Thursday, 26 September 2024

THURSDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 2024

THURSDAY, 26 SEPTEMBER 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): 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 upon 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.

Visitors

United Arab Emirates—Minister of State for Foreign Trade

SPEAKER: Members, I am sure that you will want, along with me, to welcome to His Excellency Dr Thani bin Ahmed Al Zeyoudi, Minister of State for Foreign Trade of the United Arab Emirates, and his accompanying delegation, who are present in the gallery.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 15 October. In that week, the House will consider the second readings of the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill, the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 2 to Minister, 19 September

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct a statement I made in question time on Thursday, 19 September.

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

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On the advice of the Ministry of Transport, the Hon Matt Doocey responded to an oral question on my behalf that referenced “default speed limits” in six countries. This morning, the Ministry of Transport corrected this advice to remove the word “default”. The correct statement is that Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Japan, Denmark, and England all have speed limits of 50 kilometres per hour on urban roads.

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 Barbara Kuriger MP requesting that the House urge the Government to ensure access to Te Rapa and Hamilton North by reopening Ruffell Road.

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

CLERK:

Government response to the referral of the petition of Katrina Mitchell-Kouttab: Gaza - call for New Zealand to take further actions

2023-24 annual reports for:

Animal Control Products Ltd

New Zealand Parole Board.

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Improving Auckland Council’s emergency preparedness: A follow-up report. I also present an erratum to the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment entitled A review of fresh water models used to support the regulation and management of water in New Zealand. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the:

review briefing on the 2022-23 annual review of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd

review briefing on the 2022-23 annual review of the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd

report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the review briefing on the 2022-23 annual review of New Zealand Green Investment Finance Ltd

report of the Health Committee on the Petition of Lucy Mullinger

report of the Primary Production Committee on the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The briefings are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Ministerial Statements

Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement—Conclusion of Negotiations with United Arab Emirates

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade): I wish to make a ministerial statement on the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement with the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Firstly, I’d like to welcome my friend and colleague, His Excellency Dr Thani bin Ahmed Al Zeyoudi, the United Arab Emirates Minister of State for Foreign Trade, and his delegation.

Earlier today, we were pleased to announce the successful conclusion of the New Zealand - United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, or CEPA, just over four months after we launched the negotiations in Dubai on 7 May this year. This agreement is one of the most ambitious and liberalising of any trade agreement to date. I want to thank Dr Thani and his team for their dedication and professionalism and the pragmatic way our teams have worked together to reach this agreement.

This high-quality trade agreement will grant New Zealand duty-free access for 98.5 percent of our exports to the UAE upon the agreement’s entry into force, rising to 99 percent after three years. This is an exciting development for our farmers, manufacturers, services, and digital exporters and our investors, and supports our Government’s goal of doubling the value of exports in 10 years.

The UAE is a top 20 export market for New Zealand, one of our largest markets in the Middle East. As a vital logistics hub, it serves as a gateway for many of our companies into the wider region. This agreement will enhance our cooperation in areas such as agriculture, sustainable energy, and the aviation and maritime sectors.

Significantly, the CEPA provides major benefits to our agricultural sector, offering new opportunities in a world increasingly marked by protectionism. Beyond tariff elimination, the CEPA includes strong commitments on services, Government procurement, and in investment.

The CEPA’s investment facilitation chapter and a bilateral investment treaty concluded alongside the CEPA will create a framework for investment between our countries, providing investors with confidence that their investments will be treated fairly and equitably by the other party, helping to encourage greater investment flows. This agreement does not include investor-State dispute settlement.

Beyond the numbers, the agreement also includes chapters on intellectual property, sustainable development, labour, sustainable agriculture, climate, and on indigenous trade. We’ve also secured New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi exceptions to allow us to continue to meet Treaty obligations.

Why does this matter? Well, we face increasing challenges in the global environment, from food security concerns to climate change and geopolitical tensions. In such times, it’s critical that we act to support the international rules - based trading system and grow our prosperity. Strengthening our international connections through trade is an essential focus for me as Minister and this Government. Trade is a stabilising force that fosters shared benefits and cooperation and can enhance people-to-people linkages. It remains a crucial engine for economic growth, lifting incomes and helping economies to respond to global shocks. Trading nations like New Zealand and the UAE look outwards. We champion global connections and benefit from the free flow of goods, services, capital, and ideas.

The Government is focused on growing the economy and easing the cost of living for New Zealanders. Strengthening global connections is one of the key strategies to achieve this. Trade supports one in four jobs in New Zealand, with export-related jobs paying better wages than those that are not involved with export. Exporting firms are also generally more productive and faster growing than non-exporting firms. That’s why we’re committed to increasing the value of our exports, expanding market access, and breaking down trade barriers. The swift conclusion of this high-quality agreement reflects that commitment. Now that we have done so, I look forward to working towards signature, ensuring that New Zealand and UAE exporters understand how to take full advantage of this agreement.

I wish to extend my sincere thanks again to His Excellency Minister Al Zeyoudi and to the UAE business delegation for their interest in fostering deeper ties with New Zealand businesses. Together, we’ll ensure that this agreement delivers real value for both nations and for the citizens of New Zealand and the UAE. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the absence of Damien O’Connor, it falls to me to comment on behalf of the Labour Party. Can I congratulate the Minister and the Government for concluding this agreement.

I want to say a little about its history. New Zealand got quite close to finalising this agreement in 2008, and then on the Gulf side, there was a request made by the Gulf Cooperation Council for the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to conclude the agreement through that apparatus, and that then became disrupted with events in the region rather than on this side. As a consequence, after the 2008 election, the National Government continued to proceed with other agreements such as the early negotiations or continuation of the negotiations with the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). We then came to Government, knocked off the finishing off of CPTPP, and prioritising other agreements like the European free-trade agreement, which we landed; the UK free-trade agreement, which we landed; the China upgrade; and the ASEAN-Australia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement upgrade. It’s good now to come back and conclude the agreement with the United Arab Emirates outside of the Gulf cooperation framework.

Trade agreements can’t be relied upon to cure all of the ills in the world. It’s unrealistic to expect that trade agreements will have binding environmental and labour obligations that are so high that they will cure all of the labour and environmental problems in the world, but trade agreements ought to do the lifting that they are able to do in advance of those very worthy goals. I’m pleased to hear that there are both trade and labour and environmental standards in this agreement, including as to objectives for climate change. That is good.

In respect of the investment protocols, can I congratulate the Minister for carrying forward the position in respect of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses. The House will be aware that there has been a backlash against those agreements in the world where civil society has not liked the fact that foreign multinationals can sue Governments under ISDS clauses for breaches of trade agreements, and we, when in Government, reached the view that those enforcement mechanisms should be Government to Government, rather than corporates against Government. We thank the Government for carrying that forward in respect of this agreement and for the UAE agreeing to that change of position, which is a change of position for the UAE and I think settles down, or is likely to settle down, societal acceptance of agreements such as these.

The final two points I would make are in respect of overseas investment protocols. New Zealand is well protected in respect of the issues that we can still screen for in respect of inward investment, which includes, under our regime, infrastructure with monopoly characteristics, obviously issues that have security ramifications, rural horticulture, forestry, and residential land.

Lastly, could I pass on my thanks to the UAE Government for the cooperation that they showed during COVID. Only some members will be aware that there were a lot of phone calls made at the time of COVID to try and keep air links between different parts of the world open. None of these routes were profitable. New Zealand, through Air New Zealand, supported some routes. I recall phoning the then trade Minister of the UAE, asking the Emirates to keep their route open to New Zealand, albeit less frequently. Different calls were made to the likes of Singapore, and between work through the ministries in all of these different parts of the world, we actually managed to maintain air connectivity for the rest of the world.

Now, that had both trade benefits, and it enabled returning New Zealanders to get home and people to return to their other countries, albeit with restrictions around managed isolation and quarantine, but it also managed to help feed people in other parts of the world who were reliant on protein and other food from New Zealand, which also helped our exporters, and of course it was heavily subsidised by the Government, although some of the consequences of that for the deficit of the time seem to be more controversial now than they were at the time.

So, with those comments, can I congratulate the Government and congratulate the UAE as well on this day, and I look forward to participating in the consideration of the national interest analysis when it comes before the select committee.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I too rise as the Green Party spokesperson for trade, and, firstly, also to congratulate the Minister for Trade, the Hon Todd McClay, on this Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA). There are a couple of things I would like to address before, if I may. I have a few questions for the Minister, as well.

The first thing is also to thank the Minister for upholding his commitment to not include the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) process, which is something that he has committed to in this agreement. This is something that, as we’ve seen with some of the previous trade agreements, the Green Party feels very strongly around, particularly when it comes to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement as well as the regret around retainment of the ISDS in the second protocol of the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement.

The other thing that the Minister mentioned in terms of some of the tariff elements is also something that we’re very interested in in terms of the benefits to Aotearoa New Zealand, but not just to those peak bodies but also particularly to those smaller companies and your kind of ground level, smaller, locally producing farmers. It is also not just from a local perspective but also from what is going to be the future, and one of the bulwarks, one of the strongholds, for organic production in the region.

A couple of the questions I do have for the Minister. Now, one of the things that we’ve seen is around the new strategy for Trade For All. I want to also draw the House’s attention to the Standing Orders review that was conducted last year around the review of the international treaty process, particularly when it comes to the idea of public consultation, because, understandably, when we’re looking at international treaties and agreements, it is one of the areas that the Government—the executive—has absolute control over, and yet it’s not up for public consultation during the select committee process until much later, when the agreement is signed.

Considering the announcement that the Minister has made, my first question is: what public consultation has actually taken place? Based on the time line that is available, there are a lot of conversations between the two parties involved, but I’m not seeing a lot of consultation with the general public, particularly, in this case. I understand and thank the Minister for having sort of Māori requirements around Te Tiriti o Waitangi, but in this particular case, what hapū or iwi have been explicitly involved in part of the decision-making process and have they been adequately heard? That’s my first question.

My second question to the Minister is that, in looking at the trade, it’s incredibly important and it’s going to be incredibly beneficial, but, as we see with all trade agreements, there are also certain checks and balances that need to be in place and certain measures for accountability that need to be in place, and that is something that I have not been able to find at present. Hopefully, the broader reads of the full CEPA will be enlightening around this, but I want to ask the Minister: in terms of the agreement itself and measures for accountability, what accountability is there in terms of the obligations of Aotearoa and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) under the Paris Agreement, particularly not just in terms of sustainable energy but also climate mitigation and climate adaptation internationally? I know that the UAE, for example, has done a lot of work in the Pacific region. However, I am asking specifically about internally and domestically when it comes to some of those measures for accountability, both for Aotearoa as well as for the UAE.

The second part is in terms of some of the other elements of measures of accountability around things such as involvement in workers’ rights, particularly when it comes to elements of modern slavery—which I know that Aotearoa is very interested in—as well as other elements in terms of contributions to war, which I’m sure that the Minister will agree is currently a very hot topic in the general region of the Middle East as well as the Arab Gulf. In this particular case, what are some of the measures for those kinds of involvements and checks and balances within that particular agreement? If the Minister wouldn’t mind answering, that would be great.

Lastly, I would like to also extend a warm welcome—al salam alaikum—to Dr Thani bin Ahmed Al Zeyoudi from the UAE.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade): Mr Speaker, thank you, and I thank my two colleagues for their thoughts and their best wishes and gratitude to our visitor. It shows Parliament can be at its best on behalf of New Zealanders when we focus on the things that are important.

To David Parker: the reason that the Integrated Cargo System is not in this is actually that the interests of New Zealanders, when they invest overseas, can be met government to government in agreements like that—very similar to previous agreements passed through the House. It’s the same response, I think, to my colleague from the Green Party Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

In as far as the public’s involvement in the negotiation of trade agreements is concerned, as with previous Governments, we have to balance out understanding the views of the public and getting the very best deal for all of them. Sometimes it’s not advantageous to either side to be negotiating in public, but we go out before we start an agreement and we seek the views of industry groups, of unions, of iwi, and many others—as well as members of the public where we can—as to what are the important issues to put into the agreement. Then we follow through with that.

During a negotiation, where it is necessary to go back to the various groups—more often the business community but not only the business community—negotiators and the ministry are able to do so. Then, finally, upon agreement, we talk directly to a range of stakeholders including iwi groups—some directly, who have interest in the trade themselves—but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, at the time of the last Government, set up a number of iwi representative groups that we engage with often and seek their views and value their views which inform this outcome.

In as far as the Standing Orders are concerned, a trade agreement is not able to—nor should it—have an effect upon those. However, from the point of view of ensuring that all New Zealanders have the opportunity to understand that trade delivers benefits to every single person in New Zealand, we will be as open as we can in providing information and having them have a view to comment. Indeed, when the legislation to enact comes through Parliament, you should expect not only a full committee opportunity hearing for people, but at the same time we’ve had occasions where we’ve reached agreement that we can have a debate in Parliament about that rather than it just going through quietly.

The member also mentioned a number of other areas around climate change, and so on. The texts are very similar to other agreements. No agreement is ever the same, because it’s a negotiation, but to give you an example, the United Arab Emirates and New Zealand both have significant interest in the Government’s focus on renewable energy. Indeed, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) spends a lot of money in the UAE and around the world to work with others to develop new types of sustainable energy that can meet the requirements as well as climate change. The spirit of that, though, remains in this agreement.

Although I won’t go to all of the different parts about the checks and balances, the member mentioned the labour outcomes in the agreement. The trade and sustainable development chapter recognises the importance of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Constitution and ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work that’s been in previous agreements. It is followed through to this one.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of ACT, I would like to join the Minister in welcoming His Excellency Dr Thani bin Ahmed Al Zeyoudi, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Minister of State for Foreign Trade, and his delegation. ACT would like to thank the officials of both countries, New Zealand and the United Arab Emirates, who have worked to get this excellent agreement completed. It’s especially great that the deal has been announced while His Excellency Dr Thani bin Ahmed Al Zeyoudi and his delegation is still here. The speed with which this deal was achieved, combined with the extent to which trade barriers have been removed, sets an impressive benchmark for future deals.

Free trade is a win-win. Kiwi dairy farmers, meat producers, and manufacturers will be able to sell more products at competitive prices to the people of the UAE, who will, in turn, benefit from greater choice and competition. In return, New Zealanders will be able to access products from UAE businesses with fewer tariffs and barriers, and this is important as we work to address the cost of living.

It’s also great to see that other than the tariff elimination, the agreement includes commitments for equal access to services, Government procurement, and investment too. ACT is strongly pro-trade. We believe that the free exchange of goods between different countries is key to lifting human prosperity. Trade also fosters diplomacy, peace, and friendship between different peoples. As a nation, New Zealand ought to promote the value of trade unapologetically, especially as we advance negotiations with our next major trade deal with India. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, your time was well and truly used up.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Oh, I thought I had 10 seconds left.

SPEAKER: How many seconds?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: 10.

SPEAKER: No, it’s one.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Oh, was it?

SPEAKER: Yeah.

Urgent Debates Declined

Events in Lebanon—New Zealand’s Response

SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from Teanau Tuiono seeking to debate New Zealand’s response to events in Lebanon. Every application for an urgent debate must be authenticated and, if not, they will be declined. The application was not accompanied by any supporting material and it is therefore declined.

Urgent Debates

Dunedin Hospital—Government Announcement

SPEAKER: I have also received a letter from Dr Tracey McLellan, seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Government’s announcement about the plans for the building of the new Dunedin hospital. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Ministers have announced that the options for revising the scope or development of a previously announced hospital are being considered. This is a matter that warrants setting aside the usual business of the House today. After oral questions, I will call on Dr Tracey McLellan to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. 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?]

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, and in particular the successful conclusion of the negotiations for the New Zealand - United Arab Emirates closer economic partnership agreement, which is great news for our exporters and our economy. I would wish to congratulate the Minister for Trade for the record four-month gap between negotiations commencing and this conclusion being drawn.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What actions has his Government taken to comply with the recent United Nations General Assembly resolution, which Aotearoa New Zealand supported on the international stage, which calls on all states to, among other things, implement sanctions against people carrying out Israel’s unlawful presence in Palestine?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, our Government has consistently supported peace in the region. We’ve had a clear and sensible position in which we have been calling for ceasefire for months. We’ve called for Hamas to release the hostages; we’ve called for Israel to meet its obligations under international law and to facilitate safe and unimpeded humanitarian access for aid delivery. And as the member says, we’ve voted in support of the UN resolution to broaden Palestine’s participation in the UN General Assembly. Our actions on this matter have been ongoing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When will the Government sanction Israel in accordance with the United Nations General Assembly resolution, which the Prime Minister just acknowledged Aotearoa New Zealand supported, on the international stage?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’m not sure that the resolution did call for New Zealand specifically to take any specific actions of the nature that the member describes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Government requested any advice on sanctioning Israel for its unlawful presence in Palestine or upholding any of the other recommendations as agreed to in that United Nations General Assembly resolution?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Ministers take continuous advice on matters of foreign affairs and they’re in constant engagement on matters of foreign affairs.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are we then left with the understanding that this Government is doing or has done absolutely nothing to fulfil that UN resolution that we supported internationally?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. As I said, New Zealand has consistently supported peace in the region, been calling for a ceasefire for months, and have been calling for Hamas to release hostages, for Israel to meet its obligations under international law to facilitate safe and unimpeded humanitarian access for aid delivery. Our position has been consistent over a number of months.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Government condemn the violent aggression and escalation that Israel is undertaking, resulting in civilian casualties in Lebanon; and if so, what if anything is it doing about it?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, we have long called for a ceasefire in the region. We’re urging all sides to show restraint and take steps towards de-escalation. We’ve issued three statements since last year with Australia and Canada, highlighting that a regional war would have disastrous consequences for the region and especially for civilians across the region. We’re now also urging New Zealanders to leave Lebanon and northern Israel, while commercial options remain available.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his statement yesterday, in reference to Mark Mitchell losing his responsibility for firearms, “I have tremendous faith in Mark Mitchell. I think he’s an outstanding Minister of Police and he’s doing an absolutely brilliant job.”, and why didn’t he express that same faith in Nicole McKee?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, in answer to the first part of the question, yes. Mark Mitchell is an outstanding individual and Minister. The characterisation that he was stripped of anything, that was inferred in the question yesterday, was wrong, and I have confidence in all of my Ministers, including Nicole McKee.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who does he agree with: Winston Peters, who said, “The minister of foreign affairs does not consult with coalition partners on the literally hundreds of UN General Assembly resolutions that are considered each year”, or David Seymour, who wants to be consulted on all UN resolutions and said, “We expect a more open dialogue in the future.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and David Seymour would agree with me that when it comes to major changes in New Zealand’s foreign policy, then there will be a Cabinet discussion of those. The nature of UN resolutions is that they are very frequent. That will not occur in all cases.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is correct: David Seymour, who speculated that private enterprise should either contract or just take over completely the Interislander ferry, or Winston Peters, who, when asked if he would prefer rail-enabled State-owned ferries, replied, “Of course I would.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I can assure the member that both Winston Peters and David Seymour share the Government’s interest in ensuring that there are safe, reliable ferry services over the Cook Strait into the future. That is the discussion that Cabinet is having, and we will ensure that we make an announcement shortly.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is correct: Christopher Luxon, who said, “We’ve ended up creating a whole new series of addictions to nicotine that I think we’ll regret very strongly”, David Seymour, who said, “The Government is the biggest nicotine addict.”, or Casey Costello, who said the Government is “not necessarily anti-nicotine”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, common to all of those statements is a view that we want fewer people smoking in this country, and if that member wants to do a series of questions playing spot the difference between the quotes, then shall we start a game of spot the difference between the tax policies? Because, boy oh boy, I’ve lost count of how many different views there are from the members opposite.

SPEAKER: When questions are about to be heard, stop the discussions.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is correct: Nicola Grigg, who on Suffrage Day said, “We must make sure we continue to progress this legacy to continue the fight for gender equality and improving the lives of women in New Zealand.”, or the Hon Nicola Willis, who disestablished the pay equities task force?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, both of those women are correct, and both of those women are members of a Cabinet that will be doing more for women than the last Government, which saw the cost of living increase for women, saw that their ability to have choices and opportunities in their futures was reduced by poor economic management, and oversaw a situation in which, despite spending billions and billions of dollars more, did not see an improvement in the services which women and men received.

SPEAKER: I’ll just make the point that drowning out an answer really does make me think what the point was in allowing the question.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is to blame for the “coalition of chaos”: the current Deputy Prime Minister, who acts as a handbrake, the man who is replacing him in six months—

SPEAKER: No, I’ll tell you what: start again. There’s been lots and lots of concern from the Opposition about various descriptions being put on other political parties, including your own. I’d suggest the member starts the question without the particular description at the preface of it.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Who is to blame for the coalition’s differing of opinions and the chaos that has ensued: the current Deputy Prime Minister; the man who will replace the Deputy Prime Minister in six months’ time; the finance Minister, who has stalled at the lights; or the Prime Minister, who is clearly still driving with his L-plates on?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, those who like to spend a lot of time on Treasure Island probably shouldn’t be talking about L-plates.

SPEAKER: When we’re ready.

Hon Simeon Brown: Give her another holiday!

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: 大家下午好，快乐的中文周.What are the elements of New Zealand’s public finance system?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): There are a number of elements. First, there is legislation, in particular the Public Finance Act. Second, there are conventions that have been accepted and used by successive Governments. New Zealand’s fiscal management approach, for example, is a non-legislative framework that includes public finance concepts such as fixed nominal baselines, contingencies, and allowances. Finally, Governments make their own decisions about how to structure and present their finances, and typically those decisions are outlined in Budget documents such as the Fiscal Strategy Report or Budget Policy Statement.

Sam Uffindell: Is she intending to propose changes to the Public Finance Act?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. I’ve said previously that I will enact a public finance amendment bill in this parliamentary term. This bill will have a particular focus on fiscal risks but also include other changes to strengthen transparency and fiscal responsibility.

Sam Uffindell: Has she already made changes to the public finance system?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, many changes. For example, we got rid of hundreds of pages of verbiage from the Budget documents this year, including knocking the previous Government’s branding exercises on the head. The previous Government introduced a cluster system, where some groups of agencies were collectively funded for a three-year period. We have ended that because it did not work. We discontinued the previous Government’s Climate Emergency Response Fund. Many of the spending decisions made under the banner of climate purposes did not represent good value for money from an emissions-reduction or a taxpayer-value perspective, and we are sticking much more closely to the operating allowance concept in the fiscal management approach by actually intending to keep to future allowances—a novel idea to those on the other side of the House.

Sam Uffindell: Is the Government reviewing any other aspects of the public finance system?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, we are, including the structure and use of capital allowances. In 2019, the previous Government introduced the multi-year capital allowance, or MYCA, to reflect new capital funding available over multiple Budgets. This was rather grandiosely trumpeted at the time as the wellbeing approach in action. In practice, however, the previous Government simply made large annual increases to the MYCA and immediately allocated those increases. This almost entirely defeated the purpose of a longer-term capital allowance. I said in the Fiscal Strategy Report in May that the Treasury will be reviewing the capital allowance framework, including the MYCA, and I’m expecting to receive that advice before the end of the year.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, there’s no way that the answer to that question could be deemed to be a reflection of advice that the Minister has seen or information that would be objective. That was her interpretation and a political bent on the situation, and I don’t think that’s appropriate, particularly for a patsy question from her own side.

SPEAKER: Well, look, I will take another look at that, obviously, but I was listening—

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It couldn’t have been drier!

SPEAKER: Excuse me. I was listening very carefully, and the primary question is: what are the elements of New Zealand’s public finance system? There were two supplementaries following that, before the third supplementary, which you are concerned about. I will take a look at it and see where we’re at, because it is a fact that the Government should not be asking itself supplementary questions designed to attack the Opposition. They can refer to previous Government programmes and the effect that it has on current policy—it’s long been the case. I did mention this to the House a short time ago. Clearly, some advisers have not read that.

Question No. 4—Agriculture

4. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What recent reports has he seen about the welfare of farm animals in Southland?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have seen news reports and heard from farmers down there that it has been an extraordinarily challenging winter, and now spring, for animals and farmers alike due to high rainfall and late snows. This has led to higher than normal losses and there have been issues brought to the attention of Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) animal welfare inspectors. In a recent example where photos of dead sheep were publicised, inspectors found that the farmer had shifted animals to dry paddocks in the aftermath of an unexpected weather event and placed those sheep there where they were later filmed. The plan for the farmer was to go back later and pick them up after checking on the welfare of all the other animals on the farm. I am advised that MPI inspectors were satisfied that the farmer had taken appropriate steps to safeguard the welfare of their animals.

Mark Cameron: What feedback has he received from farmers on how they are coping with the situation?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: From talking to a number of Southland farmers, I know that they are feeling the pressure right now. I personally have farmed through droughts, floods, snowfalls, and windstorms but the worst mentally has always been a couple of occasions where it has just rained non-stop for months on end. Relentless rainfall throws up so many challenges for farmers, who are always focused on doing their best for their stock. This Government cares about animals and farmers, and I know that trying to come up with solutions in these conditions is one of the hardest parts of farming. And yet each day, they get up, they put the wet weather gear back on, and work out a plan to get through to tomorrow and look after the cows and sheep.

Mark Cameron: What can farmers do to look after the welfare of their animals and themselves in such challenging conditions?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, there’s an old adage: “A problem shared is a problem halved”, and this is so true. There are a number of organisations that can offer an ear to listen—but also just leaning over the gate and talking to your neighbour about how they are going. They may have a good idea to share in terms of how they are looking after their animals, or it can just be a morale boost to realise that you aren’t the only one struggling. Everyone is in the same boat and, actually, you’re doing pretty well. Feeling a bit better about yourself will help with better decision-making and the motivation to get back into it.

Mark Cameron: Are conditions in Southland expected to improve?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, unfortunately, the weather forecast for today is rain, hail, and snow down to 300 metres for Gore. We can only hope that farmers down there will see a few weeks of respite coming up soon. In terms of what the Government can do, I’m afraid we can’t legislate for bringing on summer any quicker or guarantee that it will be a mild one. I know in the past they’ve tried to bring daylight savings forward. It didn’t really work. MPI’s on-farm support team can work with farmers to provide them with good information and make connections to other organisations who can help. The vast majority of farmers are giving it their all at the moment to look after their livestock. For the few that may not be, MPI’s compliance team are also responding to calls, working with farmers, undertaking proactive action and, where warranted, will initiate prosecutions.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: That was long.

SPEAKER: Yes, it was.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: 谢谢, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement, “On this side of the House, we take economic management extremely seriously”; if so, do her decisions to date reflect this?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, and I take all decisions seriously.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn’t it the case that outside of the 2020 COVID year, the last time there was an operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL) deficit of at least 3.1 percent, which is forecast for 2025, was in 2012?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is correct that New Zealand currently faces a structural deficit of significant proportions. Our Government inherited a situation where the last Government had charged up the credit card to the max, unsustainably, and we are now in the position of course correcting, and we had set a very clear plan that it will allow the books to return to an OBEGAL surplus in 2027/28. If we had stuck to the spending plans of the last Government, that date would have been pushed out until 2031, an unacceptable outcome.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn’t it the case that the last time that unemployment was greater than 5.4 percent, which is now predicted for June 2025, was in September 2015?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As has been well canvassed in this House, New Zealand finds itself in extremely challenging economic circumstances. We have had three years of a cost of living crisis in which inflation was allowed to be maintained outside of the band. Not only did that increase costs for New Zealanders, what we saw was interest rates then had to rise extremely high and quickly in response. That has strangled the economy. Now, members opposite had a choice as interest rates were rising at that rate. They could have sat down and said, “We better get disciplined about our spending.” Members opposite chose not to and have worsened the economic situation that New Zealand now finds itself in and we are cleaning it up.

SPEAKER: Keep everything fairly succinct.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn’t it the case that the additional interest cost of the $12 billion of additional borrowing in Budget 2024 will be $4.3 billion?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I am very pleased that the member is getting her head around the impacts of high debt, because that is the same member who went on Radio New Zealand and said that she thought the New Zealand Government should be borrowing more. So get your position aligned and stick with us, which is that we want to get back into surplus quicker so we can reduce debt.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. As theatrical as that was, it actually didn’t address the question. It was a pretty straightforward question and—[Interruption] Excuse me—in silence, points of order. I know you’re rattled, but give us a chance. Mr Speaker, it was a very—

SPEAKER: No, just wait. Points of order are heard in silence and responses like that are not acceptable.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The response didn’t actually address what was a very straightforward question, and it was straight into a political statement aimed at the member who asked the question. Now, I get it, totally. The whole House understands if it is a loaded question, fair game; and if it is a broad question, then, you lead with your chin, you’re probably going to get hit. But, in that instance, it was a very straightforward question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, but it did refer to, I think, 2015 in that particular case, which does take it back into the time of the previous Government and would invite a suspected response along the lines that it got. But I tell you what—just ask the question again.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Isn’t it the case that the additional interest cost of the $12 billion of additional borrowing in Budget 2024 will be $4.3 billion?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is true that interest costs that incur when New Zealand is living beyond its means are significant. This is of concern to the Government, and that is why we are taking such efforts to restrain spending and get it back under control after several years in which spending rose dramatically as a proportion of GDP and was unfunded, leading New Zealand to borrow for the groceries, leaving us with massive interest bills for our Government debt.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she reconcile shifting $30 million that was for te reo Māori education to fund maths when she could have just given the $216 million tobacco tax break to cover both and more?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On this side of the House we wish to see the revitalisation of te reo Māori. I understand from the Minister of Education that the programme to which the member refers was not able to provide conclusive evidence of an increase in the achievement in te reo Māori by children in New Zealand classrooms, and we are going to continue to ensure that te reo Māori instruction is available to educators, including through the many free programmes offered through tertiary providers.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When will she take responsibility for the cancellation of a major piece of infrastructure without advice on an alternative—

Hon Shane Jones: Light rail.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: —including any sort—

SPEAKER: Hang on—you can start your question again. When a question’s being asked, please try and hold those interesting comments that you’re offering to the House to yourself.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When will she take responsibility for the cancellation of a major piece of infrastructure without advice on an alternative, including any sort of cost-benefit analysis, which is the very opposite of careful economic management?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have and will take responsibility for the fact that when this Government assumed office, we were handed a basket case otherwise known as project iReX, whose cost had blown out of a number of months. Faced with a decision early in our Government as to whether or not we should add more funding to that fire, and given a very challenging deadline within which to do that, we took the advice of our officials, who said that this dog don’t hunt.

Question No. 6—Education

6. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about supporting the teaching of maths?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): This Government will be delivering high-quality, curriculum-aligned maths resources and supports for teachers and students, delivered from term 1 next year. Funding of $30 million will fund student workbooks, teacher guides, and lesson plans in our primary and intermediate schools and they’ll be available in English and te reo Māori. More than half a million year 0 to 8 students and their teachers will benefit. This is alongside a knowledge-rich curriculum, and $20 million in professional learning and development to support our teachers, reduce workload, and lift student achievement in mathematics.

Mike Butterick: What prompted her to deliver these supports to schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Just 22 percent of our year 8 students are at the expected standard for maths and around half of our students are not able to pass a foundational NCEA co-requisite assessment in numeracy. I was also concerned by the fact that there is a lack of high-quality curriculum-aligned maths resources available in te reo Māori. Today’s announcement sees the equitable access of instructional maths resources for teachers and tamariki in te reo Māori. These high-quality resources will support teachers to implement the new curriculum and to help kids practise and master the knowledge and the skills they need to excel in maths.

Mike Butterick: What will this mean for teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, this will reduce the workload for teachers by providing them with both curriculum-aligned resources so they don’t always have to create their own teacher guides to support introducing the new curriculum content, and it will mean that every single teacher will have access to these resources for themselves and their students in te reo Māori and English, rather than just the schools that can afford them, so that we can raise achievement and close the equity gap for all children in mathematics across New Zealand.

Mike Butterick: What’s next for schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Approved suppliers will be published on the Ministry of Education’s website no later than 18 October for schools to choose which resources and supports they may like to order. Schools may wish to choose different resources for upper primary compared to lower primary, depending on their needs. Orders placed by 4 November will see schools receiving their new resources in time for term 1. I’m delighted to be funding this for all students and all schools who want access to this wonderful maths support.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did she take $30 million from support for teachers to learn te reo Māori, an official language of New Zealand, rather than from David Seymour’s pet education project?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We made sure that we have kept available te reo Māori for our bilingual and kura kaupapa kaiako, but it is really important that the $100 million that we’ve spent over the last three years was 2.3 times more expensive than other, similar courses offered free of charge. There was anywhere between a 50 and 60 percent completion rate; it was not NZQA accredited; there were no qualifications gained; there was no evidence of improved student outcomes. We can contract much better than this because we are committed to the revitalisation of te reo Māori.

Question No. 7—Māori Development

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

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Ni hao and kia orana. Āna—yes. I particularly stand by the actions we’ve taken to reduce the number of households in emergency housing. Earlier this week, I announced that the number of households in emergency housing has dropped by nearly 60 percent between December 2023 and August this year. Many of the households who have left emergency housing are Māori, as many of the 1,311 tamariki who have left emergency housing as a result of priority-one decision-making made by this Government.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: As the Minister for Māori Development who is proud to be Māori, how can he justify being part of a Government that is disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora, cutting $300 million of targeted Māori funding, repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, the confiscation of our coastlines, rejecting the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, defunding section 27 reports, restoring three strikes—just about there—removing Te Mana o te Wai, and setting in motion a wave of anti-Māori sentiment by giving life to the Treaty principles bill?

SPEAKER: It’s not appropriate to use a question to question the integrity of a Minister or any member in this House. You can ask a question about actions they are taking inside their ministry, which I appreciate is the thrust of your question, but the start of it was not in order.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order. In addition to the point you made—I mean, I thought there was a very standard rule that questions could not include assertions. And that question was full of assertions that we would contest entirely.

SPEAKER: Yes, it’s a difficult word “assertion”. If we used it in application for both questions and answers the House would be practically mute.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m very proud to be part of a Cabinet that has more Māori members than any other Cabinet in New Zealand’s history. What I’d also acknowledge is the progress that Minister Metekōura—Minister Goldsmith—is making on various Treaty settlements, such as Te Korowai o Wainuiārua and Taranaki Maunga; also the funding for Matatini that Minister Willis—the Manu Pūtea—has supported over the next three years; also the progress that the Ō-Rākau bill has made by Minister Potaka; and also getting hundreds of tamariki Māori out of emergency housing. I’ve got to say, some of these questions are like a hāngī on repeat, reheat.

SPEAKER: And that wasn’t an appropriate comment either.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Do all of these cuts and repeals constitute Māori development or Māori regression?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m very proud of the progress being made by this Government to get the country back on track around the economy, law and order, education, housing, small and medium enterprises, emergency housing, and a whole range of other portfolios.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the conversation to end over here.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How can he justify the Government’s decision to cut $30 million on Te Ahu o te Reo Māori, a programme that develops te reo Māori among our kaiako, immediately after te Wiki o te Reo Māori?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I can reflect on some of the comments that have been made by both Minister Willis and Minister Stanford in relation to this matter, and acknowledge also that there are various free courses offered through universities, wānanga like Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, and various other methods through our community. Those avenues and pathways are open for the teachers to school themselves up on te reo Māori and celebrate our language as a for ever language—ake, ake, ake.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does he agree that the actions of his Government constitute ethnocide, the deliberate and systematic—[Interruption] Hold! Hold! Just taihoa! Tatari!—destruction—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: —of an ethnic group?

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Questions will be heard in silence. But questions that make an allegation or even ask a question like that—it’s outside the bounds of what would be reasonable inside the House. There are other ways of asking a question, and I’d invite the member to perhaps have a quick think about that and ask a supplementary that might get the same answer but with a different front end to it.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Thank you, Mr Speaker—does he agree that the actions of this Government constitute deculturation, the deliberate and systematic destruction of Māori culture?

SPEAKER: No, look, I’m sorry, that’s not in order either.

Hon Members: Why not?

SPEAKER: If you have a look—who asked that?

Hon David Parker: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, no—it’s not a point of order from you; I’m dealing with a ruling at the moment. If the member looks at the Standing Orders around what can be asked in the question, you cannot put into a question an assertion of that nature. So do you want one more go?

Hon David Parker: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order, sir, is that the member wasn’t making an assertion; she was asking whether the Minister agreed that that was a proper summary of the effect of Government policies, and that is a proper question. The Government doesn’t have to agree with it, but it is a proper question be able to be asked in this House.

Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, Hon Simeon Brown.

Hon Simeon Brown: Well, Mr Speaker, I mean, I think there’s a particular—the word “ethnocide” has significant meaning and I think there is offence taken from this side of the House, and we’d ask her not just to not use it but to withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: We’ve actually dealt with that. We’ve moved on from it.

Hon Simeon Brown: My point of order is in relation to the fact that she used that word—

SPEAKER: Yes, I know that.

Hon Simeon Brown: —in a prior question—

SPEAKER: Yes, I’m well aware of that.

Hon Simeon Brown: —and you’ve addressed the use of it but not in relation to her—

SPEAKER: I’ve spoken to her about it and we’ve dealt with it. The Hon Shane Jones.

Hon Shane Jones: My point of order, sir, is slightly different. Standing Order 390 shows that you are quite right.

SPEAKER: Well, there you go—red letter day; I’ll clock that one up.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Standing Order 390 talks about statements of facts and arguments and fairness and imputations. But, as David Parker mentioned, actually what the member was simply doing is asking a question, and, whether it’s inflammatory or otherwise, it was not an assertion, it was a question. So I don’t actually think that Standing Order 390 applies here.

SPEAKER: That’s right, but it’s me who judges that. And I would say that imputation is another aspect of that question. I’m inviting the member to ask her question in a different way, and I’m sure she can do that.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does he agree that the actions of this Government constitute harm and poverty and such things that impact on Māori katoa o te motu [all Māori of the country]?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: This Government acknowledges the severe inequalities of opportunity that confront Māori communities, and cohorts within Māori communities, both in the social space and the economic space. Hence, we’re absolutely focused—ruthlessly focused, in fact—on a variety of targets, such as improving Māori school attendance and Māori achievement in education, making sure that we reduce the number of Māori living in emergency households, and a number of other initiatives. My focus, as is with a number of my colleagues, is to ensure that Māori economic development, Māori social development, is supported and improved so we can all say, actually, there is an equality of opportunity here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Question No. 8—Police

8. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his commitment that if Associate Minister of Justice Nicole McKee brings an option to Cabinet that proposes to scrap the firearms registry then he will block it; if not, why not?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): I stand by the commitment made in the coalition agreement with ACT to review whether the firearms registry is effectively improving public safety, and I stand by my role as Minister of Police to advocate for police around the Cabinet table. No such paper has been brought to Cabinet; therefore, such a question would be hypothetical.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Nicole McKee regarding his commitment to block a Cabinet option that would scrap the registry, “No Minister can make that decision by themselves, either myself or Mark Mitchell, and we are part of a coalition Government.”; if not, why not?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, I completely support and agree with her statement, and I’d go further to say that we are both working very closely together with a focus on public safety. She is a firearms safety expert and she is bringing all that knowledge to bear in terms of making sure that, actually, we make our country safer, because in the last five or six years, we’ve gone backwards severely in terms of public safety, especially in relation to illegal firearms.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is TV3 correct that ACT has “spoken to him behind the scenes”—

SPEAKER: Sorry. Sorry, just ask your question again.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is TV3 correct that ACT has “spoken to him behind the scenes and told him to stop speaking publicly about the firearms registry before the review is complete”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, you’d have to ask TV3, but I’m pretty sure I’m talking publicly now about the registry. I just want to reinforce to that member, because although they are trying very hard on the other side, we are working together, we have a coalition agreement, we are reviewing whether the firearms registry is effectively improving public safety, and that is an important thing to do.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he consider it’s fair that he’s been told off for publicly speaking about the firearms registry before the review is complete when Nicole McKee has already stated, “I think the full A category licensing regime is not going to be effective. It’s going to be too costly and it’s going to make people fearful of their own safety.”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’d just say to the member again that it’s a bit like being in the school yard, isn’t it, people being told off? I don’t think anyone’s being told off. I think that this coalition Government has got a commitment to review the firearms registry to make sure that it is effective in delivering public safety, and I think that’s really important. I’d just reassure the member that I’m working very closely with my colleague Nicole McKee to make sure that we deliver that.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he consider that excluding A category firearms from the registry would weaken it, given that these rifles and shotguns currently account for 70 percent of all firearms seized by police from offenders?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I think the member is grasping at straws. There have been no papers taken to Cabinet at all for any decisions. The member is trying to fearmonger. She doesn’t, in my view, have a very good relationship with facts, whereas my colleague Minister Nicole McKee deals with facts. The work that we’re doing is focused on making sure that we reverse what’s happened to our country in the last five or six years and we get on a much better pathway in terms of public safety and firearms safety.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What did he mean when he stated on Newstalk ZB, “I can assure you, as the police Minister, the gun registry is going nowhere.”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, again, I can tell the member that it is my job to advocate and advance the position of the police, and I can tell you now that the police are fully engaged in making sure that we support the review so Cabinet can be informed in terms of what we need to do to improve public safety, and that is what we are committed to.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to reduce the number of victims of crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government’s taking many actions to reduce the number of victims of crime and put victims, not offenders, at the heart of the justice system. Last night, the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill passed its first reading, which will put more serious offenders in prison for longer to prevent them from creating new victims, and if time is spent in prison on remand, we will ensure that offenders have access to rehabilitation to prevent ongoing recidivism.

Miles Anderson: What specifically will the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill do to reduce the number of victims of crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, we’ve seen too many examples of people convicted of serious violent crime and sexual crimes having their sentences discounted significantly. The Government will cap those discounts at 40 percent. We’re also giving great prominence to victims’ interests at sentencing and reducing a number of new aggravating factors including a new aggravating factor for offences against public transport workers. Our bus drivers and train drivers shouldn’t have to suffer from mindless attacks as they do their job.

Miles Anderson: What actions is the Government taking to reduce the number of victims of cyber-crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, this week the Government has introduced the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill. Eleven percent of New Zealanders were victims of fraud and cyber-crime in 2023, and this piece of legislation will align New Zealand with other international jurisdictions to make it easier for them to cooperate on criminal investigations. We’ll play our part in global efforts to frustrate and defeat the efforts of those who deceive and prey on vulnerable New Zealanders.

Miles Anderson: What commentary, if any, has he seen on restoring law and order to create fewer victims?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, last week I heard the comment, “Everybody wants a safe community. We should be tough on violent criminals. People who are violent criminals should be sentenced properly.” I agree with Dr Duncan Webb, and I’m glad that he now realises that things needed to change. This Government is taking steps to restore real consequences for crime and has set targets to reduce the number of victims of serious crime, and we’re working at pace to achieve that.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) to the Minister of Transport: Would the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits (2024) require councils to raise speed limits even where it may increase the risk of severe injury and death?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): The land transport setting of speed limits rule is still under consideration and has not been finalised or signed. Section 164(2)(c) of the Land Transport Act 1998 requires the Minister to have regard to the level of risk existing to land transport safety in New Zealand when finalising the Government’s new speed limit rule. There are a range of factors that impact road safety. Our Government’s focus is on targeting the highest contributors to fatal crashes, including alcohol and drugs. We’ve set clear targets for Police to ensure they focus on the most high-risk times, behaviours, and locations. The interim regulatory impact analysis says that the “level of impact is difficult to quantify due to uncertainty about which roads would have speed limits increased and what impact those speed limit increases would have on operating speeds.” I assure the member that I will take safety into account as part of the process of finalising and signing the new rule.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he reconsider his commitment to blanket speed limit increases now that he knows that the six countries he has referred to as having the lowest road deaths—Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the UK, Japan, Denmark—allow and actively encourage councils to extensively use safer speeds, like permanent 30kph speed limits in residential areas and 70 or 80kph on undivided, windy, rural highways?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: It’s a very interesting question because, of course, the member wrote to me, I think, yesterday about this issue, and there was an attachment to her letter, which says that in Norway the standard speed limit in urban areas is 50kph. In Sweden—ditto; 50kph is standard. Denmark—ditto; 50kph is standard. So the member is trying to make a point, but the information she’s provided to me, in my office, actually, I think, backs up what is in the proposed rule.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: So is the Minister denying that the European Transport Safety Council has provided evidence that there is extensive use of 30kph in many European cities, including cities in the countries he cited, in residential areas, and that the default speed limit on rural, windy, undivided highways is much lower than 100kph in those countries, and that has been a major part of them reducing road deaths, which is widely acknowledged around the world?

SPEAKER: Just ask the question, don’t add your little bit at the end.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m relying on—well, in my previous answer that I just gave—the information she provided to my office, and I’m happy to table the information that she actually wrote to me about yesterday, which says, in Norway, the standard speed limit in urban areas is 50kph. In Sweden—ditto. In Denmark—ditto. So, I mean, the point is that this Government is focused on the highest-risk times, locations, and behaviours on our roads. Alcohol and drugs are the highest-risk contributors to deaths on our roads. That’s why we’re ensuring the Police are consistently doing over 3 million breath tests on our roads. That’s why we’re introducing oral roadside drug testing. We’re taking road safety incredibly seriously.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How many additional people being fatally or seriously injured does he believe is acceptable in order to save 14 to 20 seconds on an average 20-minute car journey?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this Government is incredibly focused on road safety, and in terms of the number of actions this Government has under way to improve road safety, whether it’s making sure we actually ensure there’s enough alcohol breath tests happening on an annualised basis, because we know that alcohol and drugs are the highest contributors to deaths on our roads. And the reality is, in the last number of years, we have not had an adequate number of breath tests on our roads and we’ve had the road death toll continue to increase. This year, we’ve seen the road toll come down and, at the same time, we’ve seen the number of breath tests go up. We need to ensure we’re focused on the highest-risk times, locations, and behaviours rather than just blanket speed limits, like the last Government.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the Minister talked extensively about other things he believes will address the road toll, but he didn’t really address how many he thought was acceptable to accept additional deaths and serious injuries for very small time savings.

SPEAKER: You’re talking about road safety, and so it’s a bit hard to require the Minister to put a number on it and say this is the factor that we’re considering, when he’s just mentioned there are many other factors that are in consideration as well. Does the member have another supplementary?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does the Minister believe that the chief trauma surgeon Dr Christopher Wakeman is wrong when he says, “If you hit a pedestrian at 30 kilometres an hour, there’s a 90 percent chance they survive the crash. If you hit at 50 kilometres an hour, there’s a 10 percent chance that they’ll survive.”, and, if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there are, of course, a range of factors which go into causing deaths and serious injuries on our roads, but the reality is that this Government is not going to just simply slow every New Zealander down to crawl around our cities and towns around this country, which is what the last Government wanted to do. The reality is that we are going to have a balanced approach to this issue, whereby we have slower speed limits around schools during pick-up and drop-off times, but it doesn’t make any sense to make a shift worker going to work at 4 o’clock in the morning have to crawl around their suburb at 30kph.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Mr Speaker, supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, the Green Party has used up all its allocation for today.

Question No. 11—Disability Issues

11. Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she stand by her statement, “That is why we are prioritising disabled people, their families, and carers”; if so, why?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): Yes. That’s why we provided a record $1.1 billion funding boost to disability support services in this year’s Budget. It’s also why we have taken immediate action to stabilise the disability support system after an independent review found that the Ministry of Disabled People, Whaikaha, was ill-prepared to deliver these services when it was established in 2022. That review found the delivery of disability services was in a dire state, with unsustainable spending and a lack of fairness and transparency around what support disabled people can access. Our Government is determined to build a fair, sustainable, high-quality disability support system that delivers better outcomes for disabled people, based on their needs.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How is she supporting disabled people when parents in their 60s and 70s are writing to her to say their disabled adult children were on the waiting list for residential homes but now have been told the list has been scrapped because of the Government’s funding freeze on residential care facilities?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There is not a funding freeze on residential facilities. There is no admissions freeze on residential services. The needs assessment and service coordination centres (NASCs) are making decisions based on need and there are still residential spaces available.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: How is she prioritising families when Rachel, a nurse and mum of a severely disabled child, who works a night shift to be able to care for her son during the day, has lost access to respite care because of her Government’s decision?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I know that it is incredibly challenging for families who are looking after disabled children. That is why it is absolutely critical that we have taken urgent action to stabilise the disability support service so that disabled people with the highest needs can continue to get fair and consistent access to the services they need.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why is the Ministry of Social Development suddenly no longer accessing telehealth autism diagnoses for adults despite evidence that it is robust and that for some, particularly in rural New Zealand, it is the only option to access support?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m standing here as the Minister of Disability Issues, and assessments around disability support services are done by the NASCs.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Is the Minister aware that the autism community is anxious that her Government will change the eligibility criteria for people with autism spectrum disorder, no longer enabling them to access disability support services; and, if so, can she confirm that she will not make that change?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I want to repeat what I said before. This Government has invested a boost of $1.1 billion extra funding into disability support services, because we know there are challenges ahead. What we must ensure, though, is that the support is targeted to those with the highest needs. There will be further work, recommended by the independent review panel, in stabilising the system. We must look at flexible funding, and the disability community will be engaged and consulted before any changes are made.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Who are New Zealanders meant to believe: a Minister who says she’s prioritising disabled people and families, or the hundreds of disabled people and families, some of whom, I understand, are in the gallery today, whose daily realities are very different and are urging her Government to stop their cost-cutting exercise and actually support them to be able to live with dignity?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: They can believe and have confidence in a Government that is investing an additional $1.1 billion in disability services, and not a member who completely disrespects their ability to understand that $1.1 billion of extra funding is not a cut. Unfortunately, we have a system that is broken. Our Government is going to fix it to ensure that those with the highest needs are able to access the services they require.

Question No. 12—Corrections

12. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Corrections: How is the Department of Corrections delivering on his priorities?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): My four priorities for the corrections portfolio are increasing staff safety, ensuring prison capacity, improving staffing levels, and reducing reoffending through effective rehabilitation. There is a significant investment in prison capacity, a strong recruitment pipeline, outstanding rehabilitation across the network, and I’m very proud of the work our Corrections front line does every day in relation to public safety.

Suze Redmayne: What improvements are being made to prison capacity?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Since September 2023, Corrections has reopened approximately 1,300 previously closed beds across the network. By the end of March next year, Corrections will reopen another 460. There’ll be an additional 600 beds added to Waikeria, as well as the Budget 2024 investment of over 810 more.

Suze Redmayne: How has recent legislative change supported rehabilitation?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The Corrections Amendment Bill, which passed last night, delivers on our coalition commitments. For the first time, remand, accused, and convicted prisoners will receive access to rehabilitation programmes. The coalition Government has invested $78 million to support this great initiative.

Suze Redmayne: How does a strong recruitment pipeline contribute to his priorities?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: For the first time in a long time, Corrections are now recruiting above the level of attrition. This means that we are starting to make progress on staff shortages. Our Corrections officers are supported by a significant investment in Budget ‘24 to deliver more effective, regular, and timely rehabilitation to prisoners, as well as ensure that the front line is well resourced and safer. I’m very proud of our Corrections front line, who aren’t always visible but do an outstanding job every day and have a key role to play in public safety.

Urgent Debates

Dunedin Hospital—Government Announcement

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the House take note of an item of urgent public business—that we debate the report of the new Dunedin Hospital. Thank you, Mr Speaker. All right?

SPEAKER: You’re away.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Today, the Government released a report, an independent expert readiness review, on the new Dunedin Hospital. Today, the Government, via two of the Ministers—the Minister of Health and the Minister for Infrastructure—held a press conference in concert with this report and in reference to this report. But, in essence, to make their own announcements on the fact that they were no longer committed to building Dunedin Hospital, as had previously been the case.

In fact, before the election, Dr Shane Reti, then spokesperson for health in Opposition, campaigned rigorously and explicitly on the fact that not only would the National Party reverse some minor changes that Labour was making to the new Dunedin Hospital but it would be fully funded, in budget, and that they would build Dunedin Hospital as always envisioned in the beginning. Today, they poured cold water all over that. They have broken their promises not only to the people of Dunedin but the people of Otago, the rural communities of Otago, South Otago, and Southland—throughout a huge and important regional part of this country—for no other reason than some basic cost saving.

“Broken promises” is a phrase that can be bandied around, but when something as blatant as this— and something that is considered the number one issue in Dunedin and the number one issue for people throughout the South—is just dismissed as a cost-saving exercise, then I think the words “broken promises” are nothing short of incredibly accurate. The Government backtracking on this promise to fully fund and build the new Dunedin Hospital as originally promised not only breaks this promise but it leads to other consequences, particularly when we think about the erosion of health services, particularly when we think about the flow-on effects of that for the people in not only the South but for all people of New Zealand. And the audacity—the absolute audacity—those Ministers had today, to stand there at a press conference and pit other regions against the Dunedin region as a means by which to justify the fact that they are trying to save money.

The audacity of saying, “But if we build Dunedin Hospital as has already been designed; as has already been clinically approved and clinically picked over to the nth degree; as has been value-managed and reviewed and reviewed and reviewed; as has had cut all fat out of the system already. If we build you this hospital, that we’re pretty sure we can’t make any more compromises on, then the poor people of Nelson, the poor people of Taranaki, the poor people of Hawke’s Bay, the poor people of Tauranga will miss out on their regional health facilities as well.” How dare they couch this callous announcement, this cynical cost-saving exercise, by blaming it on other people and blaming it on people that may have a visceral reaction to that as if it’s their own fault?

We’ve talked about the health system erosions, but one of the things that the authors of this report, the new Dunedin Hospital review, mentioned in their review—and I would like to acknowledge the authors, there were several reviewers including the lead author Robert Rust, who I know is an expert and has many years of huge contribution to health services across Australasia. The report is interesting. It gives several recommendations across those various domains of governance, across the domains of scope and services, and across the domains of cost.

I must say, I was quite surprised that when I came to the cost recommendations, whilst almost all of it is redacted—so it’s hard for us to make definitive assumptions and have definitive knowledge about the position, but it wasn’t that emphatic. There were lots of lots of sentences that used the words “probably” and “possibly” and things like that. I think for the Government to catastrophise on the basis of this report and break its promise to the people of Dunedin and Otago is disgraceful—and Southland.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: South Island.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: South Island, essentially. But that’s the theme, isn’t it? Now, we also knew that there would be opposition from officials. We know that Te Whatu Ora were, essentially, strong-armed into presenting some options for cuts previously to this project, and none of them were particularly pretty. Health New Zealand’s southern leadership team had said, “Any scope reduction of any form is ill-advised” and “will increase ongoing operational costs, reduce clinical functionality, decrease the likelihood of us realising the patient flow and efficiency benefits of the New Dunedin Hospital, and lead to higher costs in the medium to long term for Te Whatu Ora.” That’s the thing when you’re trying to chop some cost out of the capital expenditure, isn’t it? Sometimes it’s the operational expenses that suffer, not to mention all the health inefficiencies that flow on.

Thinking about these very specific recommendations, the first thing that comes to mind when I looked at the report—which is considered and it has some really good advice in it—is how are the people of Dunedin going to react about this? I say Dunedin in this instance because I know on Saturday there is a rally being organised. They have endured and suffered through months, now, of uncertainty about what this new Government had planned for this development. They have heard bits and pieces of information. They have heard the Minister of Health, in particular, and sometimes the Minister for Infrastructure, talk out of both sides of their mouths, quite frankly, about promising “a” hospital for Dunedin or promising “a” service consideration for Dunedin without actually committing in the way that the previous Government had.

The outcry from the people of Dunedin—because they won’t be happy and they know that they have one tool available to them at this moment, and that is their very, very strong, their very, very concerted, and their very, very unified voice. I’m sure that if Christopher Luxon had visited Dunedin during the election campaign or during the election period, he may have had a taste of what that feels like, but given that this Government has now chosen a slash-and-burn ideology project instead of finding a way round this dilemma, I can only imagine that Shane Reti will be passing that information on to the Prime Minister about what he could expect when he visits Otago next time.

Joseph Mooney: $290 million extra.

Hon Member: Financial irresponsibility.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Not really. When we think about the impact on services, I think we run a real possibility here of getting the worst of both worlds. We know—we absolutely know—the more we delay this project, the higher the costs become. When we look on the Government’s “red list”—which is now up to 20 projects nationally—and when we look and compare that to six months ago, the costs have gone up hugely. Of those same 18 comparable projects, none of which have moved off that “red list” but the amount of money that is concerned with those projects has risen by $640 million already. Sitting around and reviewing this hospital again will not do anything other than cost more money. That, therefore, leaves us in a situation where we have a lesser hospital that costs more than what we could have if we’d just done it properly in the first place.

This reminds me of the ferries debacle. A new Government coming and going, “Gosh, that’s a big price tag”—coincidentally around $3 billion—and saying, “We must scrap it”, even though they had no plan B and no ability to do anything afterwards. Now they’ve looked at this and they’ve gone, “That’s an awful lot of money” and have made a knee-jerk reaction to make the wrong decision and to put the whole project into a precarious state—let alone the community.

It’s not only about broken promises, it’s not only about the impact on services, it’s not only about the community outcry—and I look forward to joining the people in Dunedin on Saturday as they vent their expressions and they have an opportunity to react to this Government’s announcements as they can on Saturday—but it is also about looking forward to the future. If the current Minister of Health can’t get his head around an infrastructure programme and an infrastructure plan and has to make these types of decisions, then I can only feel genuinely concerned for the people of Nelson and for the people of all those other regions, not because Dunedin Hospital gets their hospital but because this Minister is not competent to make the tough decisions and to do it when needed.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Members across this House agree that the people of Dunedin and its surrounding regions deserve and need a modern, fit for purpose set of hospital facilities. Now, that commitment to the people of Dunedin was first made in 2017, and when that commitment was made, the people of Dunedin had a right to expect that by now that hospital would have been delivered. In fact, in 2018—December of 2018—the Government of the time announced that the hospital would be built in two stages, with the outpatient and day surgery building fast tracked and the larger inpatient building due to be finished either five or six years after that.

As we stand here today, in Dunedin, on the ill-chosen site for the Dunedin Hospital, there is steel in the ground but not enough progress, and we as an incoming Government have been faced with a significant set of challenges. The reality of Opposition is that you observe projects from the outside and you remain hopeful that the Government of the day has things under control, but what we found on assuming office was that the Dunedin Hospital project was anything but in control. In fact, one of the first major capital budget decisions we had to make for the health sector was to put aside an additional $300 million for the Dunedin Hospital. I would ask members opposite to desist from the false claim that we have reduced funding for this project. In fact, one of our most significant decisions was to immediately increase funding for this project in recognition of the fact that the costs have blown out so significantly that it would be impossible to deliver it without that extra funding.

What we found was a project that has in fact been plagued with problems since, I think, the most ill-fated decision—which was made in May 2018—when the Government of the day announced that the new hospital would be built on the old Cadbury chocolate factory site and parts of the surrounding blocks. Now, I know that that decision at the time seemed magical, because, for the people of Dunedin, the sadness of seeing that site unoccupied would be met with a new hospital, but actually, not much work was done to assess whether that was a good site for the new hospital. What was found—and I reference here the advice we have received from experts—was that the extraordinary cost premiums associated with the land purchase, together with the demolition costs, contaminated ground, piling difficulty, flood-level risk, and an extremely constrained construction site flanked on three sides by State highways made it an extremely unattractive project for contractors and suppliers, which further drove up construction costs. These numbers I find compelling, so I wish to share them with the House: since the 2017 business case, the cost per square meter to build the hospital has tripled, from $10,000 per square meter to $30,000 per square meter.

It is not our job in Government or my job today to lament where those poor decisions have led us. It is our job to get on and deliver a hospital for the people of Dunedin, and we have set about doing that in the most responsible manner in which we can. Today, you have seen the Minister of Health and the Minister for Infrastructure go to Dunedin to be upfront with the people there about the choices that we face. We have released the Rust report, which has objectively analysed whether or not the Dunedin Hospital project can be delivered within budget. What that report makes clear is that even with the additional $300 million that this Government is committed to adding to the existing appropriation for this project—even with that—the project is highly unlikely to be delivered on budget.

We do have a choice at that juncture. The choice that we have is that we can, on the one hand, carry on lifelessly ignorant to that fact, or we can take steps to get it back on track—we have chosen the latter course. What we have presented are two options that we are considering in good faith, and we wish the people of Dunedin to know that we are considering these two options. The first option is to revise the project specification in scope and within the existing structural envelope, and the second option is a staged development on the old hospital site, including a new clinical services building and refurbishing the existing ward tower.

Now, I have absolute clarity from members opposite that they think that there is no amount of money that would be too much for Dunedin Hospital. I put to you that that just can’t be the case, because, actually, when we make choices about the way we spend New Zealanders’ money, there are always opportunity costs and trade-offs. And the advice that we have received tells us that this project is on course to blow out millions and millions of dollars more. Now, those are millions of dollars that we wish to invest in health infrastructure. Mark my words, we will be investing more every year in health infrastructure across this country, because despite their rhetoric, the last Government wasn’t very good at getting new hospital buildings built. It wasn’t very good at actually redeveloping facilities or using money for good effect in the health system.

What we are going to do is have to do work across our hospital system: in Whangārei, in Nelson, in Tauranga, in Invercargill, where there are suboptimal facilities, where upgrades are required. The choice that we have to confront is whether it is, in that context, appropriate to let this project continue down its sad, sad path of cost blowout after cost blowout after cost blowout. The choice that we have made is to be pragmatic and upfront with New Zealanders—that it’s time, actually, for us to take some sensible steps to control those costs.

I’m going to be very interested to see whether Ayesha Verrall will stand up and tell us that she is proud of the decision making that occurred over the past six years in relation to this project, because what we have found is a pattern of actually completely inadequate planning occurring and a reluctance to confront emerging problems. What we have seen is that the last Government knew this project was going wildly off course and chose not to take steps to bring it back on track. It actively chose not to do that and instead, I believe, ultimately was pulling the wool over the eyes of both the people of Dunedin, but actually us as an Opposition, because we were not in a position to know how badly things were actually going in this project until we assumed office and were given the ability to look at all of the information about it.

One of the facts that has surprised me about it, which I can barely believe, is that the actual business case for the project was still being developed while the project was being built—I’d love to hear members opposite explain to me how that is good practice; that despite the years that had been spent on the project, there was still no clear plan for the pathology lab, no plan for the refurbishment of the existing facilities, no plan for the car parking. All of that was estimated to cost hundreds of millions more but hadn’t been included in the overall plans.

What we see is a haphazardness. I’ll tell you something that happens when you do that, which is that those who are building the project and are involved in the project see you coming—they see you coming. They say, “This is a Government that can’t even put together a business case. It can’t even be clear about the time lines for this project or what its budget parameters are.” It gives them complete ability to continue down a path of excessive costs. It’s time, actually, that we were realistic, that we were clear that every project, no matter how important, still must face some budget constraints.

I want to finish these remarks by saying this: delivering people really good health facilities so that our nurses and doctors and health workers can operate in modern facilities that allow them to effectively and efficiently deliver services is an important challenge for New Zealand. Dunedin deserves good facilities, other parts of the country too. We will invest more money in this, but we’ll also deliver plans and budgets that work.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It has been enlightening to hear from the National Party, with two National Ministers in Dunedin today willing to say anything to get elected, but simply can’t be trusted. Because failing to confirm to build the Dunedin Hospital to its full capacity is a complete betrayal and an utter kick in the guts for Dunedin. Yes, Dunedinites are angry. Actually, they’re furious to see two Ministers shape up in Dunedin and give us what they’ve given us today. We can’t trust this Government one iota. They slither and squirm away from any clear answer.

Dunedin and the deep South community is like no other. We’re a hardy lot down South, but we deserve access to healthcare. Not leaking roofs in existing buildings. We don’t deserve stressed doctors, nurses who want to go to Australia because they can’t cope with the stress this health system is under, pathologists who don’t know where on earth they’re going to be seated or sited. This Government is bleeding our health system to death to fund trickle-down tax cuts.

Dunedin deserves a Government that works for people and planet, not this coalition of cuts. The health of our people has to come before the pockets of the wealthy, and we need desperately to invest in our health system so it’s fit to cater for all of our needs and our communities. On Saturday, we’re going to show the coalition Government exactly how we feel. Do you know what ticks me off? Suggesting that $3 billion for health for the deep South is unaffordable—$3 billion for a hospital complex, when the Government tells us that $10 billion to explore a possible tunnel for Wellington is cheap as chips. “Cheap as chips”—$10 billion to explore a tunnel for Wellington.

How much have we spent on potholes? We’re spending $5 billion on potholes. We’re spending $1.4 billion to adapt a road around the Dunedin Hospital, but not on healthcare. Do you think people are a bit mad in the deep South? You’re telling me—they are. If this Government gets one vote out of Dunedin at the next election I will be surprised because this Government has accelerated a funding crisis for universities as well, including the University of Otago. This Government’s massively slashed research funding for Dunedin’s Crown research institutes. And now we see this betrayal of every Dunedinite; they seeking to divide—divide rather than build, as promised—the Dunedin Hospital.

We haven’t yet had time to fully understand what the coalition’s Dunedin Hospital downgrade will mean because they’re slithering and squirming away from any detail. But two things are really clear: this is National’s biggest broken election promise, and it is one that they can’t shaft off to their minor coalition partners either. This is all on National. Did they even look at the cost increases that Labour was blaming on their own proposed downgrades when National loudly proclaimed and promised to deliver on a full build during the election campaign? What did Michael Woodhouse say? Michael Woodhouse, I know they kicked him out, but he said, “The South deserves a hospital [that will] be fit for purpose for generations, not a patch up job.” And that’s what we’ve got—a patch-up job by a Government that doesn’t know what they’re doing.

They’re cancelling the link between the islands and they are cancelling healthcare. So what we’re seeing today is their strategy to deflect their dishonesty by turning people against each other, by proposing that reasonable healthcare in the South is going to detract from others, when in fact this Government wants to spend money on useless projects like looking at tunnels in Wellington. This Government does not care for our communities. If this Government gets a vote out of Dunedin it’ll get Mark Patterson’s vote, perhaps. But will it get any others? I doubt it. What gives me hope is our community, and we’re not taking this sitting down. We are strong together and I look forward to joining in what will be the biggest protest march in our city for a long, long time on Saturday, because on Saturday we march for our city, we march for our region, and we march for the Dunedin Hospital.

SPEAKER: It’s New Zealand First’s call. Let me just explain to the member Simon Court that I have in front of me an agreed process that was put together by the Business Committee earlier in the year for debates like this. I’m just following that pattern.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in this debate around the Dunedin Hospital rebuild. I will not sugar-coat this. This is not the news that southern New Zealand wanted to hear today, but it is important that we are honest with them. Whilst I appreciate the passion of my colleague from down South—Scott Willis over in the Green Party—we do have to live in the real world. As a cost blowout, $3 billion is an order of magnitude above the $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion where this project started out, and the $1.6 billion when we came in—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Have you read the document?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: I have read the doc. I tell you what, Ayesha Verrall: the ill-fated December 2022 announcement where you blinked—if you had kept going, we would not have been in this position today. Your decision to rescope and delay and hit that inflation surge absolutely is the reason that we are here today, because whilst this project was beset by a litany of errors—it was the wrong site, it was incredibly expensive to buy that site, the demolition costs were incredibly high, it was contaminated, it’s flood-prone, it’s on reclaimed land, it’s had piling difficulties, and they didn’t even provision for parking. Within the rescoped work that Mr Rust has done in his report, he’s had to add in $400 million for auxiliary stuff that wasn’t originally budgeted for in the original business case, including parking for a building in the centre of the city. People need to be able to get to the hospital. As has been pointed out, this is a base hospital for southern New Zealand, so people have to travel to get there.

It does speak to the wider issue, and the Hon Nicola Willis mentioned this too, that we are having far too many cost blowouts in our infrastructure projects. We have got to get our arms around these projects and make sure that we are not facing, time after time after time, cost blowouts. It’s $3 billion here, Scott. It’s another $2 billion there; it’s another $500 million there. It all adds up. This is what we’ve got to face, particularly in an environment where we have got an economy that has been in recession for two years. That is the stark reality we face in those economic conditions, but we are taking stock of this project. There are two options, and we must make sure that there is adequate and proper provision for healthcare in Dunedin in particular.

The one thing I would like—and I’ve told this to Dr Reti—is that we also have to face some reality in the South. The growth is in Central Otago. There needs to be capacity added in Central Otago. We need to use this point to fully address that. When you’ve got 10 percent growth a year, we need to be facing that reality as well. There is also capacity within Southland, and I know the Hon Penny Simmonds is lobbying for an extra operating theatre too. So, within the South, we do deserve proper access to healthcare and adequate health facilities. This is a chance to relook at that, to look at all the options. We have two for Dunedin Hospital. That doesn’t go far enough. We need to look at provision in Central Otago. We need to look for provision in Southland as well.

Those are the options on the table, but it is the reality. It’s not a reality that I wanted to be standing up here facing—that New Zealand First wanted to be standing up here facing—but that is the reality of politics. Sometimes really tough decisions come down the pipe. Sometimes you inherit a mess. Sometimes you’re in charge of sorting it out, and this is the place we find ourselves in today. We will make sure that the provision of health in the South is where it needs to be, but the current plan does not get us there for the money that we have to spend. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Before I call the member, can I apologise to him. We have this pre-organised list. It’s got seven columns in it, and I looked at the wrong one. I don’t like this kind of system, but there you go; it’s what we live with. My apologies again. I call on Simon Court.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This unfortunate decision today does not preclude the people of Dunedin receiving exceptionally high-quality healthcare services provisioned by the public health system. What it is, unfortunately, is another indictment of New Zealand’s public sector agencies being unable to deliver infrastructure projects on time and within a fixed budget. It’s not too different from KiwiRail’s iReX ferry terminal project, which blew out from $700 million to over $3 billion. But let’s just explore some of the problems.

The previous Labour Government had a health Minister who went mountain biking during COVID. The next one, Hipkins, he decided to try to restructure the entire health system while the pandemic was still going. Surprisingly, while all of these things were happening, they took their eye off the ball and they said, “Look, we’ll go ahead and we’ll build Dunedin Hospital on a chocolate factory site.”—that, it turns out, was quite unsuited for the level of services, the scale of buildings and infrastructure they intended to deliver. They were hugely optimistic, the previous Government. They said that this health facility could be delivered for about $1.4 billion, and then, lo and behold, there’s been a series of cost blowouts, it’s a few hundred million more. Optimism bias crept in.

The fact that half the scope, the car park, the pathology lab, and all these other things you typically need when you run a hospital were left out, that’s another example of the dishonesty shown in the business case and project development process which has led to under-pricing and fixing a budget which—the Cabinet Ministers in the previous Government are looking at me now as if somehow this is the coalition Government’s problem. It’s their problem that they caused by failing to ask adequate questions around scope, failing to have the level of competence and professionalism that you need when you’re commissioning major infrastructure, that leads us to this place today.

Now, what the Rust report has determined is that we have a problem where, essentially, the services that the Government has committed to deliver can’t be delivered within that budget—$1.88 billion. The coalition Government increased the budget this year by $300 million, but it’s not going to be possible within that budget, apparently, to deliver what’s been committed to. I’m a civil engineer. I’ve never started a project without having the client confirm the budget. Yet, apparently, the previous Government made a series of instructions to the extent that piling was under way without a business case being approved. That is quite outrageous. I’m sure that, when a Dunedin Hospital is finally delivered, the people of Dunedin will get what they’re asking for and what they need, but it’s certainly not going to be what the previous Government signed off.

It’s also true that when it comes to scope and need, this Government has to consider the whole of New Zealand as well as the people of Dunedin and the people of Otago. It’s quite clear there is a significant growing population in Central Otago that also has significant need. We are going to have to make the most of the assets we’ve got. We’re going to have to make a dollar go further in New Zealand when it comes to health infrastructure and all types of infrastructure, and we’re going to have to make sure that we deliver with value for money in mind.

Now, in terms of the delegations that I’ve been given by the Minister for Infrastructure, Chris Bishop, it’s to look at health infrastructure through that lens of how do we get better value for money from the assets we’ve got? How do we make the most of the money we have to spend? Well, one of the ways we might do that is to say, “Well, if there is a fixed budget and there’s a time constraint—we want a new facility developed and delivered in a certain time frame—then we need to look at public-private partnerships (PPPs).”, where you can outsource the delivery risk, you can agree a fixed cost and a fixed time, and if it’s not delivered on time and to budget, that liability sits with the contractor.

Imagine if Labour had had any appetite at all to involve the private sector in actually funding, financing, and delivering this project—it’s quite likely that it would have been delivered by now within the original budget committed to. That’s an initiative that this Government’s going to take. We look forward to announcing more about our PPP policy that’s going to help health in the near future.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Today is a milestone day on the slipping away of New Zealand’s healthcare system to one characterised by cuts, cold-heartedness, and underfunding. It is a day in which we remark on the broken promise of the National Government, who campaigned on building Dunedin the hospital that it needed, and it sought those votes with such a level of cynicism we see from what’s been done today.

The people of Dunedin need a new hospital; their current hospital is unsuitable and it is unsafe—500 instances of surgical equipment being contaminated every year. It is not a suitable place to be continuing treatment for people. It needs to be replaced. The scope reductions that will be entailed by what the Government is embarking on will cause additional cost. That always happens when you build a hospital that is too small: it ends up costing you more down the line.

What I want to spend my time on today is the desperate political play that this Government has done. We’re seeing it here and we’ve seen it before. Let’s go through it step by step. This report seems, in many parts, to be a very good report—the Rust review. However, everything about the costings is blacked out.

I take no reassurance from the other side of the House when they say that there’s been a $3 billion blowout. The word “$3 billion” is not in the report; it’s nowhere. For those of you who got up with your Government talking points and said that, go into the report and try and find it. This is a manufactured crisis about the cost of this hospital. The Rust review says it probably could not be achieved within the existing appropriation—that doesn’t mean certainly; that might mean it’s a 50 percent probability or a 40 percent probability. It is certainly not the case that the Government has the right to claim that it’s going to cost $3 billion. That is untrue. Where did this figure come from? Well, I think if we admitted Chris Bishop to the gastroenterology department at Dunedin Hospital, we might be able to get a scope and find out where that $3 billion figure came from, because that is utterly made up.

This is exactly the type of process we’ve seen when this Government wants to cut healthcare: they make up a scandal. They said Health New Zealand was $1.4 billion over budget and they had to fire the board. They said it was because of back-office bloat. They said it was because there was 14 layers of management; well, we found out that was untrue. We found out that they didn’t have the organisational chart that Dr Reti said there was. We found out that they actually hired more nurses and that it wasn’t anything to do with the back-office cuts. They did that in order to justify cutting staff out of our health system, and that’s exactly what’s going on with Dunedin Hospital. They have put out a report, they are manufacturing a crisis, and then the worst thing is that they are trying to play other communities off against New Zealand. That is so dirty. It’s disgraceful.

The fact is that if this Government wasn’t so reckless with its $2.9 billion tax cuts for landlords, there would be money to meet the needs of New Zealanders—

Andy Foster: If you hadn’t been so reckless with everything, there would be heaps of money there.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: —for their healthcare. If they weren’t giving $216 million—$216 million from Dr Foster’s party—to a single tobacco party, we would be able to give New Zealanders the healthcare that they deserve.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we should come back to the motion—to the debate.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: These cuts to New Zealand’s hospitals are about the bad choices that this Government has made. This is a deeply cynical political playbook that we see from them over there again and again and again. They made a bad Budget. They made reckless decisions. They bought their way into Government with tax cuts. And then, New Zealanders are paying the price.

Dunedinites are being asked to pay the price—and all the communities of Otago and Southland that that hospital will support. Well, kia kaha to the people of Southland and Otago. I learnt a lot of lessons from those people, as a medical student in the old Dunedin Hospital. One of the lessons that they taught me when I was learning to be a doctor was to take responsibility. Well, this Government needs to stop blaming other people for its problems. It needs to take responsibility. I’m looking forward to seeing all the people in Dunedin out on the street on the weekend. We can expect that this Government understands just how much the people of the southern region think that this is a broken promise.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just seeking some clarification there. We’re discouraged from interrupting speeches wherever necessary, so I held off until now. There was guidance provided then to come back to the motion, and the point that was being made was around choices the Government has made in the context of potential alternative funding streams for the Dunedin Hospital. Now, there are additional speeches to come, and that, in my mind, was entirely relevant to the motion, and so I just want some clarification—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: My clarification was it wasn’t about the Government; it pointed to a specific party in the coalition Government. That’s why I made that ruling.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. Thank you. Is there another call? No. Is there another call from here?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): It is interesting that the Government benches don’t want to take any more calls. Now, I would like to tell a little bit of a story from my perspective about Dunedin Hospital because, of course, I’m very privileged to be the member of Parliament for the great city of Dunedin.

In Dunedin, we have a hospital, we have a tertiary hospital, and it is a training hospital for the medical school at the University of Otago, where Dr Ayesha Verrall trained some time ago. There’s never been any dispute until today when I hear from the Hon Mark Patterson that perhaps the tertiary hospital should be in Central Otago. That is a totally new thing to be hearing, because it has always been based in Dunedin, as the city that then has to do that tertiary-level care for the wider Otago and Southland regions. Of course, those areas also need hospitals, and the issue here is about the big tertiary regional hospital.

National has said lots of things about this hospital over time. One former Minister of Health said Dunedin Hospital is not going to be a long-term preeminent tertiary hospital. He went on to say there is a reality that can’t be voted away: New Zealand probably has too many doctors. Over the next 10 years, we will need fewer hospital beds than we currently do.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Who said that?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: That was the Minister Bill English in the late 1990s talking about the health system. Of course, we remember that, when the Labour Government came into Government in 2017, the state of the infrastructure around New Zealand, the state of the hospitals—there were many stories about mould running down the walls in various hospitals around the country. We heard then from the Minister for Finance, “Oh, well, this Labour Government doesn’t know how to build things, because the whole of the new Dunedin Hospital isn’t up yet.” Well, at least Labour was building things. You can’t knock things over if you’re not building them in the first place. Now, National, to their credit, did say that they would—they recanted from what Bill English had said and they said they would build a hospital, a new tertiary hospital in Dunedin, and set up the Southern Partnership Group.

In 2017, there was the decision on the location of the new hospital, and this is an outpatients building and an inpatients building. For anybody who’s been to Dunedin recently and driven along the one ways, you will have seen the new outpatients building that looks like a finished building—it’s not finished but it’s looking good. The inpatients building is the building that the Government members seem obsessed—totally obsessing about the fact that it’s built on a former chocolate factory. It was so patronising to hear the Minister of Finance say that the Cadbury choice was somehow magical. It was not a magical choice. If anybody knows Dunedin, you know that there are many hills and there is not an abundance of flat land that is ready to be built on with significant vertical buildings. This was a choice; it was in the middle of town. It was a choice that was made. In that time, there was consenting; there was the acquisition of land as well. Of course, some of their consenting was done under a fast-tracked process that did not override environmental protections—because that can be done.

Now, at the last election, when I was standing to be the member of Parliament for Dunedin, National made many promises about this hospital. They promised that any changes that Labour had made to decrease the scope—so by two operating theatres and a positron emission tomography (PET) scanner, and some shelled beds. They said, “We’re going to undo that. Shame on Labour for making any cuts.” That was their promise. That was the spokesperson for National, Dr Shane Reti, now the Minister of Health. He came to Dunedin, he said that, and the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who was standing against me, said it over and over again. What do we get when National is in Government? We just get cuts. That is all we can expect from this Government: cuts, cuts, cuts. I look forward to seeing the people of Dunedin and the wider South on Saturday.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): What a shameful day for this Government. What a shameful day to go out and election campaign to deliberately mislead voters, knowing that they had no intention of ever delivering on the promise of Dunedin Hospital. That is callous politics. It is throwing the people of the South under the bus, and now they are shamefully trying to gaslight people to say that there is this crisis that once again doesn’t exist, just to suit their political purposes.

When I go doorknocking most weeks, surveying my constituents about what is the most important issue in the electorate, what comes up first, time and time again—in every part of the electorate, whether it is in South Dunedin, whether it is Kākā Point, Balclutha, Middlemarch, right across the whole of the Taieri electorate—is access to healthcare and the new Dunedin Hospital. They are as important to the people of Taieri as the cost of living crisis, and that is because in my electorate about a quarter of the population are over the age of 60, so healthcare is really important.

When they voted last election, many of them were sceptical about the National Party promises but they desperately wanted access to healthcare. They saw the need for it, and they told me that had a very big bearing on how they voted. Well, those people will be so let down, the ones who put their faith in the National Government. The fact that many of them didn’t and that I stand here today as their representative shows that they have long memories of the type of antics that this Government has done previously, where they’ve talked up the need for a hospital and then done absolutely nothing to deliver it.

The other side, the Government, are really misleading with their narrative around this hospital, and this has been clarified as well by the former Southern Partnership chair, the Hon Pete Hodgson. He’s saying that the costs that they are anticipating of the blowout, $3 billion—his word is “absurd”. What they have done to concoct this narrative is add pathology, the car park, and a refurbishment costed at $400 million. They have talked up the problems of the site. The fact is that the hospital is not just about services; it is about the economic development and lifeblood of Dunedin being a centre of medical excellence, and that requires a hospital to have proximity to both the university and to the polytech.

All the issues that were mentioned by Nicola Willis have already been resolved. It was 2.7 percent of the total budget to do that remediation and all of that work is now complete. The land was bought actually incredibly cheaply—$11 million—because Cadbury wanted to get out of town, so there was already value for money in that purchase. It’s just so important that the hospital has the proximity to the university so that the medical school can remain the centre of excellence that we see so profoundly from Otago University.

The fact of the matter is that this Government basically hates the South Island. We’ve got plenty of evidence. They’ve destroyed the possibility, or it’s looking very likely, of having the rail-enabled ferries that will ensure that the Hillside workshop investment by the Labour Government, the revitalisation of the Hillside workshops, bringing so many jobs to my people in South Dunedin—they depend on rail-enabled ferries, and this Government is now putting that into a very big question mark. That is bad news for Hillside. They don’t care about the ramifications.

They don’t care about our roads. There are no roads of national significance anywhere around my electorate. In fact, the map from Waka Kotahi doesn’t even have the South Island on it. The worst bit is that they prefer to put the tax breaks for big tobacco forced on this National Government by a minor party ahead of the healthcare needs of New Zealanders and ahead of their promises to the people of the South, and that is the people of Dunedin, the people of Invercargill, all the people in the rural areas in between who find it so difficult to access healthcare and who have waited so long and fought so hard. Well, my message to them is make sure, wherever you are on Saturday, to come down to the Octagon at midday, put on your T-shirts, and send a message to this Government that you will not accept anything less than the hospital that they promised that they would deliver.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a National Party call, so I’m going to take the National Party call.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. We’ve heard a lot from the other side about the lack of a new hospital in Dunedin. I wonder if the members opposite might remember who was in Government for the last six years—that did not deliver such a hospital. This entire discussion would not be necessary if the Government of the day, six years ago, had gotten under way and actually built the damn thing. We’ve heard about responsibility needing to be taken in terms of what this Government had inherited, but if this Government had inherited a hospital in the first place, there would not be need for a new hospital. A bit of reality needs to be injected into the conversation.

We’ve also heard about issues having already been resolved. Well, that’s really interesting, because if the issue of needing a hospital had been resolved in the first place, again, it would be a moot point. We would not need to be having this discussion. The people of New Zealand, the people of Dunedin particularly, would have the healthcare services, the facilities that they need, that we’re hearing so much about now from people who were very quiet about it in the last six years when, patently, a new hospital was not being built.

The opportunity cost of the additional funding needed to build the hospital is such that not only is that funding not available for other aspects of healthcare in Dunedin—or, indeed, across the country—in addition, the six years wasted by the previous Government in which they were busily not building a hospital has seen construction costs raised hugely. It’s going to be very topical in the House this afternoon—41 percent increase in construction costs since 2019, a huge additional amount, even leaving aside the cock-ups and the poor decision-making in relation to this hospital particularly. And the delay, therefore, represents an opportunity cost in terms of other things that that money could have been spent on in this space or, indeed, other things to improve the lives of the good people of Dunedin.

The project, as conceived by the previous Government, was on shaky foundations, poor foundations, both literally and physically, from the very start. We are putting in additional funding. It is simply not accurate to characterise that as any kind of a cut. Dunedin does not have a hospital now that was promised by the previous Government. It will because we are promising to get on and do it. We’re going to listen to the people. We’re going to get on and do it, and, actually, they will then have the facilities they need and deserve.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: First call for the available call was made by Rachel Brooking—

Rachel Boyack: Boyack.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Boyack, sorry. Apologies—was made by Rachel Boyack.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on this important issue for the people of Dunedin but also for the people of the South Island and for the people of New Zealand in terms of the investment that we need in our health infrastructure. As the MP for Nelson, I stand in solidarity with the people of Dunedin, who deserve a decent hospital that is going to serve their region and their community for decades to come.

What concerns me greatly from the Minister’s announcement today is that they are trying to use my community of Nelson as an excuse to not build the facilities that are needed in Dunedin, and yet the Minister has already made an announcement about an announcement to downgrade the rebuild of Nelson Hospital. Nelson has one of New Zealand’s most ageing and growing populations. It will be the biggest project of our generation. Labour announced the plan last year, we gave the first round of money, and the enabling work had been started, and yet the Minister had a plan to announce the masterplan for the project when he came to Nelson recently, and that decision was scrapped, and he hasn’t even taken a paper to Cabinet about Nelson Hospital. So don’t you use—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not “you”.

RACHEL BOYACK: Don’t the National Party dare use my community as an excuse to downgrade the facilities for Dunedin or any other community in this country. Now, my father built hospitals in New Zealand and he built hospitals in the UK—

Suze Redmayne: Shame he couldn’t build that one.

RACHEL BOYACK: He built them in your electorate, Suze Redmayne, on budget—well, close to it. It has certainly served the people of Rangitīkei—the Whanganui Hospital, which he built on time and on budget—and my message to Simon Court is that public-private partnerships do not work. They cost more money. They take more time. They cut corners and they do not deliver for the people in the community.

Now, I have a message for the National Party about health infrastructure. Look at this graph. This shows the story of which party—now they’re all quiet—delivered on capital infrastructure for health. Look at the blue graph; look at the red graph, which is significantly more. Billions of dollars to invest in the likes of Dunedin, to invest in Whangārei—which Shane Reti is also planning to pull down again—and billions of dollars of investment from Labour in health infrastructure. How much did the Government put into Budget 2024? They put in $100 million—literally nothing. Where is the money that is going to be needed to build these projects?

Hon Rachel Brooking: It’s gone to landlords.

RACHEL BOYACK: It’s gone to landlords; it’s gone to tobacco companies. Now, I might sound angry, and I’m probably the angriest I’ve ever been in this House, but I am bloody proud to be a member of a Labour Party that has a history in this country of building infrastructure, building hospitals, and investing properly in public health and saying that public health facilities for the people of New Zealand who can’t afford things like private insurance need to be top quality, and they do cost money. To pretend somehow that you can be a National Party, when Nicola Willis was advising John Key and Bill English, and she’s now following the same playbook—Nicola Willis was a staff member during the time of these little tiny blue graphs with no money, and now she’s the finance Minister who has only put $100 million in capital health infrastructure in this Budget. She has also shortchanged the entire health system by $1.4 billion for operational costs in that health system.

So, yes, I’m angry, because public health and the delivery of public health services to New Zealand is a fundamental. It is a critical, essential service for the people who desperately need those services. In my community of Nelson, I was inundated by people last week at the Home and Garden Show who are incredibly angry that the plan agreed by Labour—which was the clinically preferred option, not the best option for builders, not the best option for Cabinet, but the best option according to the medical professionals. We should be building hospitals that the medical professionals say are the best for patients, because they are the experts, and this Government is failing to listen to them. I stand here in solidarity as a Nelson MP because every single community in this country, in Aotearoa, deserves a decent public hospital. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

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

First Reading

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have great pleasure to present a legislative statement on the Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon CHRIS PENK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill.

It costs too much to build a home or other building in this country. There is a massive opportunity cost associated with the huge rise in construction costs—since 2019 alone, an increase of some 40 percent. Of course, over the years, the inexorable rise of construction costs has meant a huge opportunity cost in terms of the same number of buildings, be it residential housing or other, that could have been provided for the same investment of public or private nature. It’s crucially important that we turn our minds to the way that we can actually reduce the cost of construction in this country. Where do the costs lie? A certain amount of cost is associated, of course, with the people doing the building. The labour cost: it’s appropriate that people get paid well; it’s skilled work—that’s not the right place to try to screw down prices in construction. So what are we left with? Processes. Processes are important because cost is associated with delay, particularly in a higher interest rate environment. We’re doing a number of things in terms of processes to speed up the building consent system and make it much more certain and consistent.

Today, we’re turning our minds to the subject of products, and more particularly the way that we can actually achieve some gains in terms of affordability for that 25 percent or so of the cost of a building that is associated with the products themselves. This will have a helpful benefit for the consumer, the end user of the homes and other buildings, of course, which is every New Zealander. We all live, work, and play in the built environment. It will improve competition, which goes to fairness in terms of those who would provide products both here and overseas. I emphasise those here too, because being able to measure New Zealand products against overseas standards will be helpful from the perspective of those who have innovative products in New Zealand that they’re currently finding difficult to break through established markets, and also from the perspective of innovation. Of course, if we want to have an innovative building environment where we have the best possible products that achieve the best possible results in terms of sustainability, in terms of safety, in terms of quality, and in terms of consumer choice, then, of course, for that reason too, we want to have enough different products available to the consumer and to the builder to maximise our potential in that regard.

Just going back briefly to the subject of fairness and competition, I note that the Commerce Commission report of 2022 highlighted very particularly the fact that we have an uncompetitive sector taken as a whole. I acknowledge that, within the building supply area, we have different degrees of competitiveness associated with different product types. Nevertheless, the overall picture is very clearly that there is a lack of competition. And you don’t need to take my word for it. As I say, the finding of the Commerce Commission was very clear in that regard, but certainly that is also the anecdotal evidence of very many people that I speak to who are used to building in this country with a limited range of products at a commensurately high price. Of course, we know that a competitive market relies on a degree of competition such that those who provide the supplies need to be mindful that if they don’t do that in the best and most efficient way and at the most affordable price from the perspective of what it takes to produce and noting the value provided to the consumer, then of course all will lose out. Of course, that’s been the experience for many years now, including, as I say, most particularly since 2019.

The way that we are going to improve competition through this legislation is set out in the legislative statement—there’s some detail there. I don’t intend to take the time of the House to spell that out in a way that’s unnecessary, given that we now have access to this legislative statement. Suffice to say that there are three different mechanisms, but they all revolve around the idea that if we use standards that currently exist in overseas jurisdictions that are of equal or higher standard by way of quality and their physical properties—their ability to be strong enough and to be safe enough for use—and if we adopt those standards, as I say, that are of equal or higher level of those in New Zealand as measured by overseas jurisdictions, then we can use those with relative safety.

Now, I say “relative safety” because there are some qualifications. We do need to think about the way that the products are installed. There will still be a role for a building consent authority to play some sort of oversight role as far as they’re concerned. Of course, it’s also important that the jurisdictions whose standards and products we’re using are the appropriate ones. Roughly speaking, that means we need credible and comparable jurisdictions—credible ones being those nations and States that have good building standards. And some places in the world, frankly, have better building standards, I would say, than those in this country, but others have worse, and we need to choose carefully in that regard.

We also need to think about comparable jurisdictions whereby the physical conditions that dictate the performance of standards must be comparable in the relevant respects to those in New Zealand. Of course, we’re a coastal nation so there’ll be factors around the ability of New Zealand building products to withstand wind and sea spray. We are a somewhat sunny country—some cities more sunny than others, but certainly the UV content—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Dunedin’s not feeling sunny at the moment.

Hon CHRIS PENK: Oh. I don’t wish to indulge in the metaphors that the member from down South would have us go down. Suffice to say, different conditions, including climatically, exist across the country. It’s appropriate to think about other places in the world that we can rightly compare ourselves with and sort of be safe and make good decisions in that regard.

Now, these decisions at a very particular, detailed level will be made and put forward in regulations because that won’t require the legislation to be passed in this House on each occasion that we add a particular jurisdiction or a particular standard or a particular set of products. We can actually say that that process can be an ongoing one. We can start with the lowest hanging fruit first. We can do the least risky business first. We can get those relatively easy gains in terms of cost, affordability, innovation, and so on. But, for now, we need a legislative framework that actually enables that. That’s the purpose of the bill—that’s what we’re here doing today.

I do just want to touch on the fact that this legislation intersects with a number of different other projects of reform within the building and construction space. One of those relates to the fact of the 67 different building consent authorities, mostly councils but of course also Consentium, which does bespoke work for Kāinga Ora. Each of those at the moment is tasked with understanding and assessing the risk associated with different building products, and that’s a great burden for them. It’s onerous in terms of their resources. It’s also a matter of liability that they could face up to 100 percent of the cost of defective products or materials, so of course there’s a huge resource implication and, frankly, a risk for their respective ratepayers associated with that. The other mechanism is through CodeMark, an organisation that has the ability to certify for use in a way that building consent authorities can rely on. We know that that is a process that is subject to a lot of volume in a way that we think we can cut through, again by relying on those comparable and credible overseas jurisdictions. That’s the philosophy.

As I say, the detail sits within the legislative statement, and I will just also link briefly to our work around minor variations and minor customisations. This is a mechanism that did exist previously, and I do want to acknowledge that, as the mechanism for making sense of the MultiProof scheme. The MultiProof scheme is underused—that’s where we’ve got a single design that’s been consented that can be reused over and over again, so it’s an exercise in standardisation to get the economy of scale, and so on. But that system is underutilised and also there’s a lot of additional burden, again, on the building consent authorities, and of course the builders associated with making minor changes; for example, swapping like for like products. It’s clunky and that needs to be refined. We’re doing that work and that will help unlock the gains that we’re achieving in this bill.

I’ll conclude my remarks by saying that I wish the select committee that will be considering the legislation all the best. No doubt they’ll hear a lot of detail that will be helpful. I’m certainly very happy to contemplate any suggestions that they might make for change. I expect that some members of the public and those who are professionals within the building sector might have particular examples or suggestions of products or jurisdictions that they would commend or otherwise. It’s really within the remit of this bill to set up the architecture as a whole, if you’ll excuse the expression, that will enable that detailed work to go on. That detailed work is going on already. We are walking and chewing gum, we’re getting it done, we’re trying to reform the system so that we have greater competition, better choice for the consumer, and of course more affordable homes and other buildings in this country. I commend this bill to the House.

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

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Labour supports this bill because it builds on Labour’s work to make building products cheaper and the market more competitive, which started with the Commerce Commission’s report, the first report of its kind under its market study framework into building and construction products and the sector at large. It found that our building sector in New Zealand isn’t working as it should, that it’s not as competitive as it could be, and that consumers are ultimately paying too much, and that’s leading to higher costs in things like housing, which are incredibly important to this Parliament and to the people of New Zealand.

This is a good move. There will be a few things in my speech which I will outline as concerns of the Labour Party, and we’ll be watching very closely as this bill progresses. There are things that we will need to make sure, as a Parliament, we are comfortable with so that we do not create a system that provides less clarity for the various different system users within the system already, who rely on Government and local government buy-in to the building products that are used, so that things can be agreed to swiftly and that consents do not take too long.

I’ll first start with the importance of competition here. Ultimately, this bill does deal with the finding of the Commerce Commission’s report that said that there was not enough competition and that it was not easy enough for not only different building products to be recognised within the system as it is but also for those smaller players in the market who are importing new and innovative products from overseas to grow their market share. It’s the second part that I’m particularly interested in, because there’s not legislative change here that deals with that. The posture of Government and the posture of local governments to that will be important for the ability of smaller businesses to compete with the big guys and to be able to get their products out there and increase the industry knowledge about products which are equivalent and of a high standard. Some of this will help that, but it really will be bigger change that’s required of the industry.

I think breaking the monopoly on some products has been the focus of the previous Government, and that will need to be something which this Government keeps the pressure on. A thing like plasterboard, which resulted in a crisis alongside restrictions of what could be brought into New Zealand during the COVID period, was something that took up a lot of Parliament’s time and was important for the Government of the day to be able to deal with, because it created real issues in a building sector that at that time was really hot. It was building lots of houses that really needed access to good quality products at a cheap price for consumers to be able to buy. We need to keep our eye on that and make sure that the Commerce Commission is also tooled up to be able to deal with those issues.

We support the measures in this bill that remove barriers to building products entering the New Zealand market. That’s why, as it progresses, we’ll be looking forward to the advice on how it actually does this, because as the regulatory impact statement suggests, there are a number of these changes which were already afoot—they were already in the system in some way—but it’s about industry changing and the behaviour and the knowledge of industry participants to actually use those provisions which will make all the difference here.

I’ll now turn to the second part of my speech, which is about the concerns that we have, and highlight them for submitters to the committee, because we are really interested in engaging with people who are experts in the field around what our concerns are with regulatory change in this area. The first is particularly about plasterboard. We’re cautious about product substitutions for plasterboard being approved in groups, which this legislation would allow, because they’re used in structurally different ways in other jurisdictions. The way that New Zealand builders use plasterboard products is different from their counterparts in, say, the UK, so we want to make sure that the substitutions and the equivalency there recognises New Zealand’s particular context in the way that our building sector works. It may be that the rules in other countries are not appropriate to apply here, so we need some assurance about the way that those equivalencies are going to be judged.

Second, building consent authorities are going to be responsible for more under the new regime, which will add to their time and process costs for those consents. The Government will essentially be requiring consent authorities to approve the building project overall, and not only that the product is robust and of high quality but also that it’s going to be used in a way that’s appropriate. With local government carrying more of a burden in ensuring that the end product is suitable, we want to make sure that the resources are there to do this, that the councils are ready to go when this legislation is enacted, and that the Government is working really closely to provide the kind of policy advice that will require local government to change, because it is a system-wide view that we need to take here. That’s one of the advantages of New Zealand’s building system.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party is supporting this bill. I note that the work on this did begin under the last Government, and I think that what is contained in this bill has the potential to be hugely beneficial. But, like the previous speaker, Arena Williams, said, it also depends on how it is implemented, so I will be very interested during the select committee process on the implementation.

When I first moved to Aotearoa New Zealand, I suppose one of the things that motivated me to get involved in politics was seeing that we could do so much better with our buildings, and our transport system and urban planning as well, because, actually, there are many other countries in the world that are doing so much better. They get better outcomes for people, better outcomes for health, and better outcomes for the environment and the climate. And it also makes economic sense to do that. This is like an example where—you know, meeting the founder of Passive House Institute in New Zealand, who came from Germany, who was part of the passive house movement, which led to science-based standards that deliver warm, dry, comfortable, and extremely energy-efficient buildings. Of course, in many parts of Germany now, and in the UK and many other parts of Europe, that standard is the minimum; it’s required.

One aspect of that is how we approve building products. What people who worked in the industry, including my friends who are builders or who work as building physicists, were telling me is that it was more expensive and difficult to get these high-quality products that were leading to better environmental and energy-efficiency outcomes in New Zealand because of the process for approving those products. It does actually just make sense to recognise overseas standards and standard certification schemes when those countries have higher standards and better outcomes than Aotearoa New Zealand currently does. Now, the risk is that we approve products that are not of a higher standard, that are not going to get better outcomes, so it really does come down to which countries we’re looking at and whether or not they’re getting better outcomes.

We do have to recognise that New Zealand’s supply chain has been dominated by a few major companies and, essentially, that oligopoly—you know, it is an oligopoly—has allowed some companies to make excessive profits on products that, frankly, are not the best. It really makes sense to ensure that we’re allowing better products in and that we’re not duplicating a lot of work that’s already been done by places, especially when they have similar climates to us—you know, I look at British Columbia, or parts of the UK might have quite similar weather issues, weathertightness issues, wind. We have incredibly high levels of wind and dampness and rain, and that can contribute to mouldy homes and the leaky-home crisis.

Look, I’m a firm believer in having a system that gets us the best outcomes and there’s so many opportunities to do better, but one of the ways we do better is through this type of work, which, as I said, was started by the previous Government, and it looks like it will have cross-party support. I hope that at the select committee we can ensure that we’re doing our best to ensure that the products that we’re encouraging and enabling actually deliver the outcomes we need in terms of reducing building waste and taking action on climate. I’m concerned that the Government has pretty much stopped the work on the Building for Climate Change initiative, which is evidence-based and very much looking to overseas countries and how they’ve achieved it; improvements to our Building Code which are desperately, desperately needed.

The other side of how Government enables this is simply through procurement. The cancellation of the Kāinga Ora builds is going to be a major setback to improving standards and quality of builds in New Zealand. It makes sense, if Government has a large house building programme, that it lifts the standards of the supply chain by getting the best outcomes for the people living in those buildings. And it makes economic sense. It’s less money spent on hospital bills, it’s more productivity, it’s lower power bills for people. If the Government can lead by example through procurement, then, over time, we can step our Building Code up. But, of course, in order to get those more efficient buildings, we need to allow and enable the quality products that are available overseas, so that we’re not simply letting Fletcher or whoever else dominate the market and make excessive profits on products that, frankly, are not the best for New Zealand.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of this bill and on behalf of the ACT Party. Look, we are in a situation in New Zealand where Kiwis are increasingly dissatisfied with what they’re getting out of their building industry, and I don’t actually blame them. Just this afternoon, I attended the New Zealand Chinese Building Industry Association’s report launch, hosted by my colleague Nancy Lu and attended by Minister Penk, in which we were presented with a word cloud. Now, the biggest word in this word cloud is “expensive”. I think that is an apt description of building in New Zealand.

It is not a surprise to me at all that New Zealanders have had enough. Many are deciding to go overseas. Many are struggling to start families, get on the housing market, and live where they want to live and how they would like to live. Housing costs in New Zealand are unacceptable. We have heard this from the community. During the campaign, ACT went about with a building material equivalency register policy. I’m glad to see that such a policy has been adopted into this bill, because we need to get prices down in New Zealand when it comes to building a house. Construction is 20 percent of the jobs in New Zealand. Building is challenging, it’s often difficult, it’s bespoke, and it takes a great deal of skill, but when you can put people with skills and materials together, that is how you get a successful building industry.

Now, that is what this bill is going to achieve. We will be recognising overseas standards and certification schemes from trusted jurisdictions overseas—places with seismic issues that have assessed these issues, places with weathertightness issues, places where it rains a heck of a lot more, places where it’s hotter, places where it’s colder, places that are built in environments that are similar and more extreme. We need to get competition into our building supply market, but it is not a monopoly, as a previous speaker has spoken about, because of some oligopoly; it is a situation in which councils make it so hard to achieve standards in New Zealand for new products to enter the market that it is not a surprise that our cost of building is so high. Materials are far, far too expensive.

I myself, as a licensed building practitioner, have attempted to have minor changes happen on plans between one set of cladding plaster to another set. Now, it struck me down when the council said, “Oh, we can’t recognise that.”, even though the details—and my fellow tradies out there know what I’m talking about. When the details are completely alike but the product name is different, well, we have to go through a whole rigmarole to try and get that changed. Delays, costs, shortage of material—this is why housing is so expensive in New Zealand. This bill will streamline the citing of international standards that can be used in acceptable solutions and verification methods. To the members of the House who haven’t swung a hammer in the last, well, ever—especially on the other side—I can tell you that these acceptable solutions and verification methods are how we get things approved in New Zealand, and—

Hon Barbara Edmonds: These hands; a hammer—a hammer.

CAMERON LUXTON: Oh, I see there’s some offence being taken, I am very sorry for anybody who’s done it on a DIY basis, but a DIY does not a builder make. What we have got in New Zealand is a situation where we have a scheme to get things approved to the Building Code, and we are going to make it a lot easier for overseas products to be recognised in New Zealand, to get on sites so that the skilled tradies and Kiwis who fill out our building industry can get the products that they need to lower the price of building in New Zealand.

The built environment is an important environment in New Zealand. It is a place where farmers go to milk their cows. It’s a place where industry goes to manufacture. It’s a place where New Zealanders go to learn and live and enjoy themselves. The backbone of New Zealand has got many claims to its fame. It could be the agricultural sector, it could be many different sectors, it could be climbing Mt Everest—it could be many things—but I say to you, Madam Speaker, and to this House, that the built environment is the backbone of New Zealand. It is the place where we need to have some certainty in our lives. This bill will be providing just that by giving New Zealanders a chance to build houses affordably; to build places to live and thrive affordably. I commend this bill to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I am delighted to rise to support this bill. We all know that the cost of building in New Zealand is far, far too high, and we also know that we need far more housing, but I think we’re a little discordant about that, because sometimes we hear people say that we’re investing too much in bricks and mortar and yet we need more housing—and I don’t quite get that—and then there are policy changes that some people would propose that actually make investing in housing for homes for people even more expensive.

There was a report earlier this week which said that the gap between building new and existing housing is as big as it’s ever been, possibly bigger than it’s ever been. This is because the cost of building has gone up and up and up 30 or 40 percent over the last, what, four or five years at most, and the value of existing housing has, effectively, flatlined, and certainly come down in recent years. What that means is it becomes less and less attractive to build the homes that we need.

Look, there is no silver bullet here, but this bill is part of the answer, and there’s great work being done by the Minister in introducing it. We need regulatory changes—a little bit’s been talked about there. We need things like the granny flats initiative that’s being taken. We also need new products, and already Minister Penk has been working on that. This is about allowing new products into our market as part of the answer.

Ultimately, what we have to do, regardless of anything else we might do, is we have to get the actual cost of building new homes, of building construction, down. Building materials in this country are extraordinarily pricey, I think we all recognise. I mean, the cost of timber here is, I think, what, 30 percent more? Something like that—30 percent more than the cost across the Tasman. That is a real handbrake. We were all aware of that during COVID, of the crisis we had around being able to find Gib, and that, of course, actually stalled a lot of building projects. The cost was astronomical. It was like you had to put your name down to get a piece of Gib board, because we couldn’t find the darned stuff. The Commerce Commission, in the introduction to this bill, has said that we have a lack of competition in our building supply market, so this bill is all about bringing in more competition. It’s about the arrangements to be able to allow us to get building products that, currently, we can’t get—products produced overseas.

One of the things we have in this country is we have this terrible penchant for reinventing everywhere. We’ve got to say, “Well, it works that way in Australia or in the United Kingdom or in Europe or in the United States,”—or wherever it might be—“but we’ve got to reinvent that wheel just to check that it works properly here.” Well, this bill is about saying, actually, let’s grow up a little bit. Let’s be able to give the Minister, give the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the power to be able to say that that regime, that family of products, is a good regime, a good family of products, and we are going to allow those products into New Zealand to be able to be used.

I was shown, the other day, a Chinese building product. This is one where these were prefabricated homes. They came two per container. You bring them in, and you’re actually able to sort of extend them, put them up there. All the kitchen material was there; all the bathroom fittings were there. They could do that, and I think it was 36 square metres for $49,000—really, really inexpensive. The people who are wanting to bring these in looked at the cost of doing that in New Zealand, and it was about $90,000-something without all the fit-out. That is an example of the relative cost of being able to do this. The problem is that none of our councils will consent them. Why? Because they haven’t seen the product. We have to get ourselves a regime which asks how we can be able to bring in those products if they’re good products—and we think they’re good products—and house New Zealand families much, much cheaper than is currently the case. Like my colleague Cam Luxton, I also went to the presentation earlier today from the New Zealand - China building construction sector, and I think there were some really great messages from that.

Just to finish off with one of the other things, which I don’t think has been mentioned by any of the previous speakers—and it’s an important part of this bill. With my local authority background, I know that local authorities are very, very risk-averse, because if they end up being the last person standing when something goes wrong, the cost is astronomical. Part of this bill is about, essentially, the Crown saying to you that if you use in good faith a product which the Crown has said is a product which should be able to be used, you won’t be liable for that, and I think that’s a very, very important message. I look forward to the submissions and I look forward to the very good Transport and Infrastructure Committee considering this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s with great pleasure I rise to speak on this bill. There were some great comments by a number of speakers before this. We all understand the cost of building in New Zealand has got far too expensive. It’s really brought to sharp focus when you drive around an electorate like mine in Northland where we have real housing challenges in the North.

Being able to actually build affordable homes, which is what this Government is very much focused on—and this is part of the journey that our Government is taking us on—is so important, particularly for a place like Northland, where we have so many people living in substandard housing. Being able to go to the market and say, “Yes, we can get products cheaper.”—I mean, the fact that we’ve had a 41 percent increase in construction costs since 2019 is disgraceful. It’s just very, very frustrating. We have to bring more competition into this process. Also, when you think about it, the cost of building in New Zealand is currently close to around about 50 percent more expensive than trying to build a standalone house in Australia. You wonder why our young people are saying, “No, stuff this, we’re off to Aussie.” Well, this is a part of the puzzle to actually lead us to a more affordable housing market, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. As was noted earlier, the Labour Party supports this bill. The approach that we are taking when it comes to housing and building and construction is that we intend and genuinely hope to be able to be as constructive as possible, for two reasons. One, it is vitally important that we finally get on top of the housing shortage in this country. It cannot drag on. There have been genuine attempts to address it. There have been less than genuine attempts, and this wax and wane carry-on can’t continue, so we as a party have committed to be constructive on the issue. Where there is something that we agree on, we will say so, and where there is something that is in the right direction, there or thereabouts, could do with some improvements, we’ll approach the debate in that manner. Then when we genuinely, fundamentally disagree on something and we say so, hopefully people will see it in that vein, that it is not politicking, that we just don’t agree, because we have taken the opportunity to be constructive elsewhere.

Today is a day where we can be constructive. We have no opposition to this and it’s good—it’s good. It builds on what was started under the last Government. I think when you consider the uncertainty that surrounds the infrastructure sector and the construction sector at the moment, the pleas from local government and from those two sectors for some level of certainty and some level of bipartisan approach, it’s important that both sides of the House recognise that, as was referred to in the previous speech, this is a journey. This builds on stuff we’ve done, and when we were in Government, we built on some stuff that the previous Government had done. That’s how it should work. Part of that is actually acknowledging it, not saying, “Isn’t it great that we’ve got a bill here? But while I say that, I’m going to have just a little cheap shot at those guys because I can, and that’s what we normally do.” Just forget that. This is a good approach to this.

Let’s be honest—and, in fairness, they haven’t said this, but we must acknowledge it—it’s not a silver bullet, because there’s no such thing as a silver bullet when it comes to addressing the housing crisis. We’ve been very critical of what the Government is doing around social housing. We believe that they’re taking the wrong approach. When it comes to freeing up land for building, that’s good—that’s really good—but we also recognise that many councils don’t have the funding to be able to put the infrastructure in beforehand, and so that is one where we would like to see some tweaks. We’d like the assistance of funding to come at the start of the process so we can get some infrastructure put in at the start, and that’ll mean that land will be able to be developed, rather than at the end, because some councils can’t bridge that gap.

When it comes to this, this does make sense, and many of the points that have been raised by previous speakers across the House—let’s be honest; so far it has been across the House—are all valid. There are some concerns. Of course there will be, because we’re trying something different, but you’ve got to give it a go—you’ve got to give it a go. We’ve all heard too many stories where people who have saved up a lot of money to buy a home or build a home have been frustrated by the cost, have been frustrated by the processes of councils, and the inconsistencies across the councils. Basically, if you look at the number of local bodies that we have in this country, it has the potential to be that many different approaches when it comes to getting a consent for building a house, and that’s madness.

It would be remiss of me not to point out that I think we missed an opportunity by not taking seriously the recommendations that came from the review into the future of local government. Sure, you’re never going to agree to all the recommendations. There was some stuff in there that I didn’t agree with, but there was some stuff that would have actually dealt with that inconsistent approach across the board.

We need it easy. It shouldn’t be the case that in the lower North Island, if you were a contractor and you were operating across the lower North Island, you could potentially be looking at eight, nine, 10 different ways of doing things. I mean, that’s just madness. That should have been dealt with, and I hope the Government looks at that again, but this here will actually address that to some degree. Some councils were so prescriptive in the type of material that they were using that it was actually cutting out those options and so we were dealing with that, and this adds to that.

I think it’s a positive. I’m confident that it will make a difference. There’s a lot to do and I hope that the Government Ministers are genuine in their cause for bipartisanship, because in this area, so are we.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Competition for the supply of building products in New Zealand is not working as well as it could be. New Zealand is a small trading nation. Removing barriers to high-quality and innovative products entering the New Zealand market could increase consumer choice, increase competition, and provide greater security against supply disruptions. Amending this bill will provide for the Minister for Building and Construction, by notice, recognising overseas standards or standards certification schemes. We have a massive housing crisis in this country, and this bill is going to enable that change and for us to deliver on providing more houses in the country and bring in overseas products that we know meet our standards. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for taking my call on this Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill. Now, I’m just going to say some similar things, actually, that we’ve heard from colleagues across the House, as the Hon Kieran McAnulty just pointed out. Of course, one of the first things is, like my colleague Arena Williams pointed out, it’s important to acknowledge the Commerce Commission report that led to some of this work. Like everybody else who has spoken, I agree that there is a problem in New Zealand with not enough building materials being available and then costing too much.

Now, I just want to talk briefly on the bill and note that the Minister, in his contribution, said—he didn’t explain which ones were which—that some countries are better than others in terms of building standards. The reference, I think, was that some buildings have higher building standards than New Zealand and excellent building products, and some are not quite so good. Why this is relevant is that a lot of this bill hinges on the word “similar”, and that is because the “overseas standards organisation”, as defined, means an overseas organisation with functions similar to the standards organisation. I have no bones to pick with the use of the word “similar”, but I hope that the select committee, when they’re looking at this, will reflect on, and ask questions about, what sort of overseas standards organisations are similar to New Zealand and, even, which ones are not similar to New Zealand, given what the Minister said about some countries having different standards from others. I don’t disagree with that at all.

Also, I would like to note that the previous Government was doing the building accord and the industry transformation plan. I would say to the Government, when they are looking at the price of buildings and how to build in more efficient ways, that they go back to these pieces of work. They’re good pieces of work and were going to improve New Zealand’s economy.

Also, like the point that our colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter made about the building for climate work that was going on and also work that can go on in encouraging people not to have a whole lot of construction waste—we know that by scale, by the size of it, construction waste is quite large, obviously. We have an awful lot of construction waste in New Zealand, and if you have the right incentives, you really don’t need to have that much waste, and you can save a whole lot of money on disposal of the waste as well. I’d really encourage the Government to continue with that work.

Of course, looking at the Building Code, we have an interesting building code in New Zealand, and I know the New Zealand Green Building Council has been talking for some time, for many years, about how that could be improved to really prioritise products that are going to last for a long time and insulate people well, but also in health and ventilation—another important thing when building.

I also want to acknowledge the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s contribution when she was talking about the procurement of Government builds. Of course, if we’re trying to change the system, if we’re trying to enable new innovative products that are going to do better for us both economically and environmentally, Government can be leading the charge on that. I know that Minister Mark Patterson is very committed to wool and the provision of wool in Government buildings, and that that sort of attitude can be taken to other building products as well.

Going back to New Zealand - made products, I just note that we think it’s important—and it’s important that the select committee looks at this—that New Zealand companies that are being innovative aren’t cut out of the market. We know that Hamilton has the start-up saveBOARD, made from recycled waste, and that this is a recognised plasterboard substitution in our domestic market. We can see—if we go out of the back door of this building and look at that building site—that there is a whole lot of saveBOARD up there at the moment.

So, again, I encourage the Government and members of the select committee who’ll be looking at this bill to make sure that innovation isn’t stifled and to do better in that regard generally.

NANCY LU (National): 谢谢你，议长先生.We clearly have a problem in New Zealand. As the Rt Hon Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said a bit earlier this year, it is currently 50 percent more expensive to build a standalone home in New Zealand than in Australia. Also, our building and construction Minister, the Hon Chris Penk, has said the cost of building in New Zealand had gone up by 41 percent since 2019.

Also thanks to the New Zealand Chinese Building Industry Association, 新西兰华人建筑业协会,who not only commissioned the research into this industry and sector in New Zealand but is also working with officials, departments, and also with the Government by commissioning and highlighting the findings that they have in this report—and actually brought to our attention in Parliament today that they have done the word cloud, like many of my colleagues have attended today, which clearly showed the concerns in the sector: “expensive”, “hard”, “struggling”, “unsure”, “delays”, “slow”, “cost”.

Clearly, the problem has been identified by the Government but also by the sector, so we are working towards solving the problem, finding better solutions. I invite Kiwis to submit in the select committee process and I look forward to the cross-party collaboration and making real progress in this sector, and I commend this bill to the House. 谢谢.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Bills

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

First Reading

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment 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 NICOLE McKEE: I move, That the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) 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 four months and one day after the bill has received its first reading.

I’m pleased to be in the House today speaking about this bill. This bill forms phase two of the Government’s four-phased approach to firearms reform. Shooting clubs and ranges play an important public safety role in our communities. They are places for people to learn how to operate and handle firearms safely, as well as to practise and to compete.

Amendments made to the Arms Act 1983 in 2020 changed the way that clubs and ranges were regulated. Clubs are now required to be approved and ranges certified. These new requirements came at an increased cost and time commitment for operators, many of whom are volunteers. Some of these changes have been positive, but others have gone way beyond what is necessary for public safety and we are now at risk of losing safe venues for licence holders to use firearms safely due to overly burdensome regulatory requirements.

This bill will simplify the regulation of pistol and non-pistol clubs and ranges, and ease the burden on operators without negatively impacting public safety outcomes. This bill amends Part 6 of the Act to improve how clubs and ranges are regulated. The changes will ease the burden on clubs and range operators while continuing to enhance public safety outcomes. The first amendment relates to pistol clubs and ranges. The bill maintains the current regulatory requirements, recognising the higher regulatory standards associated with pistols, but will streamline the annual reporting requirements. This change will avoid unnecessary duplication of administrative activities and reduce the time that operators spend on requirements that do not enhance public safety. The bill will also amend some regulatory requirements that apply to non-pistol clubs and ranges. This is to reduce the compliance burden on operators where there is no tangible benefit to public safety.

Firstly, the bill will introduce a streamlined enrolment system to replace the current approval and certification system for non-pistol clubs and ranges. These enrolment systems are designed to ensure that the regulator has the information necessary to ensure public safety, while reducing excessive costs for the operators and making compliance more straightforward.

The second change is related to incorporation requirements. Currently, non-pistol clubs are required to be incorporated if they sell ammunition and firearms. The bill proposes that non-pistol clubs will not need to be incorporated if all ammunition sold on behalf of the club is used on the day of the sale and at the club range. They are not to be taken off the premises.

The bill will also support the ability for clubs to establish and operate temporary non-pistol ranges to host club events, providing that the regulator is notified. This is particularly good news for clubs hosting large national, regional, or international competitions.

Finally, the bill will provide certainty about when compliance inspections for both pistol and non-pistol clubs and ranges can occur. It will clarify the role of the regulator in encouraging compliance for non-pistol clubs, and the powers for monitoring and enforcement in relation to non-pistol ranges. These changes will ensure that clubs and ranges are not unduly burdened with compliance requirements while incentivising operators to maintain high safety standards.

Further amendments to requirements, agreed to by Cabinet earlier this year, will be made by Order in Council to the regulations once the bill is passed. For example, amendments will be made to the annual 12-event participation requirement for pistol endorsement holders. Once these regulations are in place, attendance at any organised shooting event in the host club’s calendar will count towards these 12 annual shoots. Currently, only those undertaken at the pistol shooter’s home club count, which was nonsensical considering pistol shooters regularly travel to compete.

In addition, the bill contains provisions to reflect Cabinet’s decision to transfer the administrative function for the Act from Police to the justice portfolio. To reflect this, the bill will provide me with regulation-making powers to recommend policy changes to Cabinet as we progress the reform. I will carry out public consultation in accordance with section 74(4) of the Act before seeking Cabinet’s endorsement on any policy changes.

It is important that we have firearm laws that improve public safety, are practical, and make compliance straightforward. These laws should also support clubs and ranges to continue to operate safe and controlled environments where people can learn about firearms, practise firearms safely, and compete. I look forward to hearing from New Zealanders across the country through the select committee process, and I hope everyone takes this opportunity to have their voices heard. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. On 15 March, a terrorist practised on a gun range in Dunedin. He didn’t break any rules, and no one went to the police. At that stage in New Zealand’s history, pistol clubs were lightly regulated, and non-pistol clubs were self-regulated. In the aftermath of his killing of 51 people, regulations for clubs and ranges were tightened up right across New Zealand. There was a consistent standard nationwide. This was to ensure public safety and to ensure the safety of those who used guns on ranges.

The Firearms Safety Authority had oversight of pistol and non-pistol ranges. What we do know is once they did get oversight, 267 safety improvement notices were issued to the pistol clubs for failing to meet safety standards in the past. This would be to do with ballistics. If they were shooting in areas where people could be horse riding or bike riding, they had to make improvements to change those ranges to make them safe. Let’s remember that that is for the pistol ranges; the non-pistol are still under review. That work has not been done for the non-pistol ranges.

This crucial information that 267 improvement notices were issued by police did not make it into the Cabinet paper which made these decisions. Nicole McKee stated, and it’s been published in the New Zealand Herald, that she did not provide that new Cabinet paper, and she said to Cabinet that there was nothing to indicate that there are any safety issues under the previous system, and she failed to include the information about the 267 improvement notices that have been issued. That vital information was missing from the Cabinet paper that made the decision to deregulate gun ranges in New Zealand, that we are now considering. That is a very serious concern for all New Zealanders and our police service, who are in line for dealing with this and mopping up.

Nicole McKee is unwinding all this, and the reason is that there is a risk, and the risk is that gun ranges could close, that this level of regulation might close gun ranges, and that’s a real concern. The Ministry of Justice in the regulatory impact statement have been very clear in stating that this is an assumption. There is absolutely no information or no evidence to demonstrate that this is a realistic threat.

The proposals in this legislation try to give the impression that there is regulatory oversight but they severely undermine the ability of New Zealand Police to regulate and monitor and enforce the safety at shooting clubs and ranges. There are no compliance tools of any kind, no penalty provisions for refusing access to inspect ranges. The public and law-abiding users of shooting ranges can have absolutely no confidence that the range in their neighbourhood is operating safely.

The bill is also half the story as all the other work goes on in the regulations. There is a complete lack of detail about how the new enrolment system will work. It is assumed it will be spelt out in the technical regulations which we are yet to see. This takes us back to pre-2019, and, on top of this, there is a new requirement, a new pop-up rifle range that can be enrolled and certified if they hold only two events a year. The bill only states that police must be notified and gives police no follow-up powers of inspection or certification. The wild west is coming to a backyard near you, ladies and gentlemen. There is nothing in the bill to specify the format that police must be notified, and it is assumed that this detail is yet to come.

I’ll conclude by talking about the consultation. The regulatory impact statement states that the consultation was rushed. It was skewed towards the firearms users with 91 percent of submissions coming from firearms groups. What other sector in New Zealand gets to write its own safety rules like this? It wouldn’t happen in maritime or rail or any other recreational sport or area, and this is firearms we’re talking about, as well.

Ninety-one percent of submissions came from the firearms community. There are 230,000 licence holders, which is around 4 percent of the population. The Minister responsible for all of this work is a member of the Wellington branch of the Deerstalkers Association, which makes you automatically a member of the Council of Licenced Firearms Owners. What we have is a member of a coalition of licensed firearm owners writing the rules and regulations for ranges in New Zealand that only cater to that firearms community. The safety of New Zealanders, the safety of our communities, is coming second. The gun lobby and gun mates are being put ahead of our communities and it’s time we called it out loud and clear.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill purports to support public safety outcomes by improving compliance with the Arms Act 1983. Firearm ownership is a privilege; it’s not a right. As a firearm owner, I certainly do not support relaxing controls, and most other Kiwis do not support relaxing controls either.

This bill, the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, will do the opposite to what it purports to do. Too often in this House, I get the feeling that I’m in George Orwell’s book 1984 because this bill is a typical example of double-think. To quote Orwell: “Double-think means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both of them.” “War is peace”; “Freedom is slavery”; “Ignorance is strength”, and that really applies to this bill because this bill reduces regulation and inspection requirements for shooting clubs and ranges. Is that dangerous or good? We have to ask that question because the claim is that this is helpful and it’s going to be good for communities that are suffering under too tight regulations.

If I understand why anyone might think this is—I want to understand why anyone might think this is—a good thing, I think back to pre-1990. Firearms were, essentially, a tool for people who lived rurally to take care of pests, to go hunting; and those few city dwellers who liked to go out hunting. Mostly good, responsible people, but we’re no longer there—we’re no longer in 1990 or the 1980s. I remember the Aramoana massacre on 13 November 1990: 13 people killed, including a local police officer. That killer was shot and was actually operated on by my father-in-law. It was a really difficult moral decision, I understand—he didn’t survive.

What’s the danger? How about making it easy to sell ammunition in gun clubs and rifle ranges? Is that going to be a risk to anyone? Well, of course it is—of course it is. You just need to think about how informal gun clubs are. Anyone who has been to a gun range—anyone who has been to a gun range—knows that there can be a degree of informality and relaxation. A good bloke—or someone presenting as a good bloke—might be handed or might be sold some ammunition even if they don’t have a firearms licence. These are the risks of informality.

Perhaps we should be including, in this, bullet-proof backpacks for children if that’s what we’re going to do. If we’re going to allow unincorporated gun clubs to sell ammunition, perhaps we should have bullet-proof backpacks for children. This is what this bill is putting on us. It is putting us in a really, really risky place, because what it does is take away oversight and controls in places where firearms are discharged.

We know the Christchurch mosque gunman was able to practise in a very informal gun club—that was near where I live, in the Bruce Rifle Club near Milton in Otago—and what this legislation does is open us up to unnecessary risk. When regulations are strengthened, as they were after the Christchurch massacre, it was found that many gun clubs were non-compliant. Since then, police have issued 251 improvement notices. This is a good thing—this makes sure that people are doing things correctly.

Now, I’m certainly not someone who thinks that we should take away the right to sight-in our rifles—to make sure that we are taking care of our rifles—but we need to do so in a controlled environment; we need to do so in a respectful environment. We certainly need to do so in a way that provides safety and reassurance to the wider community that they are not going to come to harm because we are letting people who—with bad intentions—have access to firearms, have access to ammunition, and can train and practise to conduct massacres; just as we’ve seen in Christchurch; just as we’ve seen in Aramoana.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the chair of the Justice Committee, I’m sure the whole committee looks forward to considering this bill when it comes through to us shortly.

The bill is a pretty straightforward bill. It is aiming to improve the safety and compliance of firearms regulation on shooting clubs and shooting ranges. I think some of the rhetoric that we’ve heard already in the first couple of speeches is going to be entirely unhelpful as we consider this bill over the next four months, and I would caution all members who are making contributions to be somewhat more considerate in their viewpoints and the allegations that are being made around here. The last thing we need is to heighten the debate on these issues with miscellaneous and somewhat outrageous accusations.

As the chair of the committee, I look forward to hearing the submissions on this bill. I would encourage, as I have mentioned previously, for all those who are out there listening, who are making submissions, to use the formal process, to use the parliamentary website so that we can process their submissions in a timely and orderly manner. I look forward to the debate on this as it goes through and I commend the bill to the House.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to give a small contribution in support of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, in the name of the member who has actually just left.

This bill, I must admit, is something that has brought me back to thinking of growing up on the farm, when, for us, growing up, there were no rules and regulations; we went out and found a tree and we saw a few accidents at the time. But it is now time for a safe and controlled environment.

What this bill will do is amend legislation which will relate to the clubs and ranges. It will also redefine some things, being pistol-shooting and non - pistol-shooting ranges. Some of these amendments we see as just common sense and they will ensure to reduce any gun-related accidents. Also, as the speaker who was introducing the bill said, “Is there a tangible benefit to public safety by having this in legislation?” I see that that is a good question to ask when legislation is being made.

I will keep this short. On behalf of New Zealand First, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I will invite the member—I didn’t want to interrupt—to not read quite so much of her speeches in the future. You’re a good speaker, and get some confidence by leaving those notes behind.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you. Kia ora tātou katoa. It is a public safety issue. It’s a huge public safety issue, but if you don’t talk to the public, then you’re not going to understand and know what’s going on. Going just to the guys or the gals that have a holster and love the gun and talk about that and worship it and so on, you’re not going to understand the real issues that go on in the minds of families—regular families that live in regular streets, that want to feel and know that they are safe from this kind of legislation.

The loosening of regulations has to be a huge concern for every single person in this House. To dismiss it as if, “Well, the gun lobbyist knows what she’s talking about, so let’s just let her make those decisions, shall we?”—that is a huge risk. That is negligent. Wake up to that fact, e tātou mā. Wake up to it. It’s a gun, right?

It might have been the middle of last year, we had two of our whānau going to check out a house in the Whangārei Heads area and ended up being shot by the gentleman that was living in that house. Now, from what I understand, he seemed like a regular guy—so regular. They arrived, checked out the facility, shot the mother, shot the daughter, burnt the house down, and he died. These very current and real and tragic stories are in the minds and in the fear of people and families and whānau and their mokopuna that want to feel safe, and this kind of legislation, loosening of these regulations, is negligent. It’ll be detrimental and we completely object and oppose it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I rise in support of this first reading. These changes are part of our coalition Government’s plan to reform the 41-year-old Arms Act. We collectively want to modernise the Act so that it’s fit for purpose for public safety with the best regulatory practice in place. Like our chair on the Justice Committee, James Meager, said, we look forward to submitters, we look forward to their submissions, and we look forward to a conversation in the Justice Committee that’s based on the facts and not on inflammatory rhetoric. I commend the bill.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It speaks volumes that that member—all he could really say is that “This is part of our coalition plan”. I have strong views about this kind of liberalisation of what I thought was a very good, cross-party consensus on firearms being watered down. I was there in Christchurch on 15 March. I was in the square when a school kids’ climate change march was dispersed. I was there when kids were cowering in my office with me, afraid because they didn’t know what was going on, you know?

Then I came back to this House and we worked hard and quickly to reach a good arrangement that saw more stringent rules around firearms, military-style semi-automatics, and gun ranges. That party over there on the other side of the House supported that, and we worked very cooperatively. We listened. We consulted widely. I want to tell you something: we went around the country and listened to whoever wanted to speak to us. I remember distinctly, because I was on the select committee, going to the Sudima Hotel in Christchurch, out by the airport, and listening to numerous submissions while there were some protesters outside—gun lobbyists. Do you know who was out there on the front lawn of the Sudima Hotel? Nicole McKee. Anyone who tells me she is not a gun lobbyist is deeply mistaken. Go and have a look at her Facebook page. She’s got a post up there with some people from the Muslim community, but the rest of them are her at antique gun shows, deer-stalking shows, rifle ranges—she is deep into the rifle and gun community. She does not have a balanced view, and this is who is leading the Arms Act reform.

I’ve got no problem—as Scott Willis from the Greens said, and I heard his speech, guns have a place in our community. But let’s not pretend that they can’t be harmful, that there aren’t significant dangers in there. The idea that you can have gun ranges which are largely unregulated, in fact, just self-regulated, where you can go along with your firearms, buy a bit of ammo—and I heard the Associate Minister of Justice the Hon Nicole McKee’s speech, she said they have to use it all on the range. Who’s counting? Who’s caring? Who’s keeping records? I’ll tell you who: absolutely no one.

This is just the—well, it’s actually the second step. I listened to the Minister say, “Don’t worry, we’re going to consult. We’re going to consult under section 74(4) of the Arms Act.” Well, she’s already passed regulations and said she consulted—because that section of the Arms Act says you consult with who you think it’s “practicable” to consult with. Who did she think it was practicable to consult with?

Glen Bennett: Her mates.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Her mates—that’s right, Glen Bennett, her mates—who are also gun nuts.

It is absolutely appalling that this Government, that party over there in particular, is being led by the nose because that’s the price of power. If the price of power is to liberalise gun laws to lead to the kind of tragedies that we’ve seen in Christchurch, in Aramoana, and elsewhere, then we’re in a sad, sad state indeed. No one’s saying the Arms Act isn’t old, but let’s not pretend this is some kind of modernisation. This is a programme of radical liberalisation of gun laws, and the National Party’s complicit in the ACT Party’s programme.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I stand in support of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The bill seeks to simplify regulation of a 40-year-old law. It simplifies regulation and distinguishes between pistol clubs and non-pistol clubs and pistol ranges and non-pistol ranges, ensuring that regulation is able to be implemented well. The bill also is, as my colleague Cameron Brewer said, part of a suite of legislation that this Government is putting in place that seeks to support and promote public safety outcomes throughout New Zealand. This is part of a series of legislation that we have put together and are carrying out, including gang legislation, sentencing reform, and rehabilitation in corrections. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just was listening to some contributions and also recalling the day that I think was the impetus for a lot of the changes—the good changes—that we had made in March in Christchurch when the terrorist attack happened.

I too, like the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, was in town in the middle of the CBD with the school strike for climate change and had only got a couple of blocks away from that event when I heard all the sirens and all the commotion. I think it was kind of quite natural to think that something had happened there, and it took a few minutes to realise what indeed had happened and the enormity of what had happened. Whilst all tragedies are unspeakable, and the images that you may create in your mind wondering what had happened and filling in the gaps, I don’t think anything could have prepared me for the fact that a terrorist had literally taken a vile weapon and an inhumane weapon and an inhumane intentionality and cut down so many people—which is deplorable.

As has been said as we’ve made some contributions on this side of the House, it really is just back to the old days—the bad old days—of self-regulation and no regulation at all at shooting clubs and shooting ranges. I think that it’s very easy for the Minister to position this particular bill as a small step, but like all changes in direction and like all ideological missteps, often they come in small steps and each of those small steps adds up to something quite grotesque and quite dangerous. This is certainly a subject matter that is heading in that direction.

The public safety risks of this were highlighted, as has been traversed by the royal commission of inquiry into the terrorist attacks in Christchurch. We know that they’re currently subject to a coroner’s inquiry, and what the Minister is, effectively, saying is that the changes that were made in 2019 and the changes that were made in 2020 that were part of a consolidated process—as my colleague said, where people had the opportunity to provide their views, where experts from a cross-section of New Zealand were able to have their views represented. That culminated in what, I think, were really good changes—that were really celebrated, that were regarded as swift and powerful leadership, where the rest of the world said, “Gosh, there’s New Zealand—suffers a tragedy and actually has the foresight and has the fortitude and has the leadership in place to do something profound about it.” I certainly remember lots of media at the time commending us for that. To take us backwards, as so much of the Government’s agenda is doing, on this particular issue is completely galling.

We’ve also heard that the bill creates multiple loopholes for gang members and extremists alike, in particular, to exploit, and that’s not something to take lightly. It’s all very well thinking that self-regulation and loosening up of rules in service of an essential lobbying activity is OK because you regard yourself as a safety expert, but being a safety expert and then removing safety requirements from shooting clubs and from shooting ranges, which, let’s not forget, is exactly the environment and exactly the place where the Christchurch terrorist practised, essentially, before turning his gun on real people—doing that in the name of safety just feels like another kick in the guts, to be honest.

The changes also create a frightening precedent for landowners, who might find pop-up rifle shooting ranges over their back fence. The bill risks the ability of the police or the firearms regulator to enforce any safety oversight or even inspect the facilities. It really does have that wild west feel to it, doesn’t it, when you start to visualise and imagine the circumstances that those landowners could find themselves in.

It feels like there is a certain amount of outrage on this side of the House about this particular bill, and rightly so. It’s an outrage that I think we all share, and it feels as if it’s very well directed at a Minister who we don’t think is moving this in the right direction. We don’t commend this bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the first reading of the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This is a Government bill in the name of the Hon Nicole McKee, our very hard-working Minister who is to my right, and she is the Associate Minister of Justice, indeed. This amendment that we’re having kōrero on today is part of the ACT - National Party coalition agreement.

National supports this bill. We support it for a number of reasons, but, first, I’d like to direct the attention of listeners at home, those that just tuned in right now, as to what the essential purpose of this bill is. This bill aims to support public-safety outcomes by improving, in our strong opinion, compliance with the Arms Act 1983, and how we feel this is going to happen is by simplifying the regulatory requirements for non - pistol-shooting clubs and ranges and changing some—not all, but some—of the requirements in relation to inspections.

The Act currently requires all shooting clubs to hold a certificate of approval issued by the Commissioner of Police—the commissioner, for our references—and for all shooting ranges to be certified by the commissioner. Now, one of the things that this bill aims to do is to create a distinction and, indeed, different levels of regulation between pistol-shooting clubs and non - pistol-shooting clubs and between pistol-shooting ranges and non – pistol-shooting ranges. What this distinction does is it recognises that, due to the ability to conceal them, pistols are more strictly regulated than non-pistols, and licence holders must hold an endorsement on their licence that means they are eligible to apply for a permit to possess a pistol. These are additional to processes that are not required for possessing non-pistols.

I know there’s been some strong words utilised tonight, this afternoon, with respect to the different views about, in particular, the dissenting views with respect to this bill, but what I’d like to do is just bring us back to some of those key messages.

Cameron Brewer: Get it back to the facts.

RIMA NAKHLE: Yes. Now, these changes are part of the Government’s plan to reform the 40-year-old Arms Act, and the reason why we want to modernise this Act is so that it is fit for public safety and the best regulatory practice. I’m proud of the fact that our Government has been doing quite a lot in the law and order arena, and this is one of them indeed.

Some of the actions that we’ve taken recently that I’m particularly proud of is banning the gang insignia in public places. If we can just remind the House that last week, the Labour Party, as much as I respect many of its members, did not vote for this bill. I know people in Takanini spoke to me over the weekend saying they were actually horrified that some parties did not vote for the gangs legislation. We’re giving police the power to issue dispersal notices to get rid of these groups that are intimidating many people. Families with little children feel they can’t even go out and enjoy their Sundays.

Another thing we’re doing, which I’m really proud of, is we’re introducing powers for courts to issue non-consenting orders with respect to this gangs bill. We’re introducing sentencing reforms. We are doing so much in the law and order arena—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The member is not only reading her speeches, but she’s also drifting quite far away from the bill. Can I ask you to address both.

RIMA NAKHLE: Yes. This amendment bill is just another one of the suite of changes we’re doing in the law and order arena that we’re very proud of, and I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) 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.

Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

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

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.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is That the

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Instruction to Justice Committee

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by four months and one day after the bill has received its first reading.

Bills

Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill

First Reading

International Treaty examinations

International Treaty Examination of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime—Report of Justice Committee

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House. It can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon CHRIS PENK: I move, That the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment bill be now read a first time, and that the report of the Justice Committee be noted. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill—because they don’t have enough work on currently!—and, at the appropriate time, I also intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 1 March.

This bill is a key step towards acceding to the Budapest convention, the Council of Europe’s convention on cyber-crime. Cyber-crime, of course, poses a significant threat to the public. According to the Ministry of Justice’s New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey, 11 percent of New Zealanders were victims of fraud and cyber-crime in 2023. This causes significant financial and emotional harm. Combating cyber-crime, however, is not something we can do alone. Offenders work across international borders, hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Stopping them is only possible if we work together with other countries across the globe. It is my hope also that we can work together on these issues across this House.

Acceding to the Budapest convention demonstrates our commitment to joining this fight. Most of our closest international partners are already parties to the convention. By joining them, we signal to them that we take cyber-crime seriously and we are prepared to do our part to eliminate it. Acceding will also help our law enforcement agencies to protect New Zealanders, making it easier to request assistance in gathering this evidence, especially digital evidence that is stored overseas. Access to this evidence can be crucial to the successful detection, investigation, and prosecution of crimes of all kinds, not just cyber-crimes. Of course, you know a thing or two about detecting crimes of all kinds, Mr Speaker, so I’ve no doubt you will follow this with interest. However, we cannot accede, as you will appreciate, unless our domestic legislation aligns with the requirements of the convention. That is the very purpose of this bill.

One of the most significant changes that the bill makes is to amend the Search and Surveillance Act to bring in a new tool for law enforcement called a preservation direction. Preservation directions will protect vulnerable evidence, such as digital records, from being deleted or destroyed before law enforcement can seize them. The records held by banks and telcos—or telecommunications companies—can be valuable evidence for the police, but they are often routinely deleted as part of data storage or data minimisation policies. Preservation directions will enable law enforcement agencies to require the person or company who holds a specific document to preserve it for a set period of time while they go through the steps necessary to seize the document as evidence. In limited circumstances where the relevant document is a record or telecommunication, the company may also be required to help identify other companies who hold relevant records or who may hold relevant records. Importantly, however, the bill does not require that the document itself be handed over to law enforcement. That process for obtaining the actual content of customer records remains subject to all existing safeguards. We are simply ensuring that valuable evidence cannot disappear while this process is being undertaken. Preservation directions will be available for both domestic and foreign investigations, as required by the Budapest convention.

The bill also amends further the Search and Surveillance Act to create new offences to prevent the disclosure of information that could prejudice criminal investigations. It will be an offence for anyone required to preserve documents by a preservation direction to disclose that the preservation direction exists. Similarly, where police have a warrant to undertake surveillance, it will be an offence for anyone who assists them to carry out that warrant to disclose that it exists. These provisions are required by the convention, but they’re also good sense, because they recognise that nobody wants a criminal to be tipped off that they’re being watched by the police before the police are good and ready. To prevent unnecessary restrictions on freedom of expression, the bill contains provisions that mean that these offences may no longer apply where there is no longer a risk of prejudice to the investigation. A proportionate response—

James Meager: Justified.

Hon CHRIS PENK: A justified limitation, as my friend and colleague in the chair of the Justice Committee, James Meager, points out. The bill also amends the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, the legislation that governs the assistance that we give other countries on criminal investigations and what we seek in return. The bill also enables police to apply for production orders and surveillance device warrants in response to a request for assistance from a foreign country.

These provisions ensure we are aligned with the Budapest convention. They also ensure that powers available domestically are available to respond to requests for assistance in foreign investigations and prosecutions. A key principle of mutual assistance is that it must be reciprocal. To receive assistance, we must of course—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: That’s the mutual bit.

Hon CHRIS PENK: —be willing to offer it in return as well. By amending our mutual assistance legislation to allow requests for surveillance—it’s not the time of the week to be splitting hairs, “Doc” Webb—we can also make outgoing requests; very outgoing, no doubt. Accordingly, the bill also allows the Attorney-General to request a foreign country to undertake surveillance on our behalf. Adding these powers to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act will enable us to more effectively support international criminal investigations, which is crucial, I say, if we want to combat cyber-crime and other forms of harmful criminal activity that occur across borders. It will support our law enforcement agencies to work collaboratively with their peers across the globe. Most importantly, it will also ensure that harm suffered here in our own communities is traced back to those who caused it and that they are held accountable.

Under the heading of safeguards for human rights, I do want to point out the importance of our efforts towards these laudable goals not being manipulated or misappropriated by those who do not share our values. Accordingly, there are a number of safeguards in the bills. Existing requirements in the Search and Surveillance Act and the Mutual Assistance and Criminal Matters Act must be met before a production order or a surveillance device warrant can be issued for mutual assistance purposes. These include requirements to refuse assistance if the request appears to be aimed at persecuting someone due to their race, religion, or political leanings. The bill further enhances these existing protections by only allowing a mutual assistance order or warrant to be issued by a High Court judge. To give greater clarity to those responsible for processing mutual assistance requests, the bill codifies the decision by the Supreme Court which requires that a person affected by a search under mutual assistance legislation is notified before any material seized is then sent offshore. The bill makes it clear who must be notified and when, and ensures a balance between human rights and the practical needs of criminal investigations.

In conclusion, through this bill, New Zealand will signal our commitment to combating the serious harm caused by cyber-crime both here and overseas. We will provide our law enforcement with the tools that they need to detect, investigate, and prosecute criminal offending—and we thank them for that—even when key evidence is held overseas. Most importantly, we ensure our laws can continue to protect New Zealanders in the digital age. I commend this bill, therefore, to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 15 October. Thank you for three weeks of very hard work. I remind you that we began the sitting block with the tributes to the Māori king, Kiingi Tuheitia. It does seem some time ago, but it has been something when this House did come together. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.