see. When I contrast, actually, to the previous Minister, who provided some reasons, who had concerns around cases that were currently before the court—legal uncertainty—I don’t think that there are any of those reasons, or, if there are, they are certainly not referenced by the Minister. If the Minister wanted to come and give some further reasons and details for the House, I’m sure that the House would appreciate that. The previous Minister gave a lot more reasons, and this Minister has just essentially said, “Because we desire it to be done quickly, it shall be done, and because we think it’s a good policy, we should put it through a shorter select committee process.”

I don’t think that anyone would find this objectively convincing. Now, we know that the Government has the numbers in this House—thus is the nature of the Government, and probably they’ll get their shortened report-back time, but I would ask those members who will be casting a vote in support of this motion to reflect on the type of democracy that we want to see in New Zealand. Do we want to receive information like I’ve just quoted from, which is available for all members in the House to read—and I hope that they have done; I can’t see many of these on their desks, but I can see a big pile left on the Table.

Read this, think about whether you want to make huge reversals in a policy that will affect the climate for future generations, and that will affect huge areas of the community within certain areas of New Zealand. When you have advice to say that not enough public consultation has gone on, when the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the officials who do a good job for this House say that they don’t have enough information to progress it, and when you have a really easy option of allowing a normal six-month reporting period, why not make good law? Why not be responsible legislators? Why not think about making good policies and implementing laws when we have all the information available and not just when we’ve been told by officials that the information that we have is scant, that we don’t have enough evidence, that the consultation hasn’t happened.

I recommend that the motion that I moved on having a five-month report back be supported by the House, and I also support the additional motions which have been put forward by my colleagues to allow sufficient consultation to take place, and also that amend the wording of the Minister’s motion.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the question before the House for debate is that that amendment be agreed to. That amendment is debatable together with the motion. Just to respond to the request for clarification from Mr Tim van de Molen, Speakers’ rulings mean that any member can move an amendment—this is for clarity for the House—and can amend their own or others’ amendments, but they cannot move an entirely different amendment. What that means is members can’t have two amendments to the motion—and I want to draw the House’s attention to Standing Order 130: “A member who has moved an amendment may not move a further amendment”.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve spoken to my colleague Glen Bennett’s amendment to have a six-month report back; I now want to speak to my colleague Camilla Belich’s amendment that we have a five-month report back on this bill. At the moment, it’s a five-week report back. I think that if we can’t have the six-month report back, I certainly would support my colleague’s amendment for five months. Now, I spoke at length about some of the policy complexities that will need to be addressed by stakeholders as they grapple with this bill, that it does have many parts to it, and that it needs to be considered.

I think I’d like to draw the House’s attention to something. While we’ve been in this House, debating this piece of legislation, we’ve had announcements coming through the media, from Todd Energy, who have decided that they are scaling back their oil and gas operation in New Zealand, knowing that this bill was coming to the House today, knowing that this Government was making legislative changes that were happening. What this underscores is the complex nature of industry and the way in which they are grappling with this. Even knowing that this was a Government that was, essentially, presenting a piece of legislation which is the wish list of the oil and gas industry—not only does it allow for more exploration but it waters down protections for the New Zealand taxpayer, through the decommissioning regime. Even knowing the wish-list piece of legislation that was landed, while we’ve been in here debating it, we have seen a major New Zealand industry player make a significant announcement.

It is engagement like this that the select committee needs to understand, that the committee will need to spend time considering, knowing that industry was getting everything it was wishing for. Why is it, then, that they are making that significant decision and an announcement today on the very day that the legislation is introduced? That is something that I think, as a member of a committee that will, no doubt, be listening to submissions on this, I would like to understand—why it is that everything that’s been wished for is being granted—so that we can understand that.

My colleague Camilla Belich, when she moved the amendment for five months, spoke at length about the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and some of the questions that she had from there. I think she raised some very good questions around the reason that we need to be given to have these shortened report-back times in select committee. Listening carefully, trying to get beyond the political rhetoric in the Minister’s speech—not always easy, and I will admit that that’s not a skill that I’ve particularly honed—what I took from that speech, the reason he was giving, is the need for us to act with speed, given the current needs of our electricity system. Now, 16 years, on average—

Andy Foster: Fast track—fast track. We’re going to reduce it.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —for taking a permit from exploration to production—I’m hearing heckles from New Zealand First members saying they’re going to use fast track. Well, that’s an announce-able. We haven’t heard that before—that the fast-track regime is going to be used for oil and gas legislation. Thank you very much to Mr Andy Foster, who has made that announcement; we’ve been wondering what was going to in the Schedule to the Act, and now we’re hearing it in heckles across the House. Is that the intent? I’d be interested to hear from Government members on whether they are intending to use the fast track. If we’re getting suggestions like that, the idea that we’re not having a full select committee process is something that just belies belief, that we won’t have the ability to do that.

There’s also some other advice that sits in the RIS that I think the committee are going to need to delve into a lot more deeply, and that is the advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT). I turn members’ attention to the regulatory impact statement relating to the petroleum exploration and mining—there are two regulatory impact statements for this bill, because it is such a complex piece of legislation. If we go to paragraph 85 of that regulatory impact statement: “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has assessed that reversing the 2018 ban and promoting new petroleum exploration risks being seen as running counter to the Pacific regional and global consensus on transitioning away from fossil fuels.”

I, for one, as a lawmaker in this House, want to know what the foreign affairs implications are. What are we doing with our relationships in the Pacific and what really are the risks? I would like to hear expert advice. I do not believe, given we’re going to have to consider the new permits from an industry point of view, we’re going to have to consider new permits in terms of the broader stakeholders who haven’t been spoken to, because, as I said, this is pretty much the wish list of the oil and gas industry, and that probably is because that’s who the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has been consulting with. It hasn’t really gone broad and considered all—

Hon Member: Gentailers.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —of the other stakeholders when it comes to that. I haven’t seen any evidence that gentailers are in here. What we have to do is make sure we are consulting more fully.

It’s not just over the issuing of those petroleum permits; the significant piece that my colleague Glen Bennett brought up was that this was the first time ever we’re having a suggestion that there will be a Government policy statement on oil and gas exploration and the Government could do that. That is an entirely new mechanism. How would that operate and how would it work? They are things that the committee will have to consider. We know that the Government has signalled that it wants to move away from “Block Offer” as a way to issue petroleum permits; that it wants to look to, I think, using more section 18 kind of approaches to issuing petroleum permits. But how does a Government policy statement work? We would need time to consider that as a committee.

I haven’t even moved on to the decommissioning. I haven’t even moved on to what would need to happen around the changes to goldmining, but then to understand the foreign affairs implications of that as well and to have stakeholders able to come to that. The end of October is taking us incredibly close to the Conference of the Parties—or COP, as it is known; the meeting where nations do get together to consider their climate objectives, but it is prior to it. I think that getting feedback from that Conference of the Parties—that is held only two weeks after the Government is suggesting that we do close off submissions; we have COP occurring in mid-November—that actually coming back and getting that feedback from other nations, particularly our Pacific neighbours in terms of what they feel, would be something that would be entirely beneficial for the committee.

One of the things that we see in the regulatory impact statement—and in regard to these concerns that MFAT has raised, it’s not just one paragraph; it goes on—it says that they drew heavily from the evidence of the 2023 Pacific Island Forums Leaders Meeting, where leaders committed to transitioning away from coal, oil, and gas in our energy systems, in line with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) pathways, with a peak in fossil fuel consumption in the near-term. Now, one of the problems that this Government has is that, also, the emissions reduction plan that it can now sit beside shows that, actually, we are going off piste. Are we on track in terms of those IPCC pathways—that we have updated pathways since the initial ban was brought in in 2018? Seeing how those things go together is going to be entirely important.

Just before I move on from foreign affairs, I think paragraph 86 should send a chill down every member in this House’s spine, saying that the preferred option—i.e., the Government’s preferred option—poses relationship and reputational risks. There are risks to New Zealand’s relationships with its global and Pacific Island partners around the perception of a policy departure on the transition in our climate change goals. Not only do we have a Government domestically that lacks vision, ambition, a plan, or any kind of foresight, we have a Government that is prepared to put our international reputation at risk, to risk the relationship with our Pacific neighbours.

Now, this Government should know this, because Ministers and the Prime Minister have already had a pillorying from our Pacific neighbours when it comes to their backsliding on what it means in terms of their lack of ambition on climate. We need to hear from officials on this and we need to get expert advice, and five weeks is not enough to do that.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): I move, That debate on this question now close.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend the amendments of my colleagues on this side of the House, and I have a new amendment that I’d like to table. I move, That the motion be amended to replace the words “31 October” with the words “31 March”.

It’s a bit of a step along from where you guys were at but I think it’s got a right ring to it, and I propose that that is a necessary thing.

When we are grappling with the existential threat of climate change—and it is an existential threat; it is an intergenerational threat, and we’re contending with the action that was taken in 2018, which is possibly the most substantive action in the climate change space that the nation of New Zealand has taken in the last decade, at least—it must be fully considered by a select committee. We have to hear, as my colleague on this side pointed out, what the effect is on our international reputation for this monstrous tracking backwards—not back on track, but tracking backwards—on our commitments to action on climate change and on our impact on Pacific relations. Those people on the forefront of the worst impacts of catastrophic climate change, right here in our South Pacific, have already expressed their distress and their opposition to this Government’s revoking of the ban on oil and gas exploration, but what is the long-term impact on those relationships and on our reputation?

Also, the International Energy Agency has explicitly stated that the whole world should stop searching for new oil and gas by 2021, and we, as a nation, with the ban we put into place in 2018, were on track for achieving that. This is a global problem, this is a planetary problem, and it should not be treated lightly by a Government that wants to ram through legislation that takes back the commitments that we have made to be part of that global solution.

Climate change is not something—because you’re dealing with atmospheric gases—that anyone is immune from, not any human on this planet and not any species on this planet. Every single living thing on this Earth is impacted by climate change. There are not many things that you can think of that every single species is impacted by, but climate change is the one, and they are all impacted negatively over the course of time, because it is an existential threat for the viability of biodiversity on planet Earth. We should not be rushing it through a select committee, which is why I propose this extension to 31 March.

I also want to note the myths and sort of stories and histrionic accusations made against the impact of the ban on things like energy supply in this country. There are a lot of myths being perpetrated and perpetuated by this Government, with one of them being that the reason for the closure of the mills is because of the ban on offshore oil and gas, which anyone who actually cares to participate in a select committee and get some expert evidence on will find that it’s not that. It’s to do with the market, and this Government is not prepared to change that market, but that is the cause of it.

The oil industry closed the refinery at Marsden B; not the Government. It was a decision made by industry to close that refinery, so that’s one of the myths. In terms of political uncertainty, you probably couldn’t find a greater definition of political uncertainty, and I appreciate the colleague on this side of the House who pointed out that it was Mr Jones who extolled the virtues of the three-party coalition that brought the ban on oil and gas into place, and it’s the same Mr Jones who’s now revoking that ban. If you want to talk about political uncertainty, you could say that Mr Jones is the definition of it.

I also want to say that most importantly—most importantly—we have the question of the impact of this decision on iwi Māori and the wider public, because this was a ban that was achieved by a large-scale public movement that took place over the course of seven years. It is important that we have the time for the multitude of iwi that were impacted, and the 80 iwi who signed that they did not support seismic surveying in their waters and did not support drilling for oil and gas. They should have their fair time at the select committee to express what they think about this bringing back of oil and gas exploration, and for us to have that time, we need to have a full select committee process.

There is another thing that needs to be understood here, and that is that over all these years of attempts to get this industry going since the early 2000s, there have been multitudes of seismic surveys done. Vast areas of our exclusive economic zone has been done. There have been wildcat drilling attempts off drilling rigs off the Otago coast, off the North Island coast on the west side of the Raglan coast, and obviously in Taranaki. Obviously, on the East Coast of the North Island there have been seismic surveys, and, time and again, these oil companies depart our waters. They have relinquished their permits. They have quit their prospects because perhaps New Zealand is actually a terrible oil and gas prospect. Perhaps New Zealand is a terrible oil and gas prospect—perhaps there is no substantive oil and gas here.

So where do we have the opportunity to actually hear the evidence for why this is such a thing that has to be done other than at a substantive select committee? It’s another example of this Government rushing through bad legislation that they’re probably a bit embarrassed about, to be honest. I think a few heads are going down on the other side of the House, because—

Hon Member: No, we’re not.

STEVE ABEL: They’re not embarrassed; they’re proud of their climate denial, and what is the impact, which we need to hear at the select committee, on our actual efforts to decarbonise? What is the cost burden on New Zealand if we don’t decarbonise? If we lock in our nation to that dependence on oil and gas, on gas, particularly, and on—

Dan Bidois: Bring it back.

STEVE ABEL: Well, this is the debate. I mean, the debate is—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): If the member could bring it back to the confines of the motion, that would helpful.

STEVE ABEL: Sure. I will bring it back to my amendment, which is that for us to thoroughly scrutinise this piece of reckless legislation, the New Zealand public deserve the right to have a thorough select committee process. I move that the motion be amended to replace the words “31 October 2024” with the words “31 March 2025”. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the question before the House for debate is that the amendment be agreed to. That amendment is now debatable together with the motion. Before we take the next call, I do want to acknowledge that the contributions by members in the House are very informative and, in some cases, quite creative. However, the relevance of this debate should be focused on the terms of the Minister’s motion to refer the bill to the select committee and the amendments to it. My invitation to the House is to look for contributions that raise the collective enlightenment of the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There’s kind of almost an irony about the date being chosen to report back. “Halloween 2024” is probably befitting of this bill in the context of the bill. However, might I suggest that “Halloween 2025” might be more appropriate, given the arguments put up by colleagues on this side of the House. In particular, I want to support the amendment by Glen Bennett for a six-month review, and I do that for a couple of reasons. One, I don’t believe the Minister has given compelling reasons to shorten the time that the Economic Development, Science and Innovation has to report back its findings.

Five weeks is not enough time to find and give the opportunity to everyone that will want to submit on this bill, and I can speak in particular of the iwi of Taranaki, which I have very close connections to. They will want as much time as they can have to prepare submissions for this bill. They have, on many different occasions, taken action, often through the courts, to address the issues that are in their backyard, and I think that this motion is inappropriate. It will not give them enough time to do that, and I ask the House to reconsider the date on which has been proposed for a report back from the select committee.

I also think it’s appropriate here to talk about one of the main functions of this Parliament, and that is to scrutinise what the executive is doing. That is a fundamental part of our democracy. The Government, in this instance, has decided upon making some significant changes to a piece of legislation and they’ve also decided that “Well, we don’t want too much kōrero to go on, eh? So let’s truncate that process”—[Interruption] Yeah, you can interject all you like; that’s not going to stop me from actually saying this.

The function of this House—it is so important that it has the ability to scrutinise this piece of legislation. I can tell the House that this motion is not going to allow that to happen, and every member in here should be concerned about that because it makes changes that, probably, are not going to impact on the people in this room too much; it’s going to impact on grandchildren and great-grandchildren into the future. Be on the right side of history. Those that vote for this, I can tell you, will end up on the wrong side of history.

I’m not going to relitigate what’s already been said, except to say that I support those members that have moved amendments to this motion. I think the House should seriously consider them, and, Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to them.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I want to speak to my colleague Camilla Belich’s amendment to change the date to 17 February, and I want to come back to the Minister for Resources’ initial statement and the reason we are here this afternoon. In his notice of instruction to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for the report-back time to be 31 October, he said—and I quote—“I wish the committee well in its work and hope that these proposals enable the bill to be advanced exponentially, to the advantage of the public.”—to the advantage of the public.

Now, the question that the select committee is going to have to work through is whether this piece of legislation is to the advantage of the public. As I look through and as I hear the arguments on this side of the House, and as I hear the interjections and what the Minister spoke about, it’s really clear that it’s unclear around the advantages to the public. There are definitely advantages to some parts of the public and there are definitely advantages to some of the companies involved, but when I talk about the public, it is, again, around the engagement within the process of Parliament, and it is not simple legislation.

I want to refer to the legislative statement. Forgive me, Mr Speaker, as I attempt to read it, but I think it helps bring home the point of why we need to consider one of the amendments—hopefully, mine, but, actually, I’ll support Camilla Belich’s as well. It says, “The Bill makes other changes to improve regulatory efficiency to:”—I quote—“Allow permit duration to be extended for activities related to mine closure;”—next point—“Allow prospecting and mining licences to apply for a non-interference zone; Allow geophysical surveys to be undertaken where a prospecting permit exists;”.

Then it goes on to say, “Serving or revoking of a permit; Include a high-level assessment of a new Tier 1 permit operator’s environmental capability and systems; Include a technical capability requirement for a change of control of a Tier 2 permit operator; Include service of notification and documentation requirements within the CMA, based on similar settings in other regimes; Introduce a requirement for the permit holder to remove an access arrangement with the Register General of land on the property title once it has ended; Removing the 90-day grace period for permit revocations; Allow Section 29B”—where are we; sorry, I’ve got lost now. “Allow Section 29B ‘conditional exploration permits’ to be granted as intended; Make the definition of Minister consistent in resources portfolio related legislation;”—that’s a tough one.

It continues, and I’m making the point here, because there is so much going on in this: “Ensure that permit details can be removed from land titles when a permit expires; Amend technical drafting errors from the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021; Amend permit”—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Yeah, this is very interesting, Mr Bennett, but could you relate it to the motion.

GLEN BENNETT: Well, absolutely, and I’ll bring it home. I will land the plane—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Land the plane, Mr Bennett.

GLEN BENNETT: —on green hydrogen, and I will say that it says, “Amend permit commencement date”, and then it goes on and on and on. The reason I have laboured that this afternoon—

Hon Member: On and on and on.

GLEN BENNETT: —is because people—I have gone on and on and on for a reason: to say to the House that this isn’t just a tick-box exercise going to committee. It’s been said—and it’s been heckled across the floor—that it’s simple legislation and that it’s easy to fix and change, but it’s not. Then—and, again, with fear of being interrupted again—I look at the regulatory impact statement: “Amendments to the Crown Minerals Act 1991 relating to small-scale non-commercial gold mining”.

Now, this is something we haven’t really traversed, and I mentioned it earlier briefly in a different part of this, but it’s the fact that in this—and these are officials. These are people who are actually the experts who are giving advice to the Minister, giving advice to the Cabinet, giving advice to the select committee, and giving advice to the public. It talks about hobby and recreational operations when it comes to goldmining, and then, Mr Speaker—like I can’t bring this home any more that we’ve—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The plane is still circling. I’m waiting for it to hit the tarmac.

GLEN BENNETT: —got to give it time. We need time because the officials say that these time constraints, with the shortened time they had to prepare the legislation—they say it here: “These time constraints have affected both the quality”—the quality—“of the analysis and what consultation was possible.” The fact that officials are saying that this is of really low quality and that the analysis hardly exists in here—it’s actually outrageous, and that’s why we need to commit to the select committee having a process where we actually get it right.

I look through in the goldmining space—and I understand that people are, I guess, getting a little bored with this because they think it’s just a tick-box exercise. It is not, because when we’re looking at all these pieces—which I would love to keep quoting, but I won’t—it is around ensuring—

Hon Member: Oh, keep going—keep quoting.

GLEN BENNETT: Keep quoting it? OK, sure—I will do what the Government MPs have asked me to do. It says, “In addition, it has been difficult to predict future stakeholder behaviour or responses to the proposals,”. These are the people who are the stakeholders. These are the goldminers that they’re talking about, so if they’re unsure what’s going to happen, how can we just rush it through in a select committee in 10 days or two weeks, or whatever it is?

Finally, on this amendment of Camilla Belich, it’s around the capacity of the select committee and of the select committee staff. When we look at what the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has, they currently have three bills before them that they’re working on. They’ve got the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill, they’ve got the Customer and Product Data Bill, they’ve got the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill before them—

Dan Bidois: We’re a hard-working committee.

GLEN BENNETT: —and then they’ve got—they’re a hard-working committee, as we all are, but the question is not actually about the people in this room. It’s about our staff—it’s about the diligence of the staff, who need time to prepare. It’s an onslaught at the moment, and that’s why we have to give it more time. I sit on the Environment Committee, which is a hard-working committee, as well. We’ve got the Fast-track Approvals Bill, which is, again, just another attack and an onslaught.

The reason I’m mentioning all these things—and the reason I’m sitting on this space—is because we have to get it right. We have to get it right—I don’t want to get it right, but we have to get it right. If you look at things like the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2014, if you look at the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Act 2013, if you look at the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, and if you look back at the Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Act 2008 under John Key’s Government, it was all legislation that was rushed through Parliament and that had truncated periods, and it all had to come back to the House—it had to come back in here. We had to put more taxpayers’ dollars into fixing it, because it was rushed through and the consultation didn’t go through correctly, and, again, we’re in the same position right here.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Yeah, can you bring it back to the amendment.

GLEN BENNETT: Yeah, and the amendment is around the time frame. I’ve asked for six months, we’re now looking at five months, and they’ve suggested five weeks. We’re saying: why not make it five months, so that at least the public can have their say? At least all of these things that I’m continuing to talk about would actually be able to be addressed by the committee and would be able to be addressed by the community, and it would ensure that people have faith in the political system, which is the New Zealand Parliament, and which is something that we should hold very, very strongly.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I move, That debate on this question now close.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Dr Megan Woods.

Hon Member: Oh, we’ve heard from her already—why?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Member: This is her third speech.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’ve had the pleasure of speaking to my colleague Glen Bennett’s amendment, to my colleague Camilla Belich’s amendment, and I’d now like to—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Just for clarity for the House: you can speak on other amendments when they come up, as well. A speaker cannot speak on the same amendment twice.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d now like to take the opportunity to speak on the amendment that has been tabled by Steve Abel. He suggested that we move not to 17 March but to 31 March, and I’d like to say that that is an amendment I could support. It certainly is giving us that extra time.

Now that I’ve had the chance to read through the written notice of instruction that the Minister for Resources has tabled and that has appeared on the Table, and go through in some detail the six bullet points that the Minister has put out in that written notice of instruction on this piece of legislation, this is an important document where we are considering these referral notices. I’d just like to make the point that, actually, I think it would have been to the benefit of the House if we could have all had access to this document earlier in the debate. It might have actually meant we could have moved things along a little faster if we’d been able to refer to this document.

The first point I’d like to start on—and it’s actually in the sixth of the bullet points in the Minister’s written notice of instruction—is that he wishes the select committee well in its work and hopes that the proposals enable the bill to be advanced expeditiously to the advantage of the public. I question whether that period of time through to the end of October that the Minister has suggested—

Glen Bennett: Halloween.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —the Halloween date that he has suggested, in his referral motion is enough, because we do need that extra time. In particular, I spoke about some of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) advice in my last contribution, but when we consider the very short window through to the end of October, well, I think that we in this House have a responsibility to take it seriously when there is advice saying that MFAT has assessed that the reversing of the 2018 ban would likely be inconsistent with the obligations in several of New Zealand’s free-trade agreements (FTAs) not to reduce environmental protections for the purposes of incurring trade or investment.

The fact is that we may be breaching our FTAs and that we may be putting them at risk, not only because of backsliding on environmental protections, but there is the fact that we would be backsliding on them with the purposes of increasing investment there. This is something for the select committee to consider, whether or not this is to the advantage of the public of New Zealand, as the Minister has specified in his last bullet point in his written notice of instruction to the House. For it to be adequately considered, that period of time up to Halloween is simply not enough time.

These are serious considerations that no one should just be reading from their party research written talking points on. We are considering putting New Zealand’s prosperity at risk by passing legislation that undermines our free-trade agreements. The fact that it is our responsibility as a House of Representatives to adequately examine questions such as that in a committee is something that we on this side of the House take seriously, and we don’t consider that we were put in this Parliament to rubber-stamp what Ministers lay on the table. It is our job to make sure that what we are passing is, indeed, to the advantage of the public of New Zealand. Now, it also then goes on. MFAT, in other legal advice to the Government, says—

Tim van de Molen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I just wanted to seek clarity about your comments at the start of this member’s speech, and I’ve been searching for that myself, as the member has been making her contribution, in regards to a member being able to make an additional contribution after an amendment has been moved. I just wanted to talk specifically to Standing Order 129, which notes that “After an amendment has been moved, a member who has spoken prior to the member who moved the amendment—(a) may speak a further time,” which is fine, but in this instance the member is seeking an additional call on a different amendment, but that amendment was actually made prior to her first call. In this instance she would not be entitled to an additional call, because she is seeking both calls after that amendment was moved. Now, if that amendment had been moved after her first call, then absolutely she would be within her rights to take the second call, but in this instance that was not the case, and so therefore she should not be.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’ve just checked the chronology. Mr Steve Abel stood up and moved an amendment, and then she spoke after that amendment. She hasn’t spoken twice after Mr Steve Abel moved his amendment, based on the chronology that I have in front of me. You may continue.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was hoping to finish this contribution before the dinner break, but given that point of order, I’ll probably be back after the dinner break to finish this contribution. I thank that member for his contribution there!

The reason why I’m supporting my colleague Steve Abel’s amendment to take it through to 31 March is because, as you delve even deeper into this regulatory impact assessment and departmental disclosure statement, you do see just how serious the questions are for the select committee to grapple with. Not only are we putting our free-trade agreements at risk but MFAT has also assessed that we could be increasing New Zealand’s carbon emissions, which could be perceived as New Zealand not intending to meet its nationally determined contribution.

Now, it is a very serious decision for a country to make, that it’s making a decision not to meet its nationally determined contribution—or it’s NDC—under the Paris Agreement, an accord, of course, that the National Government signed up to in 2015. I’ve spoken about this in an earlier contribution and so I won’t go over it again, but we have seen that only 2½ weeks after the close-off date that the Minister has suggested in his written notice of instruction to the House is the Conference of the Parties. If New Zealand is intending to break its nationally determined contribution, we need to have the report-back date on this legislation after that Conference of the Parties in Azerbaijan so that there can be a true consideration of what the implications are for New Zealand if it is making a conscious and determined decision to breach its nationally determined contribution. So they are questions that I have in regard to that sixth point in the Minister’s notice of instruction in regard to the report-back date and it not being sufficient.

The other piece that I looked with great interest at when I got to read the Minister’s written instruction in more detail was that what he wanted, and his reason for asking the House to agree to this truncated report-back date—and remember—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Apologies to the member, but we’ve come to time. Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair, and we will return at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good evening, members. The House is resumed. Could I please acknowledge the cross-party group who put on the Blue September event for men this evening. It was a fantastic event—well done.

When the House rose for the dinner break, we were debating for the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill the instruction to the select committee, and the Hon Dr Megan Woods has three minutes and 45 seconds remaining.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. We are just seeking your guidance as we go through this debate on the referral motion. In the debate before the dinner break, we had two instances of a Government member interrupting speeches with procedural questions around how a referral debate occurs. I’d just seek some guidance from you about when these questions would most appropriately be put and whether they are a reason to interrupt a speech. I understand that for many members, this is a new learning process about how a referral debate works, but we’re seeking some guidance from you so we can ensure that we can have a free-flowing debate in this House on these referral motions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. Guidance from me at this point in time—and I did watch a little bit of the end of the debate before the break; I was tied up before that—is that it is around the timing and the length of time, and as long as members refer to the time and the shortened report-back time, and not broadly go back into what was spoken about in the first reading, that is relevant. So not too broad, but to the point.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, and thank you for that clarification. My question was more—and I appreciate you weren’t in the House—about when Government members are interrupting Opposition speakers in the course of their speeches to ask questions about how a referral debate operates, and I just wondered if we could have some guidance for the House about when would be appropriate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, actually, to the member and to all of the members, I would like to think that the Speaker in the House will be the person who sees how the debate is flowing, and that’s how I would prefer it to happen. If someone has a particular point of order with a Speaker not picking something up, then that’s fine, but I would rather people leave the points of order to the end of the members’ speeches if they have a relevant point of order. Thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Speaker. To pick up from where we were before the dinner break, one of the things I was questioning was around the advantage of the public, given the very clear Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade advice that sits within the regulatory impact statement, and whether or not there will be time with the October report-back date—or the Halloween report-back date, as we’re calling it—to actually probe this advice and whether or not we are better to go with my colleague Steve Abel’s suggestion of 31 March 2025 to give more time to consider that.

The other point that I want to move on to—I’m looking at the Minister’s written instruction to the committee—is in his third bullet point, where he puts his reasons for asking the House to agree to the shortened select committee process. He said that “This is to address our current gas supply issues and high prices.” Now, I have gone through the regulatory impact material—and I’ve gone through it I won’t say in the detail that I will be as we progress through this bill—but nowhere in there can I find anything that talks about the current high gas prices and what the impact of reopening exploration would be on that. There is no analysis by officials within that.

This is a reason that the Minister has given of why we need to refer this for a shortened period of time, but given there is no analysis within the regulatory impact materials that we have on this, I would argue it is absolutely the opposite, given that we don’t seem to have modelling around what will happen not only over the short period of time but over the long run in terms of not only gas prices but the flow-on effect of using gas in our electricity system for a heightened length of time. We’ve got the climate impact analysis that is in the regulatory impact statement that shows that we’re going to be using more gas and that our emissions will increase over the long period of time by the changes that are in here, and what we do know is that the effect of using gas within our electricity sector for a longer period of time is going to keep prices high because, after all, the lowest units of electricity that we can produce are renewable energy.

I would think that, given the complexity of this and the fact that it isn’t covered off in this regulatory impact statement that we have in front of us and that has been tabled in the House, there is going to need to be some modelling. There is going to need to be some advice for the committee in order for them to adequately assess whether that is the case, and given a report-back date at the end of October when we’re already—what is it, 25 September? No, 24 September. We are—

Glen Bennett: Not in this House.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Well, in this House, it’s 24 September—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s the 24th in here.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It’s 24 September in this House, and in other places it may even be a day on—in a land not so far away. That is a very short period of time for officials to be able to do that analysis and to bring it for the committee, for there to be adequate questioning around that, and to get feedback from a range of stakeholders. That is why I am speaking in support of this amendment from my colleague Steve Abel, who has said that he’d like to see us have that report-back date on 31 March 2025 because there is a large body of work.

I just would like to draw the House’s attention to paragraphs 83 and 84 of the regulatory impact analysis, which I think underscores why we need the longer period of time. Clearly, officials have been engaging with the oil and gas sector, but not with iwi or environmental NGOs. There is a lot of work that needs to be done.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to speak to Steve Abel’s amendment, and I believe I can still speak to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment.

There are two reasons why I want to provide my support for their amendments. One is the consideration which we’ve made for other bills, but I think it’s important to reiterate it for this one. The proposed motion, which would have allowed us to have select committee sessions while the House is sitting and, in particular, enable committee sessions outside of the Wellington area in a week when the House is sitting, which would have, basically, pulled aside some of the Standing Orders—I think that it particularly hampers the ability of smaller parties to participate in those select committee sessions.

Unlike with larger parties, when you take away one of our members in the select committee and outside of the Wellington area, even though we may have that leave provision in place, what it creates is an inability greater to the proportion of larger parties for our members to participate in scrutinising legislation that will be happening at the same time as, for example, a select committee that may be travelling outside the Wellington area. There may be an instance, for example, where the select committee really needs to meet with the local community and it’s determined that the only date available that logistically it can be made possible is on a day that the House is sitting, but that actually doesn’t stop that being considered by the Business Committee, as determined by the Standing Orders. I think that scrapping the words that allow the select committee to sit while the House is sitting—particularly the provisions to allow for the committee to sit outside of Wellington while the House is sitting—is really important, because I just think the Business Committee could make those determinations either way.

I do acknowledge that this bill will likely attract a huge amount of attention from local communities about how it will impact their very specific natural environments, and so I do accept that the select committee should have the ability to meet outside of Wellington; just not on sitting dates. I just think, to me, this isn’t about doing good democracy; this is more about the Government wanting to rush a process through.

If the Government was, once again, serious about bringing communities along with the bills that they’re trying to pass through, they would actually extend the period in which those bills are being considered by select committee, which takes me to Steve Abel’s amendment, which is about extending the report-back date from what some others have called a Halloween date to March. To me, that summer period is really critical because, actually, it’s a bit of a downtime for Parliament and it is a downtime for other communities, as well. I think it would allow greater engagement with the local communities who will be affected by this bill, and, as we’ve seen during question time, because of that potentially long-term impact it will have but also because it permits this kind of delay in coming in place, I think it’s really important that communities on the ground are able to be given the time to think about those long-term impacts that this bill will have.

I want to also echo and support the considerations that were given in relation to being able to produce good advice. I think we want to enable officials to advise us as thoroughly as they can on, for example, how this bill may affect specific areas. I think members of the committee deserve to be able to ask in-depth questions of officials and to have a bit of a back and forth, as is often the case when we have submitters come in. We often have that ability to then bring back officials, and as we hear information from different local communities, I think it’s really important that the Government allows that slowing down of the process to consider very specific impacts in the community and to seek that really thorough advice, because what I don’t want us to do is get to the second reading of the debate or, particularly, the committee of the whole House debate and be asking things that we could have actually unpacked at the select committee stage, should we have been given adequate time to address those.

I think we’ve realised that when we have a shortened select committee period and then we have to resort to asking questions of the Ministering in the committee of the whole House, we’re having to see that really awkward exchange of having the Minister turning back to the officials and advice almost being produced on the spot. I think, especially on a bill of this nature, which is around future generations, I would want to avoid that and to get to a point in the committee of the whole House stage where a lot of the tensions would have already been unpacked and we would have received the advice. I think that that will produce a much more robust debate.

Once again, I think that Steve Abel’s amendment is about strengthening democracy, and I want to bring it back to something in the coalition agreement, actually, which is around being guided by the best available data and evidence. A shortened select committee period, I would argue, actually goes against the coalition agreement’s supposed goal of being driven by the best available data and evidence, because we’re, effectively, undermining the ability to produce the best available data and evidence throughout the select committee stage. I want to plead to the members of the Government to look at their own coalition documents and actually honour the words in there to be guided by best available data and evidence.

Finally, I want to acknowledge that because this will affect future generations, I would want the select committee to be in a place where they can arrange things like visits to schools, for example, where they can work around the holiday period and the school holiday period throughout a substantial period of time to actually engage with young people throughout this process and to actually go to where young people are, because, ultimately, it is young people who are going to be affected the most by this bill. By having a much more longer period, I think that the voices of young people will be better able to be centred in the select committee stage. If we have a report date of October 2024, effectively, what we’re also saying to young people, who should have a right to participate in this process because issues around climate change will affect their generation—they will be locked out of the select committee process, effectively, or at least will be locked out in a way that prevents them from meaningfully participating in the discussions and those submissions.

I want the select committee to be equipped to go to far-flung regions in the country, remote regions in the country, and to hear from members of the community themselves. While we may have technology such as Zoom that allows for submitters to come in and present their views remotely, on bills such as this one that are (a) quite controversial and (b) have long-term impacts on our communities, I think we also deserve to centre the voices of rural communities in the select committee stage. I just simply cannot see how having a date of 31 October 2024 honours the voices of rural communities, who are often also locked out of properly participating in these legislative processes.

To summarise, the key reasons why I’m supporting the motion of my colleague is a plea to the Government to be driven by data and evidence, to centre the voices of young people and rural communities, and to actually be able to engage back and forth with officials to produce a bill that actually does what it intends to do. So, with that, I will end my contribution, and I acknowledge that there are members to my right who stood up as I was trying to speak, too.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. As we continue to traverse this, I want to speak to Steve Abel’s motion that is on the Table. I haven’t spoken on his yet, so I just want to say that the timing, as we’ve talked about, the Halloween report back—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: The horror report back.

GLEN BENNETT: The horror—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve just had advice from the Clerk that once you have spoken since the amendment has been made, you don’t have the opportunity to have a second speech after the amendment. You’ve had one opportunity; I’m going to call Helen White.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is my first call. Thank you for this opportunity. I’m on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee and I am very interested in this particular piece of legislation coming through, and I want to speak to the amendment of Steve Abel, which extends the time period.

One of the concerns I have is we’re in a really moving space in terms of energy as a whole. We’re at a time when we’re looking at a whole development in terms of artificial intelligence (AI) and a reliance on energy, and one of the things we’ve been able to do is attract people to come to this country to build AI capacity because we have a clean and green environment in terms of energy. We have a very, very good reputation in terms of energy, and one of the things I’m concerned about, about this reigniting of the capacity to drill in the long term, is that it will actually sully our reputation and stop people coming.

I will be seeking the opportunity to hear from people about the economic impact that it might have on the New Zealand brand. I’d like to hear from those people who’ve come into New Zealand and divested, and from people like scientists to talk about that. That’s a developing area and it just isn’t realistic that we would be able to get that kind of information. We might be able to get an independent adviser in, and it would be a much more realistic thing to be able to do that if the time frame was pushed out until April. We’re talking about something where there may be costs that the Government just doesn’t anticipate because it has not yet sought that kind of advice. What this does is straitjacket what we’ll hear, and it’s at a time when things are happening rapidly.

My understanding is that we have an exponential curve in the rapid development of AI. It is one of the fastest developments we’ve ever had. We can hardly comprehend it, it’s that fast. Apparently, people are finding it extremely hard to understand what sort of capacity there’ll be. This is happening—every few months, these things are changing—and it’s incredibly important that we, with some humbleness in this House, go and talk to experts about that impact. This is a moveable feast, so I genuinely would like an opportunity to be able to get the best possible information about what impact the opening up of mining in this way—again, opening up that speculation—might have on our reputation. I think this is a really good opportunity to just give us six more months in a space that’s altering so that we can get that kind of information in the door.

I’m also concerned, as a member of that committee, about the issues around the passing of risk to the New Zealand taxpayer that will happen under this proposed change. In the last Government, I was really proud of the fact that we said that, no, the taxpayer should not be paying for a speculative drilling company that goes in and then cynically folds and passes responsibility to an insolvent company. We put up, basically, a bond whereby you have to be able to close down a well, and that is financially at the risk of the person who is getting the benefit. Now, we have a reversal of that, where the taxpayer is going to end up footing the bill if a company walks away from its responsibilities. I would like time to be able to ask those questions, and I think that those questions need to be asked again to people who will need time to prepare proper advice.

I don’t want to catastrophise, but I want proper advice, as a member of that committee, on what the financial implications are for the taxpayer of the risk we’re taking, because what I am concerned about is we are going to have bottom-of-the-barrel people come to this country—bottom of the barrel of speculators—who come in because they see that we’re saying, “Come in, and we’re not going to charge you if you fold.” That’s what I’m concerned about. I’m seriously concerned that we are setting up a kind of red flag here. We’re saying to come in and we will be the reciprocal of a company that has no backing and is, cynically, not going to do anything that costs them a bean.

I would like to get some really good advice, and that’s going to have to be international advice because there will be countries that have closed the doors and there will be countries that haven’t, and we are putting our taxpayers at risk in this situation. We’ve had an experience of this. We have had an experience where the company did walk away and the taxpayer had to foot the bill, and, given that we’re talking about a drilling that doesn’t even have a potential possibility of any kind of benefit—even if a gas is found—for 16 years, we need to do what’s called a cost-benefit analysis, don’t we? We need to do that, and, actually, to do that well, it’s going to take, not for ever—and this amendment doesn’t ask for ever. It asks for enough time to do that analysis.

The cost-benefit is something I’ve heard the other parties in this House talk about; looking after the taxpayer is something I’ve heard the other parties in this House talk about, and this is a chance to put money where mouth is—absolutely, money where the mouth is. But do you know whose money it is? It’s the taxpayers’ money. That’s what we’ve got to do. We’ve got to put the taxpayer first here, and that means we need to set aside what we do, which is a little bit of machismo, where there’s this attempt to rush everything through by Halloween—we need to put that aside, actually take a breath, settle down, and take enough time to make sure that we are not leaping where angels fear to tread, yeah? That’s what I think we need to do.

Hon Shane Jones: Relevance—relevance.

HELEN WHITE: It’s absolutely relevant, Minister—it’s absolutely relevant. The Minister asks why that’s relevant. That’s relevant—that’s absolutely relevant—because, as he knows, the taxpayer ended up paying last time. The taxpayer ended up paying—that’s hard-working New Zealanders. That’s our builders, that’s our tradies, that’s our nurses, that’s our police officers, all working their little—that’s our supermarket workers. They all ended up paying $430-something each for the pure benefit of having an oil and gas company which came in, put in the pipes, and then did not shut them off properly. The New Zealand taxpayer had to do that, and that’s not good enough.

That’s the relevance of it, I’d say to the Minister. I’d say the relevance is that we need to make sure that rather than react in some machismo way, we are reacting in a calm and collected manner and we are giving this legislation enough time. Now, my first point was my best point—well, that’s an important point, my first point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the relevance to the Minister, as well, is that you’re pleading to the Minister for more time, and I think we need to keep it to that.

HELEN WHITE: Fair enough—fair enough, Madam Speaker. My first point was my best point, and I think that I have some on the other side of the House actually looking a little worried there, because we have a brand in New Zealand that’s really important and we need investors in this country.

We’re always talking about overseas investment. This is the best kind of overseas investment. It’s a new industry that we have in New Zealand, and it could make the difference in our economy and our productivity if we get it right. But it relies upon the attractiveness of New Zealand as a place with clean fuel, with one of the cleanest environments. We are so lucky—we have geo as well. We have this beautiful geothermal capacity in New Zealand, which we have only just started to tap. I was hearing about how much more there was to tap the other day, where if you drill further down, we may be able to actually get greater capacity, and—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time.

HELEN WHITE: I think we have so much potential to have a pure-fuel solution that is not environmentally unsound, and we really, really need to listen to some of the players in those markets. Here, if they are going to say that they don’t actually want a bar of this and they’ll be walking away from New Zealand, it’ll cost us a lot more than we’ve got to gain. I want to know that and I want to understand that, and I think that’s my job as a member of this select committee that I will actually listen to those people and hear them, and we will grow as our environment changes exponentially. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): I move that debate—

Francisco Hernandez: Point of order.

DAVID MacLEOD: —on this question now close.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There’s a motion being moved. We’ll let the member move the motion, and then I’ll take the point of order.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): I move, That debate on this question now close.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the point of order relevant to the closure motion?

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Because?

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: The point of order is that I haven’t taken a call, and there’s still fresh material that I want to talk about in terms of this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the debate has been going now for about two hours, and I am actually finding—[Interruption] Everybody, please—

Francisco Hernandez: I promise this is fresh material.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know, but I’ve actually called a closure motion, and I’m going to accept the closure motion because I am finding from—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, but I’ve ruled on the point of order. Is it a fresh point of order?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green): Well, it’s to the point. Just because other people may have not brought fresh points—the Green team actually has made a substantive effort to make sure we speak to that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’ve ruled on the point of order.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment in the name of Glen Bennett be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment in the name of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment in the name of Camilla Belich be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment in the name of Steve Abel be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 31 October 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Corrections Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): I present a legislative statement on the Corrections Amendment Bill.

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

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I move, That the Corrections Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

The Corrections Amendment Bill is an important step of modernising the Corrections Act. It will improve rehabilitation, reintegration, and safety in our prisons. Corrections operates in a dynamic environment and prisoners require increasingly complex management. Violence and aggression in prison poses an ongoing challenge for Corrections’ front-line staff. Increasing staff safety is one of my priorities as Minister of Corrections, and the bill’s explicit powers for intelligence will improve safety for staff, prisoners, and the public.

The intelligence provisions directly respond to the reality of the challenges that Corrections faces every day and are a key part of this bill. These new provisions give Corrections clear powers to improve prison safety and respond to new types of technology that prisoners can use to communicate. These provisions also include safeguards to ensure transparency and limits on how Corrections exercises those powers.

The bill also helps to ensure the internal disciplinary process in prisons is effective, alongside strengthening processes for the authorisation and use of less lethal weapons. It is important for corrections’ front-line staff to have tools to keep themselves safe and maintain the safety and security of prisons.

Increasing access to effective rehabilitation for prisoners on remand is one of this Government’s priorities. The bill enables limited mixing of remand accused and convicted prisoners for non - offence-based programmes. It also places more explicit requirements on Corrections to deliver programmes and services for all remand prisoners. The bill also makes a series of other amendments that improve Corrections’ ability to operate prisons safely and efficiently, strengthen staff safety, and support prisoner wellbeing. These changes include the expanded use of body imaging searches for prisoners to further prevent contraband from entering prisons.

There has been a lot of discussion about the Treaty of Waitangi provisions that were removed from the bill. I want to be clear that it’s important to me that Corrections continues to work closely with Māori to continue strengthening its operations to address the overrepresentation of Māori in our corrections system.

The bill will help achieve my priorities and support Corrections to achieve its core purpose of improved prison and public safety, as well as managing sentences safely, securely, humanely, and effectively. The changes in the bill will help support corrections officers and the important work that they carry out on a daily basis in prisons. These changes also contribute to better outcomes for victims by enabling greater oversight of prisoner communications, supporting the wellbeing of prisoners, and ensuring our prisons operate effectively and efficiently. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to talk a little bit tonight about the Corrections Amendment Bill at its third reading. I was expecting the Minister to perhaps spend a little bit more time introducing and summing up and selling the Corrections Amendment Bill to us tonight.

Quite frankly, most of his contribution paid lip-service to some of the good work that’s in the corrections bill and some of the terrible things that are in the corrections bill, but I guess he’s just not feeling up to it. Therefore, let me go over the bill in a little bit more detail as to what it does.

I conceive of this bill essentially in two parts, the first part being the good things that the bill does and the second part being the fundamental error that the Government made in removing Tiriti o Waitangi clauses, which fundamentally gut the bill and run risk of diminishing all those good things, but we’ll go through those one by one.

The bill, as the Minister said, does modernise the Act by introducing new powers enabling Corrections to monitor, collect, and disclose prisoner communication and information sources for intelligence purposes. Essentially, what that means is that since the last amendment bill, communications have moved on, and there is certainly a need, I think, in a more modern world to make sure that those processes are more modern and up to date.

The bill also makes changes to the disciplinary processes in prisons to ensure the process is a little bit more timely and a bit more weighted, I suppose, towards incentivising good behaviour and making sure that those processes are, again, a little bit closer to that gold standard and world-leading.

The bill enables the limited mixing of remand prisoners and convicted prisoners to complete some rehabilitation programmes, and I think that’s worth reiterating because the Minister himself likes to make a big deal about the fact that he’s very benevolently providing rehabilitation services for people on remand. This point was actually the impetus for a lot of the changes in this bill, most importantly adding Te Tiriti clauses into the bill, because it was that cohort that the previous Minister was thinking of when he saw fit to update this bill.

Also, the bill seeks to strengthen the processes for authorising and using what we now term to be less lethal weapons on prisoners. It was a chunky piece of consideration throughout this process, and there were lots of really important things to take note of, to ask questions about, and to hear evidence on, and to ask the Minister questions on as we’ve gone through the first and second readings, the committee of the whole House, and this third reading tonight. It is important because it matters to the real lives of real people.

As I said, many of those things that we’ve touched on we don’t have a problem with per se, because most of this bill was ours. We supported it at first reading because most of the work was done by us, but it’s been absolutely fundamentally novel to now see the withdrawing of those clauses that were a complete not just safety net but underpinning of all of those measures, and it just kind of beggars belief that you could accept 90 percent of someone else’s work, make a couple of tweaks toward the end, and then rip out something that held it all together.

On 25 March of this year, Cabinet confirmed decisions made earlier on, on 20 March, by the Cabinet Social Outcomes Committee, to make additional changes to the bill and remove Te Tiriti of Waitangi clauses. Even by that sentence alone, for anybody who hasn’t kept up with the process, you will be well informed of that fact that, therefore, we didn’t have a chance to know that this was happening, and people who had submitted on the bill prior to this didn’t know that this was going to happen. The removal of these clauses was contrary to the majority of the public submissions we heard when the clauses were still there. Most of those submitters wholeheartedly welcomed the inclusion, and a fair few of them also thought it could go further. It would have come as quite a surprise to them, as it did to us, for them to be summarily yanked from the bill at such a late part of the process.

The inclusion of these clauses in the first place, I think it’s worth noting, followed extensive consultation with Māori experts and with iwi throughout the country, and it wasn’t something that was just drafted without having done all of that work and without having made sure that there was partnership involved in creating amendments to the corrections bill—one of the most important bills when we talk about Māori involvement and the overrepresentation of Māori in the corrections sector. I think it’s a real shame, having done all that work, having invited all those experts, having invited iwi and Māori experts to contribute, that, without even letting them know, it was pulled from the bill.

The third thing I’d like to consider is that, given the significance of overrepresentation of Māori in the corrections system, it was worth noting in the advice to the Minister when this was imminent, very late in the process, that officials considered it was likely that there would indeed be some concerns raised about the change in this approach. I suppose in one way the Minister was able to put paid to that because the Minister, as he has admitted, simply did so in the process of no consultation, a process that was undertaken on the paper to remove the principles. It was snuck in towards the end of the select committee process, so I suppose that was one thing he didn’t have to worry about.

In his Cabinet paper, Mark Mitchell said Corrections already had operational programmes under way to meet the needs of Māori, and we’ve just heard the contribution from him tonight, again, paying lip-service with one or two sentences to the fact that he has confidence that the Corrections department will indeed carry out all the necessary things they need to do at an operational level to ensure that this wicked problem is resolved. But, I ask you, it certainly hasn’t been resolved to date, and without a legislative foundation to hold those changes and all of those provisions to account, I’m not sure that we could hope for much better.

It certainly removes an important opportunity, I think, to have done something that was really worthy and something that we could have felt quite proud of. No piece of legislation is ever perfect but this one having these clauses removed for no apparent reason—and there’s no rhyme or reason to this. It’s not as if we went through a process and thought this feels a bit wrong, or this doesn’t feel like it’s joined up properly, or this feels like it’s in the wrong place.

It was simply a matter of removing an important opportunity to provide legislative foundations that address something that’s really fundamentally important, and we should all, as a House, be striving to do something good towards, and it means that Corrections just simply lack clear legislative guidance now on supporting those very good rehabilitative and those really good reintegration changes that could have been good, and particularly in relation to Māori offenders in alignment with Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

I know that there will be other contributions that follow from me that will speak about all of those points in a little bit more detail or choose a couple of things to focus on, but it feels as if this is indeed another breach.

The Minister had the audacity, I think, in the in the committee of the whole House to make this statement. He said that Corrections have got no control over who is coming into the system—and I acknowledge the fact that further on in the process he did backtrack on that a little bit and did try to explain what he had meant a little bit more clearly as opposed to what he said—but saying that Corrections have got no control over who was coming into the system is just utter rubbish. Corrections have a huge amount of control over who comes into the system. The recidivism rates in New Zealand are high, and the recidivism rates everywhere are high, but they’re particularly high in New Zealand and they’re particularly high for particular demographics and certain types of offences.

The Department of Corrections can and should have a huge role over who is coming into the system, and I really would have expected the Minister of Corrections not to have led off with that particular sentence, with that particular argument, as a deflection to the criticism that he was facing from members of this side of the House about not doing more about it.

As I said, Labour supported this bill at first reading. Most of it was our work, but it has not been fundamentally undermined. It’s been completely nobbled. We feel quite aggrieved about the fact that the Minister will stand there and take all the glory and none of the responsibility, and for that reason alone, we do not commend this bill to the House.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I’m really disappointed that the Minister took three minutes to talk about such a significant piece of legislation that impacts tens of thousands of people who are in the custody of Corrections. That’s just an example of why we can’t support this bill and have not supported this bill throughout the entire process.

I want to talk first, broadly, about prisons in Aotearoa, and then I’m going to move on to some specific issues that we’ve raised throughout this process. Our fundamental issue with the approach to this bill is that prisons have become the default answer to so many societal problems in New Zealand. They have become a response to poverty, to mental health and addiction issues, to neurological and behavioural problems, and to intergenerational trauma. We take people with the greatest need and the least support, the least opportunity in life, and we throw them into concrete cages where they are completely forgotten about in society.

Prisons are not only expensive but they’re ineffective and they do not make our communities any safer. An overwhelming number of people are rotting in prison because they are poor and because they are vulnerable. Yes, there are some people in prisons who have caused significant harm, but because our prisons are designed to punish rather than to rehabilitate, we often entrench those harmful behaviours.

When you look at the poverty that is being fuelled by this Government—cuts to public healthcare, public education, a lack of job opportunities, cuts to benefits—it’s no surprise that people make poor decisions when they don’t have the right support or are trying to survive. Too often, people end up in prison simply for the crime of being poor or the crime of being Māori or the crime of being disabled. Any social worker or organisation that actually works with people in prison will tell you that. Locking people up after a crime has happened is no service to victims; it only creates future victims. A service to victims would be addressing the drivers of crime so that it doesn’t even happen in the first place.

The first obvious thing that this bill does is it removes the Treaty provisions that were put into this bill as it was being developed—which is a shame, because we know that Māori are overrepresented in our prisons, and it is a national shame. We all know the statistics that despite the fact that Māori only make up 17 percent of the general population, they make up half of the male prison population, two-thirds of the women’s prison population, and two-thirds of those in youth justice residences. There were Treaty provisions inserted into the bill to try and address this overrepresentation. It would have required Corrections to have a strategy to reduce Māori overrepresentation. And it would have required Corrections to make sure that Māori in prison have equitable access to rehabilitation and reintegration and cultural activities, regardless of which prisons they are in.

These Treaty provisions were taken out not because of the merits of those provisions but because of the coalition agreement, because the Government chose to anticipate what they knew would happen. That’s not even a reasonable ground to remove something so significant. Then Corrections advisers were in support of taking out the Treaty provisions, saying that they felt they were doing a good job for Māori—clearly not, when you look at the numbers.

During the committee of the whole House phase of this bill, I tried to put those Treaty provisions back into the bill, but this was voted down by the Government, again; not because it has anything to do with Corrections or anything to do with the people in prisons but because of an ideological commitment to erasing Te Tiriti o Waitangi in over 40 pieces of legislation. I’m not saying that Treaty provisions being in the Corrections Act would fix everything overnight, but I am saying that it would at least represent a genuine and sincere commitment by Corrections to address the gross and unfair overrepresentation of Māori in our prisons. Now all we have is an expired Hōkai Rangi strategy, which means nothing at the end of this year, and no formal commitment by Corrections to honouring Te Tiriti or addressing Māori overrepresentation in prison.

This leads me to my next point about solitary confinement. One of the recommendations during the submissions was that we looked into ending the use of one of the cruellest and harshest tools available to Corrections, which is the use of solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is the practice of socially and physically isolating a person in conditions of confinement for 22 to 24 hours per day. International conventions say that solitary confinement should never be used for more than 15 days in a row, but we know, thanks to a report by the Auckland Prison’s Prisoners of Extreme Risk Unit, that some prisoners have spent over 900 days in solitary confinement in Auckland Prison. Solitary confinement isn’t good for people who are in the cells, or the people who have to manage that person in the cells. It heightens risk and animosity and it completely undermines the effectiveness of rehabilitation. It’s long overdue that we end the barbaric use of solitary confinement within our prisons.

On to the use of weapons—the final point that we want to make about this bill is on the use of weapons in our prisons—this bill makes changes to the references to non-lethal weapons, changing them to “less than lethal”, and it sets out a process by which the Minister can say yes or no to different weapons being used within prisons. This raises real concerns for us, because one of the thresholds for the Minister to approve weapons is whether it undermines the humane treatment, human rights, or dignity of the people in prison—and I’m not sure that the Minister has those things at heart, as reflected in his three-minute speech.

We’re calling for a ban on weapons in prison that are currently used that are completely violent and destructive. Specifically, we’re talking about the Cell Buster pepper spray and the use of spit hoods. Cell Buster pepper spray is used by putting a cannister under the door of the cell and, effectively, gassing a person in prison. This was shown in the Karma Cripps v Attorney-General case, when an asthmatic woman in Auckland Women’s Prison was gassed using this pepper spray. And spit hoods—the Ombudsman has been calling for an end to the use of those for people who are mentally vulnerable or young. We’re calling for a complete ban on the use of spit hoods, as has been done in Australia—in South Australia and in New South Wales—because of the risk that they can be used incorrectly and the risk that they can cause asphyxiation and suffocation of the person that it has been used on.

At the end of the day, this all comes back to the way that we treat people while they are in our custody. When you recognise that a significant amount of people who are in prison are going to come back into society at some point, the way that we treat them while they are in our custody is of the utmost importance, because if you teach people that violence is OK, when they come back out into the community, they will use violence because it’s been reinforced on them by prison guards, by the State, and by the people that they’re with in prison that violence is OK. Humiliation and punishment undermine the ability for rehabilitation to be successful, or for people to even accept the support that they need to turn their lives around. To summarise that: if you treat people like animals, don’t be surprised when they act like animals.

The final point I want to make on this bill is on the mixing of accused and sentenced prisoners. The fact that the remand prison population will soon quickly overtake the sentenced population is a reflection that it is too hard for people to make bail. There are too many people in our prisons and on remand because they don’t have a bail address—most likely because they don’t even have a home or because it has become more difficult to get bail. A review of the Bail Act is needed. The mixing of youth and adult prison populations is also deeply concerning. This really reinforces the belief that there is a pipeline from the cradle to the grave within the justice system, from birth to State care to prison, and endless cycles of recidivism. Putting young people with adults in prison—you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that that is a recipe for disaster.

For all of these reasons, and many more, we oppose this Corrections Amendment Bill. Kia ora.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to make a short contribution on the Corrections Amendment Bill. I don’t think I got to speak in the second reading, so it’s good to be able to make a contribution tonight.

Just in response to the last contribution, from the Green member Tamatha Paul, another reason people are on remand is that our court systems are clogged up. But don’t worry: help is on the way. Nicole McKee is working on unblocking our court system and getting justice delivered faster. This bill actually complements the overall package of law and order measures and court measures that this coalition Government is doing. While I’ll acknowledge the bill was started under the last Parliament, and under the Labour Government, it’s perfect that we were able to pick this up and modernise our Corrections Act with these changes. It does modernise the way that around 8,500 prisoners that Corrections need to look after every day are treated.

With some of the changes, which have already been covered, it really does allow additional powers around looking at prisoner communications, for intelligence purposes; some of the disciplinary changes to make sure our prisons are actually safer and that staff can put in place proper disciplinary processes. We heard about the limited use of mixing of prisoners to deliver rehabilitative programmes, and, again, I do actually agree with the member from the Greens that we do need to focus on rehabilitation, but Corrections only gets people that are sentenced to them; they actually can’t intervene beforehand. I think, again, this Government has got plans on actually how we build the economy and get people more jobs, etc., so that we actually give people hope and stop them turning to crime. Again, there are some important changes around non-lethal weapons and actually making that safer. There are times, unfortunately, when prison staff do need to use those methods, so let’s make sure that is done in a way that is overseen and done.

So, really, I think this is a bill that is important in the modernisation of our corrections system. It does add to the suite of changes that this law and order - focused coalition Government is making, and so I really do commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): I rise to speak in support of this third reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill. I applaud the work that’s done in this bill and acknowledge the work that has gone in previously by the previous Government towards developing some really practical tools to support those that are working within the corrections system. I would take a moment to reflect on the fact that the people that work in the corrections system are not our enemy. They are absolutely working towards a rehabilitation process. They are absolutely committed to turning around recidivist offending. Most importantly, when we give them additional powers, those additional powers are about supporting prisoner wellbeing. The easier and simpler ways of quelling violence and making other prisoners safe is critically important.

The fact is that people are in prison for a range of reasons that occur through society, and we are, as this Government, committed to improving educational outcomes, improving housing situations, improving our health system in order to contribute to these better social outcomes. Therefore, we will continue to make sure that those who are working in the front line, those who are carrying the burden of making sure our society and the public is safe, and protecting those victims—including the huge number of Māori victims who are the real victims in this process. It is the reality that these people are in prison because they have done harm and they need to be dealt with in a way that not only protects society but also enables them to have access to solid rehabilitation processes. These additional powers are important. The expanded rehabilitation rights are essential, and therefore I take great delight on behalf of New Zealand First in commending this bill to the House.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou. E tangi auare ake nei te ngākau i te āhua o te whakawhiu ture o tēnei Whare. Tōna whai whakaaro kore ki te iwi Māori. Tōna whakaparahako, tōna karo i te Tiriti o Waitangi. Tōna kore hāpai i āna i whakawhiwhi ai i roto i Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Ngā aupēhitanga i runga i ō mātou mātua tīpuna kua roa, roa e mau kino nei, ū nei i roto i te iwi Māori hei pēhi.

Ko te hiahia o taku ngākau kia karawhiua te katoa o aku kōrero ki te reo Māori, engari ka tahuri ki te reo tāmi a te iwi nā te iwi Māori rātou i pōhiri mai, nā rātou te Tiriti o Waitangi i tuhi hei hāpai mā rātou, engari he ōhākī tē kitea atu ai.

Nō reira ka huri au ki te reo Pākehā.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. Greetings to us all. My heart is deeply saddened by the nature of the legislative abuse of this House. Its lack of consideration for the Māori people. Its discrimination, its avoidance of the Treaty of Waitangi, and its failure to uphold what it received under the Treaty of Waitangi.

The oppression of our ancestors has been long-lasting, deeply rooted in the Māori people, serving as a means of suppression.

My heart’s desire is to deliver all of my statements in the Māori language, but I must now turn to the language of oppression, the language of the people who the Māori welcomed, the people who wrote the Treaty of Waitangi to support them, but it seems like a dying wish that has gone unfulfilled.

Therefore, I will now switch to the English language.]

The justice system in Aotearoa was born out of brutal racism, colonialism, invasion, and suppression at the end of a musket, a turret, a man-of-war gun—all of these things. It’s where the poverty Māori have been stuck in for more than a century comes from. It’s where the privilege Pākehā have had for more than a century comes from.

Mark Cameron: Relevance.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Ah, and there they are—there they are.

Mark Cameron: Speak to the bill. Try speaking to the bill.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, you don’t understand—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s relevant.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: —that I’m speaking to the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s relevant.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: That tells me everything I need to know. If you want a more authoritative source, then Moana Jackson’s life work examining the justice system of New Zealand and its impact on Māori are readily available to you at the end of a Google search on your phone—literally a library of examination.

Here’s what Moana did: he did three examinations of the New Zealand justice system, the first one in 1986, when the Māori women’s prison population was 6 percent—6 percent. Today, it’s 67 percent. Somehow, between 1986 and 2024, Māori women turned into giant criminals and all got locked up. That should tell you there’s something going on in there, and Moana spent his life understanding it. It’s all published, but we’ll just ignore everything. I’ve said this in this House about six times now, but just ignore it! I’ve said it in the Justice Committee I don’t know how many times—just ignore it! There’s a word for it—I’m not sure what it is, but obfuscation comes to mind.

The removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the Corrections Act: when this came up at the Justice Committee, I ripped a strip off them. Do you mean to tell me the system that’s been incarcerating Māori unfairly for 160-odd years now believes it’s good enough to take Te Tiriti o Waitangi out of its Act? You have got to be kidding. Here’s what they told me: “Oh no, no. We do a lot of kaupapa Māori programmes now.” So that exempts you from responsibility to your Tiriti partner, and you’re the Tiriti partner? That exempts you—because you do a lot of kaupapa Māori programmes!

I’m a bit tired today because we’ve done a lot and I know that I’m wasting my voice and energy speaking to you lot. But here’s the thing, right? All of your new laws have a—

Mark Cameron: How many “you”s do you want to put in there?

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, go for it—go for it, Cameron, go for it. All of your laws have a direct, negative—

Hon Members: Our laws.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: All of the Government’s new laws have an actual negative impact on us and our families and you don’t even care to understand it. We do not commend any of your bills, especially this one.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. There are a couple of things I would like to address with this bill first. The first is something that my colleague Tamatha Paul has spoken about: the Green Party’s disappointment at the removal of Te Tiriti clauses—deleting clause 7, which inserted new section 6A—post the select committee hearing process so the public didn’t even get a chance to have their say. Why? That is unnecessary. The public also did not ask for it.

Not only was Te Tiriti clause removed, so was anything that had any relevance to cultural activities. We’ve heard from the Minister during the committee stage that, “Oh yeah, we still do things.” Then why remove it? Why not just leave it in? If you already do it, then keep it in. Don’t remove it. I can’t think of a single reason to remove Te Tiriti clauses from this bill other than for sinister reasons or for the reasons that when the going gets tough, they don’t need to hold up their obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi—our founding document of Aotearoa. That’s my first point.

My second point is the broader idea of what this bill is trying to do—trying to bring rehabilitation programmes to those who are remand accused. Remand is seriously problematic under our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is diminishing—it actually removes our obligations under section 25(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, where we have the presumption of innocence.

One of the reasons we have these issues and the highly disproportionate number of Māori and Pasifika—and particularly wāhine Māori—in our prison system is because we have decided to forgo that innocence. We have decided to forgo their fundamental right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and then we still come over here and say, “Look, what we are doing is good for them.” No, that is not correct. If you look at any study that’s been done on remand, it is not a system that works. What we are seeing here, by providing rehabilitation, is simply the ambulance at the bottom of a cliff.

Now, on to the content of the bill itself. My colleague Tamatha Paul has mentioned solitary confinement, and I want to re-emphasise the inhumane nature of the fact that some of our prison whānau spend more than 900 days—900 days. That’s almost three years in solitary confinement, basically just every day being with themselves, just on their own. Imagine, anyone in this House; imagine what that would do to you from a mental health perspective. Now, we heard earlier today from the Hon Matt Doocey that it is Mental Health Awareness Week. What about their mental health when we’re looking at something like this? It is not humane. It is not what humanity should be doing to each other. That is not what this House should be allowing our corrections facility to do to each other.

Now, another point I would like to raise is around the support for those who are neuro-divergent or who have dyslexia in our corrections system. When we were looking at rehabilitation, we heard from the officials that there was no real meaningful way that the medium of rehab delivery actually engages those with dyslexia or those with neurodiversity. That’s simply not good enough. We are not seeing the support that our prison whānau really deserve for them to have the rehabilitation experience. You just don’t throw a flyer at them and expect them to learn and expect them to change. We need to make those meaningful and hard changes to that.

Mostly the reason why the Green Party is not supportive of this bill is the fact that we want to see real change. We want to see preventative change. Corrections, again, is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. What does prevention mean? It means adequate housing. It means access to housing. It means access to mental health support. The fact that we’re doing everything we’re doing now—poverty is a political choice. Diminishing our rights is a political choice, and this is not the solution that will really address the seriousness that we have in Aotearoa.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a good bill; it does many, many things, as introduced by the previous Government. The one thing it does which will make the biggest difference to our men and women in the corrections system is it allows for rehabilitation to be provided to prisoners on remand. Those prisoners who are languishing on remand will now be able to receive rehabilitation under this bill. This is a good change; it should be supported. I’m shocked that it is not being supported. I commend it to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Oh, well, there we go; a fantastic, derisory contribution by the chair of the Justice Committee, James Meager—someone who is fully capable of giving a thoughtful contribution. I don’t know whether he’s been told by his Minister to keep it short, or perhaps it’s that he doesn’t want to delve too deep because it’s a little uncomfortable for him. I heard the Minister of Corrections in his also derisory speech—at least he took three minutes of his potential 10 to talk about some of the things in this bill. He did that thing that the National Party does, he uses a little metaphor and says, “Oh, more tools.”—more tools. Well, the only tools that that Government seems to want are crowbars and sledgehammers to tear down the house, because that’s what’s going on here.

There are some things in this bill which were in it when the Labour Party sent it to the Justice Committee which were good, which had two important themes. They were protective of victims in terms of monitoring of prisoner communications for intelligence and other purposes—that’s one thing—and they were protective of prisoners, such as putting stricter constraints around the use of force and weapons. But this Government comes in and what do they do to a perfectly good bill that’s not troubling at all—a bill that simply, in a quite unalarming way, says, “Let’s make sure that within a Treaty framework, Corrections approaches its job in an appropriate way. Let’s make sure that when it offers programmes to people, it does so in a culturally sensitive way, a culturally appropriate way.”? It’s not even necessarily about Māori, but they didn’t like it. They gutted it—

Hon Jan Tinetti: Of course they did.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —of all cultural—that’s right, they did. They gutted it of all cultural references. Of course, there wasn’t the Treaty clause that was in there saying—and, look, one of the problems of that Government is that they are, essentially, in dereliction of their duty to tell the Government agencies how to do their job. It’s no good saying, “Don’t worry. Corrections does the Treaty anyway.” It’s the Government’s job to require Corrections to implement Treaty principles.

If you look at the Hōkai Rangi programme, the programme of a kaupapa Māori approach to prisons—

Dan Bidois: We’re funding it.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, so you should. But do you know what? There’s no requirement anymore on Corrections to deliver it, because the Treaty principles are no longer in the legislation, because that Government doesn’t think it’s important. It’s yet another little chip by the axe of the National Party into the tōtara of the Treaty and our constitution in New Zealand. They’re chipping away and chipping away and on every front.

If you think about this, the approach of this Government when we look at problematic agencies—and Corrections is deeply problematic. Anyone who has sat on the Justice Committee—and there’s a number of members across the House here who have—knows that Corrections are incapable in their current form of meeting their basic obligations under the Corrections Act. Tamatha Paul spoke eloquently about the use of solitary confinement. Double-bunking is problematic, visiting times are problematic, and management plans are problematic. We have heard the Ombudsman come more or less with his head in his hands, saying, “Our corrections system is broken. I tell them to do their job, not in some exemplary manner, but do the bare minimum, do what’s required by the law, and they don’t. Time and again, they don’t.” The reaction of that Government is not to require them to meet the bar; it’s to lower the bar—“Don’t worry, we’ll get rid of the inconvenient Treaty obligations there. And sure, just make sure you make the Treaty noises.” They’re lowering the bar, and they’re doing it across the board.

More tools in the tool box generally means more tools for shortcuts, and that’s what this Government is interested in. Their approach to prisons is equivalent to a health approach by building more graveyards, because that’s what prisons are for people in the justice system—they are the last stop. We know they don’t work, but that Government—and we’re going to talk about two more pieces of legislation tonight which are designed to increase our prison population. They think that’s an answer to law and order and justice issues. It’s not. What is needed is a corrections system which is genuinely rehabilitative, and this bill in its original form was one step in that direction.

We heard the pretty fierce speech from Tākuta Ferris, which I don’t entirely endorse every word of, but it certainly made the point that prisons are not friendly, they are not accommodating of kaupapa Māori, and that is an issue. One of the challenges that we have to make sure that there are fewer victims is to have a corrections system which is a corrective system and not an exacerbating system. At the moment, we know that the biggest predictor of someone going to prison is if they’ve been there before, right? Now, what we would like to see is that if someone’s been to prison, it’s more likely than not that they don’t return and that that is a high predictor of them not reoffending, not that they’ll have a greater risk of reoffending, because we all want fewer victims. We want prison to be somewhere where offenders come to grips with their offending and can recognise the harm that they’ve done in our community, not where they are alienated from their families, from the community in which they’ve offended, and are not capable of making a restoration of the harm that they’ve done, not capable of building back and redeeming themselves in the hands of their community.

This Corrections Amendment Bill, because of its approach to Te Tiriti, is making that harder, because one of the tools is now not needed, not necessary. The good work that we’ve done in looking after victims’ rights in terms of monitoring their communications, making sure that the disciplinary process within the prison works effectively and is timely, to keep prisoners in check, and incentivising their good behaviour so that they can get back on track, and making sure that, as one member of the other side mentioned, there are rehabilitative programmes which are appropriate to non-offenders available on remand as well—all that’s good work. But if you whip away the foundation of doing it in a Treaty-compliant way when more than half—more than half; this is a mind-boggling figure—of our prison inmates are Māori, and the obligations owed by the Crown to Māori are found in the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti, and yet for no reason whatsoever, for an ideological reason, if any, that has been removed from this bill.

You know what? That party used to be the party of pragmatism. It used to be the party that said, “Look, we’re not one to stand on high principle. If it works, we’ll do it.” Well, having a system within the prisons which can deliver services in a kaupapa Māori - appropriate way, in a culturally appropriate way across cultures, works, so why are you throwing out pragmatism for ideology? This will in fact create more victims, so why don’t you get on board? Look further than tomorrow. Look further down the track to months and years, and reduce the number of victims.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I was going to use this third and final reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill to talk about rehab for remand prisoners, but a respected legal expert has sent me a text: “Cam, the Treaty provisions have never been in the Corrections Act. We didn’t remove anything from the Act.”

What we need to distinguish here, in this late piece, is that they were in Labour’s draft bill but they were never in Labour’s—i.e., Helen Clark’s—Act in 2004. Why was it a bill, when they had six years to push it through—six years and 65 MPs, an absolute majority? They didn’t progress it beyond the first reading. I commend the bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. We might actually have a real debate here because I want to address that very point that the MP Cameron Brewer has just raised. I first of all want to talk about the nature of what was going to happen here tonight and what won’t be happening. There’s a lot of good stuff, but when I hear on the other side that the Labour Party doesn’t care about victims, etc., I get quite angry because, in fact, this bill is mainly the work of the Labour Government. Most of the things in this bill were put there and were going to be put there by the Labour Party, including the recognition of the Treaty principles and the recognition that there needed to be an approach that was culturally appropriate for a lot of prisoners.

That’s because, Dr Duncan Webb is right, we have over 50 percent of prisoners being Māori. That doesn’t come out of a vacuum. I was interested to see that Judge David Carruthers said some time ago that, in fact, it didn’t used to be the case that most of the prisoners in New Zealand were Māori. They were Irish—that’s what they were; Irish people got imprisoned early on. What happened was there was a tearing away of people from land in New Zealand, and we recognise that that happened to the detriment of the indigenous people here, and it caused huge trauma because people were disconnected from their whānau. We know that happened historically. We all know that in this House. We know the consequences were devastating, they were traumatic, and they caused a lot of issues which actually resulted in people becoming criminals, but also people becoming poor and people becoming illiterate.

These things happened because we did not handle things appropriately in this country with regard to peoples’ right to land, and with regards to the partnership between two very different populations. We went from the Irish being criminalised to the Māori being criminalised in this country, and what this bill was going to do, which it will not do tonight because of the decisions that have been made by the Government, is it was going to connect the dots, and it was going to make sure that the programmes were there for Māori. Not only that—that the ethos was there, because as leaders in this country we get to set the tone.

Now, there is a really interesting article in the Al Jazeera Magazine. It’s from 2016 and it interviews a prison guard who later became somebody who was in charge of one of the prisons. He talks about turning up at Pāremoremo. He says that, when he got there, the attitude was, “Give them nothing, take them nowhere.” That was in 2016 he was saying that had been the attitude, and the attitude was changing. What the parts of the legislation do that are being removed tonight before this goes through is they were that ethos that we move from a system of “Give them nothing”, to a system which actually starts to give people what they need to rehabilitate. They need a culturally appropriate system, they need reconnection, they actually need a bit of kindness. Kindness has been mocked in this country in the last little while by the Government, but it’s a very good principle. It’s a very Christian principle, for those of you wearing crosses on the other side, and it’s a very important principle that we are compassionate and we understand.

I just want to make that link a little bit further. In the words of that prison officer who turned into a leader—his name was Neil Campbell, I don’t know him, he was the director of Māori in the Department of Corrections at the time of the article. He talked about the importance of literacy and numeracy, and the generational problems that disconnected people in their wider whānau. He talked about issues like adoption being an issue, and he raised the issue of social welfare families—being brought up in a social welfare family causing issues. Now, we know in this House what that means because we’ve just had a giant report on it. It means that people were subject to abuse—a lot of abuse. We are now having to apologise for that abuse. Those are all individuals that are not cleanly victims or not victims. Thank you.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): It’s a privilege to be able to the stand in support of this bill. Before coming into this House, I had 26 years of serving in the community sector, and two of the works that I enjoyed and valued the most was my work at both The Parenting Place and Te Whakaora Tangata. In both cases, we worked in various prisons and rehabilitation programmes. I’m a huge supporter of them, which is why I’m so excited about the fact that this bill extends rehabilitation to prisoners on remand.

I want to congratulate the previous Government for their excellent work on this bill. I’m sorry that, for political reasons, you can’t support this now, but, again, I thank you for your work.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Well, the reason we don’t support the Corrections Amendment Bill is because it has nullified the elements of the Treaty of Waitangi provisions, and I thought the member Greg Fleming would have recognised the importance of that. It’s quite clear that that’s not happening in this House today, because by taking away the provisions that speak to the Treaty of Waitangi, it undermines the entire purpose of what this bill sets out to achieve.

When I think back to the generous three minutes that we got from the Minister of Corrections at the beginning and to what he laid out in terms of ambition and what this bill wants to do, those same words that we heard, which must be key lines or something—which we got from officials from the Department of Corrections as well—are that “All the good Māori things that are happening will keep going. They’re going to keep happening. They’re going to keep on going. We’re going to do all this great Māori tikanga stuff that’ll be happening in our prisons, and so even though we’ve stripped away the Treaty provisions, it’s going to be sweet as—nothing’s going to be different in any way.” It begs the question—it begs the question—then why take it away? What is the problem with having those provisions in there if everything is going to be the same, as the Minister has told us tonight?

If all these great programmes, like Hōkai Rangi—which I hope will keep continuing on as part of Corrections’ work programme—and if all of these great initiatives that enable Māori prisoners to receive the support and the rehabilitation in a culturally appropriate context are going to occur, then why were the provisions that relate to the Treaty of Waitangi removed by this Government? It’s still unclear. It’s not in the first reading, it’s not in the second reading—or we didn’t know in the first reading. They sprung it on us after the select committee, but we have never actually been given a good reason as to why those provisions were removed from the bill. The only answer we have is that there is a clause in the coalition agreement with New Zealand First that they’re going to review all legislation that makes reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. This one happened to come up first and so they ripped it out, and that’s about all we’ve got to go on, so far.

I find that really concerning, because this example of the Treaty provision being taken out after select committee submissions had concluded is just another example of the absolutely shocking process that this Government has taken, and the process is anti-democratic. It removes consultation, it denies the public having their voices heard, and it shuts down democracy in a way that has never been seen before in New Zealand. Time and time again, we are seeing condensed periods at select committee, or no select committee; we are seeing urgency being used to ram legislation through; and we are seeing people’s democratic rights being ridden roughshod over, left, right, and centre as there’s a frantic haste for each coalition partner to tick off their list of voter wishes, and it’s quite sickening, to be frank. My concern is, in this particular instance, that all of those submitters that took the time to read the bill and to come and give their time to the select committee were denied the opportunity to specifically comment on a part that was added after the fact.

What we hear as an explanation when we question from this side the process and the rationale and how this doesn’t seem to fit with some of their other reasons, the answer we get is—and this even gets given to submitters in the Justice Committee; we hear it from the Government members—that this Government got a mandate at the election to do these things, and that’s it. “You don’t get a say any more. You don’t get to have any comment back. That’s because we have a mandate, and we’re going to continue to do that.”, and that attitude of being born to rule and that attitude of self-entitlement prevails strongly within this Government. They don’t believe they owe it to the population of New Zealand to give them the right to consult through select committee and to have a say on provisions like removing the Treaty of Waitangi clauses from a corrections bill. If that’s the prevalence that this Government will continue on—that mantra, that dialogue, and that view that will continue to prevail as this Government goes on—as they steamroller things through, there will be a growing number of New Zealanders with discontent at the lack of consultation and engagement with people who care about bills such as this one.

I’ll get back to the bill after talking about the process. The bill does do some good things, and we support the fact that it’s strengthening some of the areas. It’s getting ready for the huge onslaught of new prisoners that the taxpayers are going to have to fund, and my question really is: how well equipped are our prisons for these growing numbers?

Under the previous Government, they had to change, and the previous Government had to change, under National, and that was pre-charge warnings. They were flicking people out of the justice system because the prisons were jampacked, and we had double-bunking, triple-bunking. We had Portacoms going in, and there were some really dire situations when we had public-private partnerships and had Serco coming into prisons. We had privatisation that was causing fight clubs. We had high levels of prisoner rape and abuse as a result of the build-up of people in the prison without the adequate investment in those facilities. I see some of these measures in improving the effectiveness of the prisoner disciplinary process in preparation for the appalling conditions that we saw flourish under the previous National Government, and that is a real concern.

It is a real concern because, under that previous regime, we also saw that those rehabilitation programmes became a tick-box exercise. They became an outcome or a “frickin’ target”. They came as a short-term way of showing that something had been done. The quality of rehabilitation for sexual offenders or for violent offenders, or even for things where people wanted to gain literacy skills—all of those things became condensed, and they were not as effective. They didn’t have long-term benefits, in terms of preventing reoffending. That is my concern once again, as we see this, which sounds great—that people in remand, the growing remand population, are going to have access to these rehabilitative courses.

Well, we will be watching closely on this side of the House to see the quality of those courses, the length of them, and how they are delivered. Waikeria Prison, with its new facility for mental health, has been groundbreaking in terms of some of the good work that has gone on there. We don’t want to see short-term tick-box exercises that show someone has had rehabilitation without seeing good evaluation that those courses actually contribute to helping to drive down reoffending.

The measures in here I hope work well for the corrections staff. I hope that they get the support and help they need. They have an incredibly difficult job, and when I’ve met with them and toured and looked through prisons, I’ve seen the challenging circumstances they have to deal with day to day. I genuinely hope that these additional measures, initially started under Labour and continued under this Government, do give those powers that enable prisons to work as well as they possibly can. I also genuinely hope that we do not see the increase in violent incidents when we see double-bunking. I really hope that we do not see increases of prisoner-on-prisoner violence, which we have previously seen, and I also genuinely hope that the rehabilitation that’s been promised by this Government starts to deliver by contributing to reducing the recidivism that we see.

There is a small number of people in New Zealand who commit crime again, again, and again, and, largely, a big proportion of those people have a head injury. A third of people in prison have a head injury; those people have addiction, whether it be through methamphetamine or alcohol; and they also have mental health issues—quite often, undiagnosed foetal alcohol syndrome or other neurodiverse issues that have not been diagnosed. It is those people that cause a lot of harm to themselves, their whānau, and also to our community, and they cost the taxpayer a lot of money as they cycle around and around and around our justice system. I hope this Government is thinking about how to stop that recidivism, and not just how to tick their box of targets to make themselves look pretty on TV.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on this third and final reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill, but this pleasure is genuinely underpinned with sadness because of what I’m hearing from the other side of the House, that the Opposition parties will not support this bill, and this bill has the potential to do so much good for so many people.

I’m going to highlight what hasn’t been highlighted enough, from the other side of the House: the fact that this bill will enable prisoners that are on remand to have access to rehabilitation services. This is very important, and it shows that, yes, we are a Government that is focusing on restoring law and order but at the same time we understand that we need to bring in measures to help people address those underlying issues that are driving them to criminal behaviour. Almost 50 percent of prisoners are on remand. One of the provisions in this bill will allow those prisoners to access rehabilitation services and will help bring down the numbers of the overrepresentation of Māori amongst victims. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Corrections Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 13 February 2025.

In recent years, we’ve seen a reduction in the use of imprisonment, despite the increasing seriousness of offending coming before the courts. For example, the imprisonment rate for burglary offences with a maximum penalty of 10 years reduced from 50 percent in 2016 to 39 percent in 2022; the imprisonment rate for robbery with a 14-year penalty dropped from 74 percent to 58 percent. Public confidence in the ability of our sentencing system to deter and denounce offending has diminished, and this can’t continue.

The Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill has three objectives: to ensure real consequences for crime, first; secondly, to restore the principle of personal responsibility for offending; and, thirdly, to better recognise the needs of victims, particularly those who have suffered from years of increased retail crime. I must make it clear from the outset that there will be real consequences for crime. I’ve become increasingly aware of the public frustration that, all too often, penalties do not reflect the seriousness of offending and the harm that it inflicts on victims and on our communities.

It’s an established feature of sentencing regimes that offenders can receive discounts on their sentences for personal mitigating factors such as previous good character. While this in itself is not an issue, I’m concerned that over time, offenders have grown to expect very sizable discounts. In some cases, these can be up to 70 percent, which can mean the difference between a lengthy sentence of imprisonment and a sentence of home detention.

The Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill will put an end to this practice by capping the sentence discount at 40 percent. On current estimates, around 20 percent of cases involve discounts that exceed this cap. I expect this policy will have a significant and measurable impact on sentencing outcomes. I recognise that there will be exceptional circumstances in which a larger discount may be justified—for example, when an offender provides substantial assistance to the authorities. For this reason, the bill provides a limited judicial discretion to guide against the risk of manifestly unjust sentences.

The bill also clamps down on discounts for remorse and youth. All too often, offenders have been coming before the courts, each time claiming to have learnt their lesson—this rings hollow for their victims who don’t find it as easy to move on past the trauma and the loss that they have experienced. It’s particularly frustrating to many when discounts for youth extend well into the mid-20s. We’re not talking about under-18-year-olds, as they’re treated differently in the Youth Court. The law changes I’m seeking relate to New Zealanders who are over 18, for whom repeat youth discounts are harder to justify.

The bill’s focus on holding offenders to account also extends to undue generous discounts for guilty pleas, especially those entered late in the day. When offenders drag out the court processes unnecessarily, they waste valuable court resources and add to the stress and anxiety that victims already experience. That’s why I’m proposing a sliding scale for early guilty pleas that caps maximum discounts of 25 percent while diminishing benefits for offenders who enter guilty pleas later in the process, despite having an early opportunity to do so. It’s an approach that’s been adopted successfully elsewhere. I’m therefore confident that it will be effective in ensuring appropriate discounts are applied without coercing guilty pleas.

These sentencing reforms represent a decisive response to crime trends that are of particular concern, notably the alarming growth of retail crime. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their homes, but we’ve seen an increased victimisation in retail locations, which have more than doubled since 2018. We’re all aware of the scourge of ram raids and other robberies that have hit small businesses hard, and the senseless acts of violence against bus drivers and other vulnerable workers. For this reason, the bill introduces several aggravating factors that are intended to result in tougher sentences for offenders who target, first, victims working alone; second, people who work in a business connected to their homes, such as dairy owners who live upstairs; and, thirdly, public transport workers.

The sentencing package reform also rationalises aggravating factors included in other legislation currently before the House, and particularly in two scenarios. The first involves adults who take advantage of children and young people by encouraging them to participate in their offending. This highly irresponsible and selfish behaviour needs to be condemned in the strongest terms, not the least because it helps create a new generation of offenders. Second, I’m concerned about the phenomenon of people live streaming or posting their offending online as a means of glorifying criminal conduct and encouraging copycats. Both of these aggravating factors have been carried over from the Raid Offending and Related Measures Amendment Bill, currently at select committee. These victim-oriented reforms are also supported by the revision to the principles of the sentencing, which gives greater weight to the needs of the victims.

Another element of the bill responds to the growing use of concurrent sentencing for offenders who commit further crimes while on bail, in custody, and on parole. Victims are right to be concerned if the punishment for crimes committed in these contexts is simply rolled into the sentencing for the original offending. This has been a particular issue for correction officers, who work in very challenging conditions, assaulted by prisoners, and finding that the penalties don’t reflect the crime. That’s why we’re changing the law to set a clear expectation that cumulative sentences would generally be imposed for offending on bail, in custody, and on parole, unless there is good reason.

The bill also makes some minor changes to the Sentencing Act to improve the efficiency and workability of the legislation. For example, it is making a protection order an option in sentencing where a person has been discharged without conviction for a family violence offence. We know that the proposed reforms to the Sentencing Act will result in more offenders going to prison, and we make no apology for that. Modelling suggests that the prison population will increase by about 1,500 extra prisoners over the next 10 years. We’ve planned for this. Much of the costs have already been factored into prison population forecasts. The Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill has a three-month commencement period before the reform comes into force to allow time for everybody to prepare to make the changes.

This bill builds on this Government’s ongoing work to restore law and order, including new laws to address gang harm—which were passed just this week—and reinstating the three-strikes regime. The Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill strikes the right balance between ensuring real consequences for crime and maintaining judicial discretion to avoid unjust outcomes. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I’m really concerned that the Minister presented quite misleading facts, which he’s obviously been given by someone else, to the House at the very start of his bill. He would do well to read the regulatory impact statement from his own department, which actually provides, on page 11, a very helpful graph of imprisonment rates. Of all offending in 2015, 11.4 percent of people who were sentenced were put in prison—that’s 2014-15. In 2021, it was 11.4 percent—remember that number. In 2021-22, what percentage was it? It was 11.4 percent. That’s strange, isn’t it? In 2013-14, 10.3 percent were imprisoned of all offenders who were sentenced. In 2020-21, it was 10.7 percent. So it’s actually fictitious. It’s the kind of fiction that the Minister would do well to make sure he gets his facts right about before he comes to the House, because it is weaving a narrative which is inaccurate and which is not helpful to the deliberations of this House.

Now, there are three kinds of provisions in this bill. Some are pretty good. They’re the ones that were taken out of the Labour Party’s Ram Raid Offending and Related Measures Amendment Bill. There’s some that are pretty much doing nothing, and there’s a good number of those, and then there’s a couple which are actually quite nasty, but I really struggle with the Minister standing up here and saying “I’ve come up with a cracking idea. We’re going to cap discounts for guilty pleas at 25 percent”—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: It’s the sliding scale that’s a clever idea.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —when, in fact, if he’d done his reading, he’d know already that in the law, that is already the case.

In the case of Hessell v R, a case that’s from 2010 in the Supreme Court, it looked at exactly that question. It said, “How should we deal with guilty pleas as a mitigating factor?” There it is, right in that judgment, where the court says—and I’m going to actually find it for you—“The reduction for a guilty plea component should not exceed 25 per cent.” “Oh, good idea. Let’s do what the court told us we’re doing already.” Genius, Minister. Genius.

Then he talks about having a guilty plea and a sliding scale. In fact, that case was about the sliding scale, and, to be fair, the case looked at the sliding scale and said that it doesn’t really work because it sends perverse incentives and doesn’t take into account the full context of the guilty plea. For example, if you’ve got a tricky question of law, and if you don’t know whether something’s fraudulent or not fraudulent, or whether a communication is legal or illegal, there’s actually a fair bit of work that has to go on before you’re in a position to take good advice.

Or perhaps the police haven’t done a great job. Perhaps it’s one of those awkward cases where they forget about a document and disclose it late. That’s another thing that needs to be taken into account. Or what about this? With all respect to the police, what if they’ve got a raft of charges and they drop more than half of them just before trial? All of those are highly relevant to whether or not a guilty plea at a given time was the first reasonable opportunity or not.

Now, there are really good reasons, and I think that, across the House, we recognise that having an early guilty plea is a good idea, but, in fact, in this legislation, it gives you all the rules and then, in new section 9C(3) in clause 7, it says: “However, the court may, if it considers it appropriate, make a reduction to the sentence under the guilty plea factor that—[doesn’t follow the sliding scale].” The irony is that is says, in new section 9C(2), that it “must not exceed the applicable maximum” unless it wants to depart from it. It’s a nonsense piece of drafting: “You can, you must, but you don’t have to if you don’t want to.” I’m going to have a lot of fun with this in select committee. There’s a lot of messiness, a lot of poor drafting, a lot of duplication, and some real rubbish clauses. I look forward to it.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thanks, Mr Speaker. We oppose this bill for obvious reasons, but the biggest one is, again, pointing to the regulatory impact statement (RIS), if you look at paragraph 206 in the RIS, it says that this bill alone could double the prison population, with most of the additional people in prison having committed only minor offences.

One of the problems that this bill is trying to address is that the use of imprisonment over time has reduced, and there’s a reason for that, and that is because imprisonment doesn’t work. Prisons do not reduce offending, prisons do not rehabilitate, and prisons do not make our communities any safer. The idea of prescribing longer and harsher sentences for people who have committed crimes is absolutely false and will not lead to any good outcomes that this bill purports to be about.

Prisons don’t reduce offending; they just simply shift the problem elsewhere. Someone who has harmed—

Ryan Hamilton: That’s right. Out of the community.

TAMATHA PAUL: Oh, would you rather that they take it out on prison guards or on each other? It simply is shifting the issue; it’s not addressing the harm that happens in the first place.

Second point: prisons don’t rehabilitate. If you look at the Justice Sector Long-term Insights Briefing, it says that rehabilitation, even in its best form, has a success rate of 7 to 15 percent. Prisons don’t rehabilitate because prisons aren’t therapeutic environments that are able to rehabilitate people in the first place.

Thirdly, prisons don’t make our communities any safer. Ninety-nine percent of the people in prison are going to come back out into the community at some point, and what have they learnt during that time in prison? They’ve learnt that violence is an acceptable tool to use to get what you want. The reason that judges don’t use imprisonment as a tool as much as they used to is because they’ve read the research, they’ve read the evidence, and they’ve seen that prison does not get the outcomes that that side of the House thinks it does. If the core purpose of our justice system is punishment and retribution, which is the ideological basis of this bill, we will never ever break cycles of harm.

Now, on to judicial discretion. Judges need flexibility, not rigidity. When a judge has a person before them, they need to be able to take into account the entire context of that person’s life so that, when they determine a course of action to address the harm that has happened, it actually works. This bill completely restricts judges’ discretion—so does the three-strikes bill; so does removing the section 27 report funding. It means that judges don’t have the information that they need to apply an appropriate course of action that addresses the reasons for offending. I know for a fact that judges will come out; that lawyers will come out in strong opposition to this bill because it will not work, because it’s been designed to win votes. It hasn’t been designed to make our communities safer or to help people with rehabilitation. It’s been designed as a PR strategy to look tough on crime.

Now, the final thing that I want to point out about this bill is it makes a number of false assumptions about the decision-making process when someone decides to commit a crime. It makes the assumption that if someone’s going to, let’s say, rob a dairy owner, they’re going to go into that dairy and think, “Oh, if I do this right now, I’m going to get five years instead of three years, so I won’t do it.” That’s not the way that they think, but this bill makes no attempts to understand the reasons and nature for offending or to address that, because, again, it’s a populist policy that has been designed to win votes, as opposed to actually address offending. If we have a justice system that is based on retribution, it creates endless cycles of violence.

The last point that I want to make is I want to bring up a quote that we all know: “An eye for an eye makes the world go blind.” This policy has been designed to further punish people and to win votes, as opposed to addressing the reasons for offending in the first place. It is not a service to victims. Locking people up in prison for longer amounts of time and making certainty of imprisonment is not a service to victims at all, and that’s why we won’t support this bill.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this very sensible measure by the Government, led ably by the Minister of Justice. Now, this bill has been a long time coming. As someone who went around, and I’m sure many in this House did, during the election campaign, and before, talking to businesses who had suffered at the hands of crime—I’m sure many of you can empathise and understand what I am about to say—victims’ needs have not been put first. Businesses, people who are going about their honest daily lives, have felt like they were getting classed as second fiddle to the criminals. That last Government that was unceremoniously turfed out last year had it coming. One of the things that was coming to them was the increase in crime that we were seeing in New Zealand. Victims’ needs need to be first, and I’m proud to stand and speak on behalf of this bill which will do just that.

There are going to be some changes. I would like to relay a story of going to a small-store owner in the Bay of Plenty who had just suffered their second ram raid. Now, I’m no detective, I’m no sleuth, but I asked this victimised shop owner, “What did you see beforehand? Did you see anything coming?” This shop owner told me, “We saw some adults that we thought were pretty sketchy, coming in and sussing out our shop in the days ahead of that ram raid. We thought something was going on. They were bringing kids who probably should have been in school but weren’t”—because truancy was also a massive problem in the last Government—“and then, sure enough, we have a whole lot of kids, who probably should have been at school, committing a ram raid.” Well, we are adding a clause to the Sentencing Act to make sure that an adult offender can be convicted as a party to an offence committed by a child or young person when there is some encouragement there.

There are other things around live streaming, and we’ve seen the abhorrent images, I think, of the Papamoa Plaza which had a rather famous—I almost don’t want to draw attention to it—ram-raiding incident with some delinquents charging through the centre of a shopping centre and causing hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage. Then these muppets decided they were going to post that image, along with the bounty which they’d achieved too from a small skate shop, and it would have equalled 1/100th of the value of the damage which they did to that store.

We’ve seen abhorrent scenes on our public transport in this country, where people who are going about a job of providing a service to the good people of Auckland—wanting to get places—have been assaulted on public transport. Well, I’m glad to say we’re adding a clause that makes public transport passenger service workers—well, it would create an aggravating effect if you were to take some criminal activity out on those good people.

Then, the final thing I would like to speak about is a policy which I was very proud ACT was championing in the election campaign and that this Government, as part of the ACT-National coalition, is now putting this into practice. This is sole-charge workers, people who are often left alone working and can feel extremely vulnerable behind a counter, with people coming in and out. This needs to be an aggravating factor when someone is taking a criminal act upon these good people. Also, people who are working from a business which is connected to a home.

Now, I’m going to relay a little story. Over the weekend—I have a small business attached to my home—some little thug came along and kicked out the place where an honesty box once lived, took this honesty box, which is the business run by my small children, and took off with it. I have to say, I was really disappointed, but this clown decided to have some distinctive tattoos showing on a video camera, so I hope that assists police in the Bay of Plenty in piecing together this delinquent’s behaviour.

Just to reiterate, I mean, I didn’t feel overly threatened in my home, but I’ve got small kids and this is a home where we live and we have a business near it. I do not think that the things that they were exposed to anybody should be exposed to. For people who think about their parents or young children—when they’re thinking about their kids—working sole-charge at a business connected to their home, I hope that this change makes those families feel a little bit safer tonight. Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the importance that this is another step towards making our communities safer and making our public aware that we are listening to them, and I must bring comment when we hear narrative from across the other side of the House. The same member that referred to the public preferring to walk down an alleyway with a patched gang member rather than a police officer is now talking about the fact that we need to be concerned about what’s going through the mind of the offender, when they walk in to do grievous harm to the public and do not worry about the value the victim holds and the fact that we will not be giving unreasonable concessions to sentences for crime.

Then we talked recently in this House about how we needed to provide protection for women who are abused, are subject to significant violence, and are needing to break that hold over them by dissolution of marriage, and yet those are the same women who will be dragged through a court system with an offender pleading not guilty until the very last minute, and who will then have the indignity of that offender being given massive concessions in their sentence because at the eleventh hour they pleaded guilty. These are the standards we will not allow to continue.

We are the Government that will listen to the victims, and the moment that you raise a hand or the moment you cause harm to an innocent member of the public, you cease to be able to claim to be a victim of the system. You become an offender and you need to be dealt with as such, and until you take the opportunity afforded you to be rehabilitated, we will continue to ensure that the communities are kept safer by having those who commit crimes being held and imprisoned for the period of time that’s relevant to the harm they’ve caused. For that reason, I am honoured to be able to commend this bill to the House.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s a real pleasure to rise to support the first reading of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, and I look forward to its passage through the House and off to the busy and effective Justice Committee, whose workload is only increasing by the hour. I would like to encourage all of us here to continue to support the work of the committee, and my colleagues who are on the committee as well.

Can I just congratulate all members of the House for being with us and for debating these issues—they are important issues. I think it’s just worth acknowledging that we do turn up and we stand here in this Chamber and debate those issues, so I want to acknowledge that. I was a little confused that we won’t be considering both of these bills—this bill and the next bill—at once, but it is my intention to speak with my Justice Committee colleagues to see if we can progress them through the committee together, because they are so closely interlinked.

With that, I look forward to the bill coming to the Justice Committee, I look forward to deliberating on it over the next few months, I look forward to the contributions of all members and those submitting on the bill, and I commend it to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to say a few words about the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. I too, like the previous speaker, look forward to it coming to the Justice Committee and to thoughtfully being able to contribute to some of the issues that certainly need to be thrashed around a little bit. If my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has anything to say about it—and I’m sure he will—it sounds like there are several things that he’s got in his sights.

We’ve heard today people talking about the victims of crime and the fact that victims of crime need to be put first, and that is certainly a commendable sentiment. We also heard about the fact that victims of crime need to feel listened to, and that is also a commendable sentiment, and no one would disagree with that. The trouble is that it can’t just be window dressing, it can’t just be simplistic, and it can’t just be something you say and signal as a means by which to make people somehow feel better, but you don’t do anything about the actual problem—and there’s another word for that but that’s a whole new speech.

When we think about this bill, we have heard other contributors talk about some of the very specific things that don’t seem quite right with it, or some of the things that feel a little bit nonsensical because they’re unnecessary, but it’s in line, and it’s conducive, and it’s congruent with the fact this Government is nearly—nearly—signalling doing something but not actually doing something. If we look at the caps on discounts, we’ve heard tonight that the 40 percent cap on sentence discounts severely restricts judges’ ability to consider that full range of mitigating factors, particularly in complex cases. I think it is incumbent upon us to lean upon the experience and wisdom of judges sometimes, as they are much better placed to make those calls.

We also have heard about some of the aggravating factors, and the one that popped out when I looked at it tonight was the new highly prescriptive aggravating factor—not necessary in many cases. When we look at the one about the sole-charge shop worker, if someone rushes into the corner dairy, a sole-charge shop, and assaults someone, that is already a serious offence in its own right, so I’m not entirely sure that this bill does what it says it’s going to do. Two of the other aggravating factors are taken from the previous Labour Government’s proposal in the ram raid bill, currently in front of the Justice Committee. On the one hand, this Government certainly wants to make outlandish claims that nothing has been done for victims, but, on the other hand, it’s more than happy to criticise and steal our homework at the same time.

One of things that also concerns me is the increased cost to Corrections. The justice Minister estimated that the changes made in this bill could likely result in an increase of between about 1,500 and 1,700 to the prison population, which is a massive increase. We only have to look at the prisons’ capacity at the moment, and the fact that there needs to be buffer and the fact that prisons take an awfully long time to build and they’re awfully expensive, to mull over the numbers and realise that this doesn’t actually make much sense. Radio New Zealand reported it was an estimated cost of $165 million to $192 million. That is an awful lot of money to do something that’s not necessarily in the best interest of reducing crime or speaking up for and defending victims and ensuring that there are fewer victims.

National’s plan is focused on the appearance of toughness, and I feel like I’ve said this time and time again over the slew of rather small bills that make up the Government’s law and order programme, but we haven’t actually seen anything really tackle the drivers of crime, and unless you’re going to tackle the drivers of crime and get serious about it, it’s nothing more than window dressing, as I said. The interesting thing about that is that while we’ve heard all this commentary and this lip service paid to the victims of crime without any real substance behind it, National are, so far, we know, at risk of not even meeting their own violent crime target. They have set a target of reducing victims of violent crime by 20,000, but, as we know, the number of victims is up by 30,000.

They’re not on the right track. It’s not a very good track. This is another example of a piece of legislation that won’t do what it says on the tin, and for those reasons, whilst I look forward to debating it at the select committee, we do not recommend it to the House.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It gives me great pleasure to rise for this first reading of the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. I just want to focus on one of its objectives, and that is to crack down on posting and boasting. Posting and boasting—this Government is getting tough. There was a lot of talk from the other side during the election about it, but this Government is actually going to deliver on posting and boasting.

What we’re talking about there is introducing new aggravating factors. Not only will this address concerns with crime against public transport, passenger service workers, sole charge workers, and those whose homes and businesses are connected; these new aggravating factors that will be introduced will deter adults from exploiting children and young people by aiding or abetting them to offend, and key is deterring offenders from live streaming or posting serious crime online, which may encourage copycat offences. Posting and boasting will be an aggravating factor at sentencing, under this Government, and those posting and those boasting will finally get to face the consequences they deserve, under this Government. I commend the bill.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this bill. Those measures that member just mentioned, which is children being involved in crime and also the posting on social media, are great ideas because they were part of a policy announced by Labour during the election, which were copied by that party opposite. That’s great; we’re in agreement on some of the things in this bill, but there’s other things that we’re not in agreement on.

I was listening to the great Kathryn Ryan on Radio New Zealand earlier in the week and she was interviewing a former district court judge, and it was Judge Harvey, and it was a really interesting conversation because they were specifically talking about the changes that Minister Goldsmith has brought to this House and the likely impacts that they will have. The point was made quite clearly that a lot of the provisions in this bill already exist at the discretion of judges, so it’s spelling out quite clearly what is already actually able to be done.

He did raise, though, a fair point. He did raise a point that has been discussed before and that’s the kind of semi-war that this Government has waged upon the judiciary in terms of trying to curtail what is their usual sphere. I’d like to just refer to paragraph 22 of the regulatory impact statement, because it’s quite thorough. The Ministry of Justice has been doing a great job of pulling these together in short times, I understand. In paragraph 22, in the short amount of consultation they were able to undertake on this, they say that “Stakeholders have advised that the limitations on judicial discretion included in the proposed changes create the potential for unintended consequences.” Unintended consequences.

“These risks include legal challenges on procedural grounds for breaches of [New Zealand Bill of Rights].” That’s additional money, potentially, that will have to be in that space if there are additional legal challenges to the Crown and the courts. “A prescriptive approach can drive court delays as sentencing becomes increasingly complex and can drive the potential for later guilty pleas,” —which would be the antithesis of one of the measures in this bill—“which in turn may lead to an increase in the prison … remand populations. Officials therefore consider it [is] important that appropriate levels of judicial discretion are maintained across the various proposed amendments in [the] reform Bill.”

Those were some of the similar points that Judge Harvey was making when I listened to him on Radio New Zealand—that there are unintended consequences. Some of these things make the shop front look pretty tidy and make it look like things are being tough, but we will see down the line how they play out in reality. The concern is what is already a very congested court system can be made far more difficult, and that’s no doubt why the next bill will be wanting an additional judge to churn through some more of these things that will be happening in this space.

The 40 percent cap on sentence discounts does severely restrict judges’ ability to consider the full range of mitigating factors in complex cases. For those ones where a rehabilitative pathway might stop that person coming back and creating more victims in the system, that’s a real loss, because if there’s an ability to find a pathway that prevents further victimisation, it would have been good to have legislation that enables that. Already, with the removal of funding for cultural reports, or looking into the reasons underpinning offending, this removes even further the ability for judges to understand the drivers of crime, to understand what is underpinning the reason why an offender has come to the court, in order to attempt to prevent victimisations happening again and again and again.

That’s why I do question whether reducing victims and being concerned about victims’ rights is actually at the heart of this Government’s desire or not. Much of the advice I’ve seen in this report actually talks about some of the lack of ability to be able to provide for victims, and the Ministry of Justice actually prefers retaining the status quo, when the Government’s told them to commit to prioritising victims, because there are already provisions in the Act. Once again, their own officials are telling them that their window dressing is already in place, but they still want to push ahead and talk about doing it anyway, because this is a Government that is all talk, all shop front. There’s nothing going on to actually drive and reduce reoffending in New Zealand.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): It’s actually a pleasure to stand in support of this bill, the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, because the changes in this bill address what my neighbours in Takanini are thirsty for. The last six years have left the good people of Takanini parched—parched for a drop of real consequences for crime. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Instruction to Justice Committee

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 13 February 2025.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I move, That the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 13 February 2025.

Now, we’re giving this as a separate bill. It should have been part of the previous bill but the Opposition didn’t agree to put them together, but that’s by the by.

The District Court is the busiest court in New Zealand. It’s the largest court in Australasia. There are over 200,000 new cases and applications to the District Court each year. Most of the court cases are criminal cases. Over the past five years, there’s been fewer cases coming to the court but more effort from the court needed to dispose of cases. The time it’s taken to get cases through the court is increasing, and delays have had a negative social impact on defendants, complainants, and on other court participants, affecting access to justice and how quickly people can move on with their lives.

The bill will amend the District Court Act 2016 to increase the statutory maximum number of District Court judges by one, an increase from 182 to 183 fulltime-equivalent judges. The bill makes two consequential amendments to the District Court Act. Section 12(1) replaces 182 with 183, to reflect the judicial cap. Section 12(2)(c) states that the aggregate number—for example, 181.5—must not exceed the maximum number of judges that is for the time being permitted. This bill replaces 181.5 with 182.5. The statutory cap on the District Court judges includes Youth Court judges and Family Court judges, as the Youth Court and Family Court divisions of the District Court. The statutory cap was last amended in 2019. Since then, judges have been appointed, bringing the total number of full-time judges to at or near the statutory maximum. The increase in the statutory cap will ensure that the District Court is equipped to implement the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, currently being considered by this House.

I expect that the sentencing reforms, as well as other criminal justice reforms, will increase pressure on the court. This bill comes into force the day after Royal assent. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): What you actually heard from the Minister, then, was that this sentencing bill, the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, that we’ve just seen go through first reading will increase pressure on the judicial and justice system generally. In fact, if we go back and look at the regulatory impact statement for that bill, you’ll see that the projected costs over 10 years are $150 million. Now, the Government has recognised that there is a significant backlog in the courts, and their solution to that is to appoint one more judge and give the whole system a whole lot more work. I couldn’t help recognise the slight tinge of bitterness in the Minister’s tone, but he’s got to learn to do things right—because he did want to cobble these two bills together and have them go through this House as one.

I want this bill—to be honest, we’re supporting it; we get it. We don’t want longer times for people on remand or victims waiting to see what’s happening with their trial, but we don’t want that to cloud the examination of the sentencing bill. The fact of the matter is that the sentencing bill places some quite significant burdens on the District Court, and we heard one of the reasons we need this judge is we heard that, in terms of the sentencing bill, the courts will have to keep a record of discounts or whatever reductions, mitigations for youth and for remorse.

Now, someone in the Ministry of Justice is probably just scratching their head if they know how the justice system works, because keeping it on the permanent record actually is no more than writing it on a bit of paper, and the members of the Justice Committee who attended the last meeting will know—because we had a good discussion with the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Justice; Secretary for Justice—that a file is just that: it’s a paper file. There is no centrally kept permanent record.

Frankly, I don’t know how the courts are going to look and find to make sure that someone doesn’t get two youth discounts or two remorse discounts or whatever it might be. That is actually going to create more workload not just for one more judge but for registry staff as well. Now, what we need is the digitisation project to be completed—and that’s where the energy of that Government should be, rather than distracting ministry officials to sentencing frameworks, which, by their own regulatory impact statement, they say is worse than the status quo, and where they say there are much better and more effective interventions to make better sentencing decisions.

Rather than that, we’ve got $150 million of costs to the justice system overall over 10 years, we’ve got a need for another judge—and I suspect it will be more than that over time—and we’ve got a whole new administrative system to keep tabs on how many discounts for remorse or youth offending there’s been. That Minister needs to work out where his energies should go, because he’s complaining about decisions of the Business Committee, but he’s the Minister; he goes to the Business Committee time and again and asks for extensions of time because his ministry can’t keep up or he hasn’t quite worked out what he’s going to do yet.

The fact of the matter is that this bill—yeah, it’s a small bill. Another judge isn’t a matter of high importance. We support it, but we support it not because the reforms of this Government are good, but we support it because we think that people engaged in the justice system—from victims to offenders accused, whether they’re innocent or guilty—deserve to have an effective and timely system. We will be watching very closely to see whether that is what the Government delivers, because we have serious concerns about that and suspect that they are far and away not going to achieve that because the Te Au Reka programme—the real solution to this—is running into a few hurdles, as we heard the other day. That’s where the energy should be going, not on worthless amendments such as these.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): The Green Party also supports this bill in terms of the increase in the number of judges. However, as we see in the explanatory note, in the way that this bill ties in with the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, which just passed its first reading, there are some serious concerns with why we are increasing the number of judges in the first place.

“Mai i te pō ki te ao mārama”—“from the darkness towards the world of light”. This is the tagline for the District Court’s strategic plan. I think this is really important and timely in the context of what we’re discussing today, in terms of what the District Court and what judges serve and the purpose that they serve.

What we’ve heard in terms of the previous bill and also in terms of this bill from the Minister is not addressing the levers of crime. It is not addressing the root cause of crime. In fact, I am particularly disturbed by the fact that we are increasing this, which will require another District Court judge to support a likely increase in sentencing events—not in terms of the number of cases that’s going to be in front of the District Court; the number of sentencing events. So the whole reason we have something like this, according to the Minister, is that we are treating the people of Aotearoa, we are treating the New Zealand public, and those who are in front of the District Court as a quota system. We need to hit a certain threshold and a certain quota of the number of people who are sentencing. Who does that? Who thinks, like, “You know what we need? We need more people in prison.” That’s not the right attitude to our justice system.

So, yes, the increase from 182 to 183 fulltime-equivalent judges is welcomed, but this is only to do with judgment. Yes, we have potentially seen some areas that have an increase in funding for the District Court. However, this doesn’t actually solve some of the fundamental issues that we’re seeing through our court system, and particularly our District Court system in terms of chronic underfunding in terms of staffing. Before, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb mentioned the digitalisation project, which is still happening—it hasn’t completed. Issues, which I think many of the rural and regional electoral MPs would agree, with access to the courts itself due to derelict buildings—those are also things that need to be addressed within our District Court system, other than just increasing the judge by one.

I think, when we are looking at something like this, it would be really good to look at a more holistic image from the judiciary perspective of how we are able to give the New Zealand public the best service and the best and fairest treatment that they deserve, not simply deciding that we only need to increase because we’re going to have more sentences and we’re going to have more people, possibly, in prison as a result, which I’m sure will not be disproportional at all, in any way, shape, or form!

There’s another element that I want to discuss here in terms of when we’re looking at the access to our District Court, and that is in terms of the rule of power, in terms of New Zealanders’ fundamental right, in terms of their access, to our judiciary system. Some of the other issues that we are also hearing in terms of this particular bill not being the silver bullet to address the backlog that we have in the judiciary system or the workload, as this bill has indicated in the explanatory note, is the fact that we simply do not have enough by means of legal aid, or the fact that our legal aid system—that ability for people to have that equitable access to our justice system—is not there.

Although the Green Party is happy to support the very limited context of this bill of increasing the judges from 182 to 183, we would be interested to hear from the New Zealand public on the broader context of this bill in connection with the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill at select committee. Thank you.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to give a short contribution on the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. It looks like the Justice Committee has picked up a couple of jobs tonight. I went away out of the House for a few moments, and I think we’ve had the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill referred to us. I want to thank my colleague Cameron Luxton for stepping in and doing a speech on that.

ACT will, of course, be supporting this, because this bill goes hand in hand with the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill by increasing the number of District Court judges to 183, and so that will be needed to deal with the changes we are making. I did wonder whether Dr Duncan Webb actually wanted these bills split just so he could give two speeches, but I know he will be a diligent member of the select committee when these bills come before it, and so we look forward to scrutinising this very short bill, which, again, just adds an extra judge. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, which is addressing a very obvious need in our judicial system. I have great delight in commending the bill to the House.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Well, it might start being a brief contribution, it might end up being a very long one, but here we go: small bill, big impact. It’s a slippery slope. I get the pragmatics of getting 183, and it sounds OK; it sounds pretty harmless. But what I want to talk to in that regard is that to make room for more judges simply means, for Māori: let’s just open that pipeline up for more Māori to just roll down that, and let’s get another judge in so we can just make more room for Māori to be in front of courts.

As much as it might irritate people to hear that, the fact of the matter is this is a true and ongoing and historic terrible, terrible reality. Why do I know that? Because I used to work in the courts. I used to work with young people. I used to work in the family harm court and with family harm teens, more recently. It definitely showed the racial profiling. It showed how there’s an expectation, when you look at a screen—and this is a little bit of context, Mr Speaker, sorry; just tolerate that for a little bit, if you might—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): We’ll allow a bit of context.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: You can imagine: the screen comes up in the morning, 25 cases reported. Then you’ve got this mug shot, and they choose the worst mug shot of this Māori guy—they get their worst photo and put it up there. Every piece of information, five sheets following, that describes this person is based on that horrible photo in that picture. If we can address that kind of racism, that systemic racism, those issues which are all about oppression and poverty—let’s have a look at that, and then I might even say you might need to reduce the judges. Let me just put those points out in front, in the very first reading. I look forward to the next. Kia ora tātou.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to say this is a short bill, but that would be a bit of an understatement. It is disappointing that we aren’t considering it alongside the previous bill, but when it does appear in the Justice Committee, it is my intention as the chair to have a discussion with our committee about whether or not we do have this bill traverse along the path along with the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. It’s fewer than 70 words. I think that’s about the number I have said so far. So, with that, I will commend it to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Yes, we support your one extra judge. I do wonder, though—given the hefty law and order programme and the increase in offences in youth offending, in gang patches—whether one is going to be enough. I thought, if you’re going to put a bill through, I would have chucked five in there, given your work programme. But let’s see how that one judge goes. We do support it in terms of increasing capacity in the courts.

I would like to talk about the District Courts, given that this bill is providing an additional judge, because there were a couple of programmes in place that would have actually helped more than just one extra District Court judge. One of those is Te Ao Mārama. Te Ao Mārama—independent reports over the past 40 years have called for urgent change in the justice system, for many of the reasons discussed tonight: failing victims, failing offenders, and failing their communities. This approach was the District Court’s solution to try and break that pattern, to focus on lower-level offending, diverting people into communities where there’s support and ongoing care to keep offending down.

In those areas where it was rolled out, which was in Gisborne and Northland, all those people involved said it was working, that people who had been repeat offenders suddenly stopped and they were supported. The alcohol and other drug treatment court is an excellent example of where therapeutic assistance can stop people from repeat retail crime and actually get them back into a life that’s out of prison and not costing the taxpayer more money. But that’s been frozen—that’s been frozen. The funding, under this Government, for that programme of enlightenment has been frozen and instead we get one District Court judge.

The next programme I’d like to talk about is ReFrame. ReFrame is another one being put on ice under this Government. Mark Mitchell has said it’s airy-fairy and that cops’ eyes glaze over when they hear about it. Well, I think he’s actually saying that it’s his eyes that glaze over, because I don’t think he understands what it intended to do. What ReFrame did was enable front-line police officers to use the best technology and the support of non-sworn, so that evidence is taken at the scene of a crime with the victim. That’s recorded and that’s uploaded into a system where that goes to a prosecution file that is completely filled out by support staff, and it means better quality evidence going to our courts.

One of the key reasons why court delays occur is that one officer in charge is responsible for all of the work of engaging with the victim, all of the work of compiling the prosecution file, and all of the work of turning up to court and making sure they’re there for all of those appearances. We had an alternative in place that would have enabled front-line cops to get back out on the job quicker and all of that weight lifted off their shoulders, to use technology and non-sworn to be able to do that back work and mean that we had higher-quality files going to prosecution, and that means fewer delays in our court system. That’s on ice too. But guess what! We’ve got one District Court judge to help with the flow, so that’ll be awesome!

The last one I’ll talk about is Te Au Reka—already spoken about—a system of digitising the court system and getting away from being completely paper-based. That one has been funded because of the justice cluster. There was a multi-year appropriation done under the previous Government and the funding for that has continued because it was taken out of that multi-year appropriation. We will be watching closely, when that comes to a close, to see if big projects that attempt to overhaul the way the system works and modernise them and make them more effective and more efficient actually get funded by this Government. Out of those three projects I’ve just mentioned—that would actually set New Zealand up for the future to really be victim-focused, to really be efficient, to really use our smarts in a way that we can target reoffending and stop more victims from being recreated. But, instead, we’re just going to have one District Court judge.

I look forward to this bill at the Justice Committee. I look forward to the other bill we’ve already talked about tonight. I also really encourage people to submit their views, because if we have a Prime Minister that talks about embracing technology and getting smart and doing things more efficiently, having targets, having outcomes, then why—why?—did Te Ao Mārama, did ReFrame, and Te Au Reka, all future-focused justice programmes, all get put on ice under this Government? It’s because they’re short-sighted and it’s because they want to look tough, but they don’t want to deliver real results that will deliver long-term benefits for victims of crime in New Zealand.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill in its first reading. Essentially, this bill will allow for the total number of District Court judges to be increased by one. It’s great to see this bill supported across the House. Long may this support continue. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s always nice to accept those accolades for being supportive across the House. It’s just unfortunate it’s for something as trivial as adding one District Court judge, but we will take it where we can get it.

We are supporting this bill, as has been said, mainly because people and society and the people of New Zealand deserve a system that works and deserve a system that certainly works better. Whilst colleagues have listed off a host of things that could have occupied the Minister’s time a little bit more productively, like the digitisation project or certainly the host of initiatives that the Hon Ginny Andersen talked about: the ReFrame Project, Te Ao Mārama—all good things that would have made a difference all on hold because somehow this vanity project of looking tough on crime has taken precedence. The Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill that we just spoke to not too long ago was a clear example of that. I certainly note the Minister’s disappointment that we weren’t able to roll this particular bill up in with that so that it could be considered together, but it deserves its own hearing, because it is a particular piece of legislation that is required to make this adjustment.

Whilst we’ve heard very informative and entertaining contributions tonight about things that could have been done better, one thing that we haven’t touched on is the requirement for the legislation. Just to entertain people, because it’s getting late, a little fun fact that’s no so fun but certainly is a fact: judges’ remuneration is set independently by the Remuneration Authority—you may know, Mr Speaker—to maintain that judicial independence. District Court judges are remunerated through a permanent legislative authority which is part of that District Court Act 2016. To enable control of the overall budget for the judicial remuneration, as judges have secure tenure, which I think we all know, Parliament maintains a cap on the fulltime-equivalent number of permanent judges that can be appointed, also known as the judicial cap.

As the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill increases the judicial cap, we also have to acknowledge that this has a long-term impact on the spending of public money. We haven’t heard much about that when we’ve talked about these law and order bills tonight—certainly when we considered the previous bill, we looked at the huge increase that it will take to house the proverbial influx of all these new prisoners that assumedly will be entering the system. All of the extra work—and it made it sound very grandiose, like this Government is being incredibly tough on crime and what it’s not going to do to crack down and what it’s not going to do to incarcerate all these extra people—but as we’ve heard tonight, at the other end of the scale to process all that, to get it all rolling, to do all the work, we just need that extra judge. It doesn’t quite add up, does it? It seems a little bit silly. But never mind—here we have it.

The District Court—as we’ve also heard tonight, and we certainly acknowledge on this side of the House—has been experiencing increasing delays and pressure to resolve a higher number of cases. We know that the backlog of cases was exacerbated certainly by COVID-19. We know that there were extreme weather events resulting in decreased court capacity throughout the motu. We know that there are still some District Courts that face those impediments and haven’t really got back on their feet up and to full speed again. So the New Zealand District Court is certainly the busiest court in the land and conducts most of the jury trials as well.

It’s with that heavy workload in mind and the backlog that certainly places stress on victims, on defendants, and on all of the people that rely on the judicial services and the judicial staff that we can very much see that this is a bill that is worth supporting. Again, to reiterate: we don’t support the mechanism by which it’s been perceived as being necessary—the sentencing bill that we’ve just talked about—but we certainly welcome anything this Government is seriously trying to do to improve the court system. If that’s one more judge in the District Court, then so be it. On that basis, we commend the bill to the House.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): As I stand in support of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill, I take the opportunity to acknowledge District Court judges and all the work that they do, keeping the workload moving—a workload that has gone up so much higher in terms of volume and complexity—and the need to add at least one full-time District Court judge, making 182 to 183 fulltime-equivalents. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question that the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): My apologies; I shouldn’t have called for that vote, because, actually, you can only call for a party vote if the vote goes against the vote. It was actually a mistake.

Hon Member: It’s getting late.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Right. And there’s still two hours to go!

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Instruction to Justice Committee

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 13 February 2025.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Contracts of Insurance Bill

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Contracts of Insurance Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I move, That the Contracts of Insurance Bill be now read a second time.

In starting this review of the second reading, I would first of all like to thank the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their collaborative efforts, and particularly acknowledge the chair, Mr Stuart Smith, for his input and oversight through this process. The committee has reported the bill back to the House recommending amendments which I support and will speak to shortly. I’d also like to thank all submitters who took the time to provide comments to the committee. Most of these submissions supported the bill. Collectively, submitters are behind making long overdue improvements to the current arrangements, which no longer adequately serve consumers, and hamper industry performance.

The Contracts of Insurance Bill would modernise and improve existing legislation which is fragmented across six Acts and is, in some cases, over 100 years old. The bill addresses continuing and longstanding concerns of consumer and industry groups about weaknesses of the current law. For consumers, the law is complex and difficult to understand and can operate harshly—for example, consumers having their cover refused where they do not realise what is relevant or needed for insurers to know. Reading and comparing policies is often challenging for consumers, since policies are typically long and complex.

Insurers and brokers have fed back that the law is no longer fit for purpose. This can cause perverse outcomes and may create challenges for insurers to accurately quantify risk. There is potential for prices and access to insurance to be affected if insurers cannot value the risks that they are covering.

The bill makes significant reforms to duties for disclosing information to insurers. Consumers are required to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation, in replacement for existing rules which require consumers to disclose any and all information that a prudent insurer may wish to know. Consumers and businesses will be required to make fair representation of risk to the insurer, which often is more complex for insurers to assess than for consumer contracts. The bill includes proportionate remedies for the insurer where disclosure duties are breached that vary depending on whether the breach was intentional or accidental and the difference that accurate information would have made to the insurer.

Unlike many other jurisdictions, New Zealand has no specific legal requirements in relation to the presentation of insurance policies. The bill will require insurance policies to be written and presented clearly, making it easier for consumers to understand and compare policies and make informed decisions about their cover. The bill also introduces a new requirement for insurers to pay claims in a reasonable time. The bill has also made a variety of changes of a more technical nature to streamline and improve the operation of the law and to provide certainty to insurers.

Key changes: the first one is regulating the use of genetic testing information in insurance. The committee considered a new policy issue that was raised by the health sector and consumer submissions on the use of genetic testing information by insurers. Genetic testing has been used more frequently and has real health benefits. It can allow for early identification of health risks, which can enable people to get more preventative steps to improve their health, but genetic testing can also be used to diagnose conditions and target more accurate and precise forms of treatment, improving outcomes.

The committee heard that some people are refusing or delaying a genetic test against medical advice because of insurance concerns. Similar concerns have been raised in other countries. Canada, by way of example, has stopped insurers from seeing genetic testing information, and earlier this month Australia announced it will ban life insurers from using genetic testing. By majority, the committee has recommended a new regulation-making power to prohibit or regulate the conduct of insurers in connection with genetic testing. I support this change. I think it’s the right approach for New Zealand and it stops it from being left behind by other countries.

Time frame for client claims is another area that the select committee addressed. By majority, it has recommended a change to clarify that the requirement to settle claims in a reasonable time frame includes the time taken to gather information as well as the time to investigate and assess claims. Some parties are opposed to this. They consider that the changes walk back the requirement on insurers. I agree with the majority view of members and support the change. The other issue is the consumer standard of reasonable care. The committee, again by majority, has recommended a change to the consumer standard of reasonable care for disclosures. The Green Party and the Labour Party are opposed. They consider that the changes make the requirements unclear. I agree with the majority view and support the changes.

There are a number of other technical changes, but I’d like to thank the committee, that has made a positive difference with its recommendations, particularly to address the use of genetic testing information where it has clearly balanced the views of industry, consumers, and health groups. I commend the bill to the House.

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

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This will be a reasonably technical call, and you’ll forgive me if I read some of my contribution, because it is in response to the legislative statement given by the Minister the Hon Andrew Bayly. In this speech, I will set out the Labour Party’s position on a number of technical changes to the Contracts of Insurance Bill, which will, really, be a point for further debate and clarification at the committee stage. There are two changes that the Minister has just referred to as becoming, in our view, less clear after the committee process, and it’s those which will need further explanation in the House’s records about what the intention of Parliament is when setting this legislation.

This is the first time that New Zealand has had a consolidated legislative answer for our insurance law. This is the first time we will have all of our insurance law being codified in this way, and this is a real step forward. That is why the Labour Party is supporting the bill at this reading, because we want to see the introduction of a piece of legislation which clarifies and codifies not only the rights of consumers but also the obligations of insurers, and particularly their duties to one another in good faith when entering into this kind of insurance contract, which requires the utmost good faith. It is a special kind of consumer contract which requires both parties to treat each other in a way that is respectful and honest, and that is at the heart of this legislation. We want it to be clear and fair, and a number of the changes that happened in the Finance and Expenditure Committee made it less clear, especially for consumers.

The key to good law in this area is that policyholders who make honest mistake should not find themselves without cover as a result, and this law should also introduce penalties for insurers who fail to act in good faith, such as not completing a claim in a timely manner. Those were the two principles which really began this work under the Hon Kris Faafoi, Dr the Hon David Clark, and Dr the Hon Duncan Webb, who all brought to this work personal experience as politicians and practitioners of the law in addressing claims in instances like Christchurch and insurance claims for the Earthquake Commission, where undue delay caused a huge amount of stress for consumers of insurance products and led to region-wide economic trouble. This law should be able to deal with that in a way which recognises the rights of consumers well, and there is a concern that remains within the changes that the committee has made that make this less clear, and especially in a time of a disaster or in a major event, where consumers around the table are suffering from the need for their insurance providers to pay them out in a timely way. We may need to revisit this as a House.

I want to make the point that, throughout the bill, the key consumer protections here have been reversed in favour of insurers, and we generally do not support those changes but could live with this bill as a package of change overall, because it does advance the position of consumers even still, but there are two points—and those were the two points that the Minister outlined—which we think go too far in favour of insurers: one is the point of undue delay, and one is the point of consumer care changes in the duty of disclosure requiring dishonesty or fraud.

The first one: where policyholders who make a mistake with their disclosures should not be denied cover. It would not be fair to insurance issuers if the policyholders were acting fraudulently or obtaining insurance by deception, but the bill as introduced included those kinds of protections. As amended by the select committee, the bill has become less clear because it has done away with “fraud” and uses “dishonesty” instead. The problem here is that—and I don’t want to labour this point, because it will be a contentious issue for litigation in the future—deliberate attempts to get into an insurance contract for your own personal gain would be fraud, and that is what the bill should prevent. A dishonest disclosure in an insurance contract opens up a huge amount of litigation risk for anyone entering into these contracts, because a dishonest disclosure could, really, be anything where there is not personal gain.

The worry for people who came before the committee was in something like a health insurance contract or a life insurance contract. My failure as a sufferer of asthma to not disclose my pre-existing condition of asthma might lead to a lack of cover in future for something that was completely unrelated to that, and did not result in my personal gain in any stretch. The idea that an all-inclusive insurance contract will be somehow not upheld because a consumer had failed or had made a mistake in one of their disclosures, that amounted to dishonesty but didn’t actually result in any gain for them, seems unfair and is a real step backwards for the consumers who this bill is designed to protect.

The second one is that insurers should complete claims in a timely manner, and the time to complete a claim should not be delayed by a prolonged period of discovery or obtaining information before an assessment can be made. The Minister’s changes in this bill as it was introduced walked them back from that bill that the Ministers in the Labour Government had worked on.

We could have still accepted those, but, as amended by the select committee, that further walks back requirements on insurers to settle claims quickly, and that is something which is a huge shame for consumers and should be revisited if, in the future, there are events which result in insurers not paying out in a timely way, because often these things occur when multiple claims are claimed for a similar event at the same time—even though this creates a huge burden on insurers and is a real worry for insurers because this bill would create timing requirements for them, and that is very difficult in a situation like the Auckland floods or the Christchurch earthquake. It is also very, very difficult for those consumers, and it creates a region-wide economic issue when you have huge numbers of people at the same time not being paid out for their insurance in a timely way.

The issue of timely completion of claims is important to consumers, and the committee heard about that. They will be rightly disappointed that this bill resiles from the consumer protections proposed by the former Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. The bill should provide for a clear duty on an insurer to accept or reject, assess, and settle a claim within a reasonable time, and the select committee’s changes have made this less clear despite the courts having already recognised similar duties.

I’ll turn now to two other matters which the committee spent some time on. The first was unit titles. We heard from submitters that there was an issue with the Unit Titles Act not allowing bodies corporate to choose the level of insurance cover they could take out, rather than being required to insure the building to a full interval value. That is something that this bill should, in my view, have been able to cover. It was something that there was cross-partisan support for exploration of in this bill, and it is a shame that we were not able to have that included in this bill. It is an item for further work that all members of the committee encourage the Government to take up.

The last is that Labour supports the approach taken in this bill to genetic testing. It is something that is useful for our legislation to include. However, at the committee of the whole House stage, we should spend time scrutinising the legislative arrangements for that, because it is, basically, being done in secondary legislation, and that was in recognition of the fact that it was introduced at the select committee stage and there was not time for the committee to design a regime in the primary legislation. It is incumbent on the Minister to exercise those powers given to the Minister to create that secondary legislation in a way which serves all New Zealanders, knowing that the committee was unable to do that in primary legislation, and knowing that the House will not have another opportunity to scrutinise whatever rules come out of that.

We support legislation which consolidates insurance law in New Zealand. But at the committee stage, I have two amendments. One is to the dishonesty and fraud provision that I’ve spoken about. One is to timing. I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to both of those issues, because the changes at select committee have substantially weakened the bill and may require us to come back here to consider it again.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I can bring some joy and perhaps even some extra sleep to the House by indicating that the Government have indicated that they do not wish to continue with urgency. This bill will be adjourned until the next sitting day. The House is suspended until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Goodnight.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10.05 p.m. (Wednesday)