Thursday, 17 October 2024
Volume 779
Sitting date: 17 October 2024
THURSDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2024
THURSDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2024
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia/Prayers
Karakia/Prayers
GREG O’CONNOR (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Next week, the House will consider the first readings of the Mental Health Bill and the Policing (Police Vetting) Amendment Bill. We will consider further stages of the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill, the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and the Contracts of Insurance Bill. On Thursday morning, there will be extended hours for private, local, and members’ business. On Thursday afternoon, there will be a two-hour debate on constituency and local issues.
Just finally, in closing, I’ve just been informed that today is the final day of the Australian Associated Press news outlet in New Zealand. I think they’ve been here for 50 years, including in the press gallery, and I’m sure all members wish them well.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I thank the Leader of the House for the update and thank him for including an extended sitting to cover off the deficit in members’ days. By my calculation, there still is one owing to the House. Can he commit to ensuring there’ll be another extended sitting before the end of the year to tally it up?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I think it depends on how you define the “owing” point. As the member will be aware, we have had some unanticipated and quite tragic interruptions to the House this year. But certainly, from the Government’s point of view, we will do our best, subject to other important business between now and the end of the year, to fit that in.
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 Julie Anne Genter requesting that the House urge the Minister of Transport to keep permanent speed limit changes outside of schools, continue the current rule allowing Councils to set appropriate speed limits on local roads, and stop the blanket speed limit increases.
SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.
CLERK:
2023-24 annual reports of the:
New Zealand Defence Force
New Zealand Police
Serious Fraud Office
2024-28 strategic intentions for New Zealand Police
2024-28 statement of intent for the New Zealand Defence Force
report of the 2023-24 non-departmental appropriations for the Science, Innovation and Technology portfolio.
SPEAKER: I present the annual report for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment for the year ending 30 June 2024. 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 National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd
review briefing on the 2022-23 annual review of the New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research
report of the Māori Affairs Committee on Te Pire mō Ō-Rākau, Te Pae o Maumahara/Ō-Rākau Remembrance Bill.
SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading and the review briefings are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.
CLERK: Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: The bill is set down for first reading.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 8 to Minister, 16 October—Amended Answer
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct an answer to oral question No. 8 yesterday.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday in question time, I inadvertently stated that Te Ahu o te Reo Māori provided teachers up to 20 hours of Māori language professional learning and development. I meant to say 120 hours of professional learning and development.
Question No. 1—Whānau Ora
1. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister for Whānau Ora: What role does he believe Whānau Ora plays for all whānau in Aotearoa, both Māori and non-Māori, who choose to engage with its services?
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Whānau Ora): Whānau Ora is a visionary kaupapa—Government-enabled, locally led, and whānau-centred—launched by Te Pāti Māori and the National Party together nearly 15 years ago. It’s a holistic approach to facilitating and delivering outcomes through a whānau delivery model focused on the needs of Māori and, actually, all New Zealanders. It’s inclusive of Māori and non-Māori, and it’s been exciting for me to see, for example, a Pasifika commissioning agency over the past few years.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Why does the Minister think it is necessary to fragment the Whānau Ora network, creating uncertainty for the hundreds of providers and the people they serve, when the current model is a proven success?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: This Government believes in the Whānau Ora kaupapa, hence why we have continued to commit the same budget level for Whānau Ora over the next few years as has been committed in the last year. But we’re also cognisant of the need to ensure that we have value for money in the delivery of better public services, and after 10 years of no formal procurement process, we thought it was important to undertake an engagement and procurement process for Whānau Ora, especially in light of the new targets, priorities, and objectives of this Government. But what I can also assert and observe is that many of the Whānau Ora providers do not just rely on the allocation through the Whānau Ora allocation under Vote Māori Development but actually engage themselves in Votes across Government, including Vote Health—and I acknowledge Dr Reti for his commitment to two-year-old immunisations in the last year through Whānau Ora.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What is his response to Whānau Ora providers who are concerned that they will now have to compete with the likes of the Salvation Army for alternative funding as a result of the uncertainty he has created?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: As I’ve mentioned, there is a procurement and engagement process that’s under way, and there are a number of providers throughout the delivery of Government services, not just in Whānau Ora but across many portfolios and appropriations, that have evidenced similar concerns. However, we will run a defensible and credible process, and that matter currently is at the operational end of Te Puni Kōkiri.
Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: How will this Government sustain a fourth commissioning agency when he has cut funding for the three that already exist?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: I would observe that there is no predetermined outcome for the current process under way and it is not absolutely certain that there will be a fourth commissioning agency. However, what I will say is that we will go through a defensible procurement process and ensure that the needs of Māori and any others who engage in Whānau Ora services are provided for by way of the commissioning agencies and Whānau Ora providers.
Question No. 2—Public Service
2. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister for the Public Service: What recent reports has she seen about the Public Service workforce?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for the Public Service): The latest workforce data released by the Public Service Commission shows a significant shift in back-office resources towards the front line. The data show a 10.8 percent year-on-year reduction in the number of clerical and administrative staff in the Public Service, and an 8.3 percent drop in policy advisers. This has been offset by annual increases in service delivery roles, including a 16.9 percent rise in contact centre workers who are often the first point of contact for members of the public; and there’s been a 5.7 percent increase in the number of inspectors and regulatory officers; and a 1.5 percent increase in the number of social, health, and education workers. This Government promised to shift resources from the back office to the front line, and we are delivering on that promise.
Paulo Garcia: What is happening to the overall size of the Public Service workforce?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Over the course of the year to 30 June, the number of public servants grew slightly, to 63,537—a 0.7 percent increase. But when you drill into the details, it is a year of two halves. The first half of the year, under the previous Government, saw a continuation of strong growth in Public Service numbers through to December. The second half of the year, under this Government, saw a decline of 3.3 percent. While this makes up an overall annual increase of 0.7 percent, this compares to average increases of almost 5 percent of the previous five years as growth ballooned with no corresponding improvement in outcomes. The steps this Government is taking to restore discipline to public expenditure and drive more value for money are working.
Paulo Garcia: What is happening to contractor and consultant spend by the Public Service?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m delighted to see that the brakes have also well and truly been put on contractor and consultant spending. The workforce data shows this operating spending fell by $274 million, or 13 percent, when compared to the previous year. The Government is targeting a reduction in contractor and consultant operating spending of $400 million, and good progress is being made towards this. Contractor and consultant spending was another area that blew out under the previous Government, and this Government is bringing it back under control.
Paulo Garcia: What other changes has she seen in the Public Service workforce?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On Monday, the Prime Minister announced that Sir Brian Roche will be the next Public Service Commissioner. Sir Brian is a highly respected New Zealander, and I am delighted that he will be stepping into this crucial leadership position on 4 November. He brings a wealth of experience in both public and private sector roles, and a proven track record of leadership and delivering results. Sir Brian also knows how to develop talent and drive performance—two things that will be critical for the Public Service over the next few years. I want to thank and acknowledge members of other parties in Parliament who have welcomed Sir Brian’s ascension to this role, and I’m sure that the House joins with me in wishing him all the best and in also thanking Heather Baggott—who has done a great job acting as Public Service Commissioner.
SPEAKER: Just before I call the member, just remind members that there’s a longstanding series of Speakers’ rulings on members moving from their usual seat to another seat closer to the action for the purposes of interjection. So we’ll now call on question—
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order.
SPEAKER: Yeah, I knew this was coming.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, Mr Speaker, with respect, for the House’s understanding, if you’ve got a concern, I believe you should be a bit more specific. Because I’m not aware of any member that has moved seat for the purpose of interjecting. If you were to outline it, perhaps we could explain.
SPEAKER: Well, fascinating that you bring that up, but it’s not for you to make the judgment—it’s for me. All I’m suggesting is that where people have moved from their usual seats and they are interjecting, they need to be a little cautious in how they do that. Nothing wrong with that.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order, sir.
SPEAKER: Well, it’s no longer a point of order—just made that a ruling.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: OK, point of order then. The issue here, then, is that you’re right and Speakers’ rulings are quite clear that a member should not move seats or change seats for the purpose of interjecting. It doesn’t, however, prevent anyone that has moved due to someone not being here for the day. Moving seats around is commonplace on both sides of the House. If that were to happen, it doesn’t preclude them from interjecting, particularly if that member was already a frontbench member—
Arena Williams: Yeah.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: —shh!—and happens to have moved two seats along.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Not me!
Hon Member: Who was it then?
SPEAKER: Well, it doesn’t matter who it was. It really illustrates the point and you can point of order this all day long if you want to. I’ve simply given a gentle warning to the House that it is something that people should bear in mind.
Question No. 3—Social Development and Employment
3. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by the Government’s plan to have 50,000 fewer people on jobseeker support; if so, how many people are on jobseeker support today compared to when she took office?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, in April this year, the Government set a target to reduce the number of people on jobseeker benefit to 140,000 over the next six years, from a baseline of 190,000 in December 2023. One of the reasons for setting this target was the fact that, over the previous six years, the number of people on jobseeker increased significantly, rising by over 66,000, or 55 percent, between December 2017 and December 2023. When this target was set, officials expected jobseeker numbers would continue to rise for some time due to the poor state of the economy, which had seen little to no growth for the previous two years. Since taking office, as expected, the number of people on jobseeker support has continued to increase, rising by 20,895. We expect this number will rise further due to the lagged effects of high inflation, high interest rates, and the recession on employment. We’re confident the steps we are taking to improve the welfare system, such as increased engagement with job seekers through case management and the introduction of the traffic light system, will pay off through reduced benefit dependency as economic conditions improve.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she acknowledge that escalating unemployment and jobseeker beneficiary numbers are leading to increased hardship for whānau?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I acknowledge that two years of low to no growth led to unemployment, which is why we are seeing, unfortunately, rising numbers of unemployment. That is why our Government is absolutely focused on getting people into work so they have their own income, and I’m proud to advise the House that, in the last three months, we have seen an increase of 2,457 people exit the jobseeker benefit into work compared to a year ago.
SPEAKER: Have you got a supplementary from someone there?
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Yes, Mr Speaker. Why did she ignore advice about increasing the amount of Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme (RSE) workers entering the country when the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is already struggling to find job seekers meaningful employment in the regions?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As that member will know, many regions require RSE workers for short periods of time, so there is always the balance when we are trying to get the economy up and running again, to ensure that there is short-term supply of labour for required workforces at the same time as balancing the needs of job seekers, who are spread around the country.
Ingrid Leary: Does she accept that medical practitioners are better placed to determine fitness for work than public servants; if so, will she commit to exempting those with medical certificates stating they are unfit to work for mental health or disability conditions from being reassessed on their fitness to work by MSD staff?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The member raises a really important point about work capacity. Our focus is absolutely on what people can do. In some ways, the very blunt way that the work capacity has been done in the past has restricted people’s ability to do some work. So this side of the House is absolutely focused on what people can do rather than what they can’t, and what we do want to ensure is that we are not putting additional barriers in the way of people being in work.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very clear question asking whether a person with a medical certificate will be reassessed by an MSD worker, and whilst the Minister spoke to the general nature of it, she absolutely did not address that fundamental question of reassessment.
SPEAKER: Well, that might be an interesting point, but if you have a look at the primary question, it talks about numbers and asks for a comparison between now and then. I personally was right on the edge of thinking that that question was almost outside of the wickets of the primary, but the Minister did give an answer.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why did she ignore officials’ advice and not allow beneficiaries on a non-financial sanction to access hardship assistance given the dire state of unemployment and the cost of living crisis?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because I thought it was really important to ensure that there’s consistency with the current sanction regime. I will note for the House that our Government hasn’t changed the sanction regime—all we’ve done is actually use it. So the advice for the new one, which is non-financial, actually will mean people are better off because they will get their full benefit.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When will she take full responsibility for increased jobseeker beneficiaries, increased hardship for New Zealanders, and decreased assistance for that hardship given she has ignored the advice of her own officials because she thinks she knows better?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m really proud of the record that our Government has despite incredibly challenging economic times and unemployment that follows a period of high Government spending, high inflation, and high interest rates. We have 2,457 job seekers in the last three months who’ve exited into work, which is an increase on the year before. That’s what I’m proud of. And, actually, our side of the House doesn’t necessarily think it is a bad thing when hardship grants reduce. That means that households are able to look after themselves, and that is a direct result of lower inflation and a lower cost of living.
Question No. 4—Prime Minister
4. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: What update can he provide on the coalition Government’s progress?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: We are just 11 months, delivering across the board, injecting life back into New Zealand with the fast-track consenting bill—
Hon Member: Ha, ha!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: You’ve got to be pretty dumb to start laughing before you’ve heard the answer, eh? It represents a knife through unnecessary red tape and delays, paving the way for infrastructure we badly need. The Regional Infrastructure Fund will pump $1.2 billion worth of much-needed stimulus into our regions, the backbone of the country. Establishing a National Infrastructure Agency—a vital move towards securing long-term and strategic investments that futureproof New Zealand’s economy. A Government serious about unlocking development and progress—Resource Management Act reform will set us on exactly that path. We’re dealing with the country’s health and education systems, and because of us alone, we will, in New Zealand, reach the smoke-free target in 2024, not some time in the distant future.
Jenny Marcroft: What actions has the coalition Government taken to uphold equal citizenship and democracy?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Cabinet communicated our expectations for public services being prioritised on the common-sense basis of need, not race. Unfortunately, it was necessary to clarify that race or personal identity is in fact not a proxy for need; anyone who understood poverty would know that. We have stopped He Puapua, which set New Zealand on a path of racial separatism, because we believe in one standard of citizenship for all New Zealanders, regardless of when you arrived here. We are now into phase two of the COVID-19 inquiry, which will rework the utterly inadequate terms of reference which we inherited. Sport New Zealand will be updating its guiding principles to ensure that we have fair competition above woke values being signalled, and we are sorting out the marine and coastal areas Act so that we can get back to a solution we had when every coastal iwi agreed to it.
Jenny Marcroft: What has the coalition Government achieved so far in restoring law and order?
Hon Willie Jackson: Nothing.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Ha, ha! Willie Jackson says “Nothing”. He’s talking about any common-sense idea he might evince. We are empowering our police and courts to hold criminals to account. Gang membership is now an aggravating factor during sentencing. Instead of giving money to the gangs, we are coming down hard on them, because Māori are the greatest victims of them. We are heading towards 500 more front-line police on the streets. A surge in applications—[Interruption] Instead of hearing cheering over there because they pretend to be for law and order, they’re jeering. Well, as they say, they came to jeer, but they’ll be starting to cheer. A surge in applications and expanding recruitment wings is also a signal that our Government is serious about law and order and putting—even you—victims first.
SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think I’ve got those concerns, but none the less, Jenny Marcroft.
Jenny Marcroft: How is the coalition Government supporting workers?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is a Government for working people, because some of us know what hard work looks like. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Hang on. Hold on. Wait on. A reasonable amount of interjection is always acceptable, but not that sort of barrage.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I start again?
SPEAKER: Yeah, of course.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you very much. This is a Government that understands working people; understands their concerns, their hopes, and their dreams, and those forgotten hard-working Kiwi battlers are on our mind. We have extended the Apprenticeship Boost scheme through to June 2028. They didn’t. The accredited employer work visa is now geared towards filling high-skilled roles that help our New Zealand economy. The Government is committed to and delivering moderate increases on the minimum wage, set, of course, by you know who, not there. The Government is backing our workers, be they blue-collar or white-collar workers. Today, we are celebrating—
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: You’ve laid off all the white-collar workers in this city.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is great news; hear it in silence. Today, we are celebrating over 16,000 Kiwis getting into work and off the jobseeker benefit from July to September this year.
Hon Member: 55,000 went to Australia.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, 16,000. And, last of all, this coincides with a 133 percent increase in—
Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s a patsy question!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, look, I want you to hear this, so keep quiet while I’m answering it.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Well, keep reading, matua.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I know you’re not concerned about the workers; that’s why you’re shouting. This coincides with a 133 percent increase in benefit sanctions being issued from just 11 months ago—
Hon Kieran McAnulty: You’d think that after 40 years you’d learn how to read properly.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —which shows they are working.
SPEAKER: OK. That’s absolutely enough, particularly those sort of comments, with all due respect.
Jenny Marcroft: What are this Government’s plans for much-needed essential infrastructure like Marsden Point?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is a Government that understands the vital need for our country to invest in our infrastructure. Critical infrastructure—
Ingrid Leary: New Dunedin Hospital!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, starting a hospital plan and blowing the cost out way over what it was budgeted for is not a plan—it’s irresponsibility. Look, be patient; help is on its way.
SPEAKER: OK, we’re going to hear the rest of this answer in silence, from both sides.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s all good news, but critical infrastructure like Marsden Point, that was allowed to covertly and secretly be shut down against interests of this country, is being seriously focused on at this point in time. We are trying to get past the crisis that we are facing in stoppages because of what we think may be contaminated fuel because of our lack of access to what we once had when we were a world-leading country.
Question No. 5—Education
5. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What information source or sources is she using for her claims about what the evidence shows regarding Te Ahu o te Reo Māori?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): The Ministry of Education advice, an independent evaluation, and provider completion data.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Who is correct, then: the Minister, who said Te Ahu o te Reo Māori is a very expensive, poorly performing contract; or the 87 percent of participants who said the programme helped them to build the confidence they needed to use te reo Māori in the classroom, and the 77 percent who said it supported them to apply tikanga in educational contexts?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ve no doubt there are some people who did the course and very much enjoyed the course. But as a steward of public money, when we spent $100 million and only 60 percent of people completed the course, and when it was 2.3 times more expensive than comparable courses, as someone in charge of public money, it’s important for me to look at this from a systems perspective. The quantitative data showed that that was not good value for money and we can contract much better in the future, and we will.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What evidence is she using to discredit the programme when the evaluation report says that Te Ahu o te Reo—[Interruption] He’s talking during question time.
SPEAKER: Yes, he is, and he knows that it’s not—[Interruption] No, you’re not telling me what to do—OK. Don’t interrupt the questioner. Carry on.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What evidence is she using to discredit the programme when the evaluation report says, “Te Ahu o Te Reo Māori has engaged a cohort of exceptional providers to deliver this initiative. Combined, these providers have an extraordinary level of experience and expertise in the development and delivery of high-quality Māori language programmes. Participants were nearly unanimous in their glowing reviews of providers and their programmes, with most noting the providers’ outstanding skills in delivering engaging and effective learning content.”?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: There are two kinds of data: there is qualitative and quantitative. That member might like to focus on the qualitative data, but the quantitative data is also very important. When something is 2.3 times more expensive than a similar course—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: No, hang on. You can’t just ask for an elucidation on a question you’ve just asked without listening to the answer. If we can just have a little bit of decorum so we can make some progress. Start the answer again.
Hon ERICA STANFORD: There are two types of data: quantitative and qualitative. The evaluation report was unable to have much quantitative data in it because of the poor contracting. There were some people who said that they liked the course—no doubt—but, overall, when you are spending $100 million of public money, the quantitative data about how many people finished the course, and what types of people were doing the course and how expensive the course is, is very important to take into account, which is why when we recontract in the future, we will make sure that we get much better value for money. Because $100 million of public money is not a small amount, and $40 million of that public money was spent on people who did not complete the course, and that is an important consideration.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What evidence is she comparing Te Ahu o te Reo Māori to when she says that the course was 2.3 times more expensive when there are no other courses that are the same or even similar?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: I received advice from my Ministry of Education officials, who said that comparable courses are 2.3 times cheaper than what was contracted under Te Ahu o te Reo Māori.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What evidence does she rely on to say whether or not pronouncing Māori names and using everyday common phrases is an acceptable level of proficiency?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: When I made those comments, I said that those things are important to me as an education Minister. I want teachers to use everyday, commonly used Māori phrases in their teaching, and I want them to be able to pronounce Māori names correctly. That is important to us, which is why, in the future, we will recontract this, but we will do so with much better contracts, making sure we are getting good, quantitative data reporting and good evaluative frameworks built into those contracts.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she actually committed to achieving 1 million New Zealanders speaking te reo Māori by 2040 when she slashes funding for one of the very programmes that the evidence shows will help achieve this?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Absolutely, which is why this Government has invested heavily in te reo Māori. In fact, for the very first time, this Government has invested in a phonics check and decodable resources which have never existed before, provided free of charge by the Ministry of Education to kura kaupapa and rūmaki units. We’re also providing all of the pāngarau—mathematics—resources free of charge in te reo Māori. We’re also making sure that kura kaupapa is included in network provision for the first time in the country’s history, and investing $100 million in kura kaupapa property.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister—
SPEAKER: Can I at least call you? Would that be OK? The Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much.
SPEAKER: No worries.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether it’s a fact that there is a record number of Māori and non-Māori learning Māori online?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: That is a fact.
Question No. 6—Education
6. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Education: What update can she provide about the Ministerial Inquiry into School Property?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Earlier this month, the Government released the inquiry’s report, which came in early and under budget. It’s confirmed we inherited a struggling system with a pipeline of unfunded school upgrades that weren’t able to be delivered. The report found the ministry’s processes are bureaucratic and inefficient, its internal governance structures for property investments are not robust, funding decisions lack transparency, and its organisational structure does not provide the right level of focus or accountability. This resulted in a huge loss of confidence in the system and significant uncertainty for school communities, and we’re fixing it.
Carl Bates: What is the Government doing to respond?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Even before the report was finalised, we took decisive action to sharpen school property delivery. I instructed the ministry to improve communications with schools and focus on offsite manufacturing solutions. In the first six months of this year, 72 percent of additional classrooms entering construction were being delivered as offsite modular builds, compared to the 18 percent which were delivered in the same period last year. The ministry has also completed a value-for-money review to ensure a much more fiscally responsible approach has been taken using repeatable designs, modular builds, and a reduced number of bespoke designs.
Carl Bates: What are the Government’s next steps?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: We are working at pace. We’re in the process of appointing a functional chief executive with infrastructure expertise who will be responsible for operational aspects of school property, who will report to me; a new independent investment panel is also being stood up to provide expert advice on future property decisions; and a new entity for operational school property will be considered in coming months. Schools deserve transparency and predictability; taxpayers deserve value for money; and our tamariki deserve warm, dry classrooms.
Carl Bates: What feedback has she received?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: A principal said this inquiry is long overdue. There are some truly dire stories out there of mouldy, damp classrooms, and, at the other end of the scale, there are rebuilds and new builds that are just over the top, and we need balance. An architect who’s designed over 100 schools said, “Great job. You’ve hit the nail on the head. The focus should be on delivering safe spaces that children can learn in, to a budget, with a low level of maintenance, and it’s totally possible to procure schools faster and better than the current process and ensure that results are cost-effective.” This Government is committed to delivering just that.
Question No. 7—Children
7. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Children: Why is the Government developing military-style academies as a sentencing response before the pilot has finished and before a full evaluation has assessed their impact on the children participating?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Because this Government cares about these young people and we want to give them every opportunity possible to succeed and turn their lives around. I feel privileged and proud to have met with these young people. I have seen the difference that this pilot has already made in terms of their confidence and their belief in themselves, and I can’t wait to see more young people get this opportunity. I invite the member and all members in this House to join me in supporting these young people to succeed, rather than willing them to fail. We can’t wait any more for more reports. These young people can’t afford for us to wait.
Tamatha Paul: How many young people remain in the pilot programme?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There are 10 young people in the pilot programme.
Tamatha Paul: How can it be 10 young people remaining in the pilot when it was publicly reported on 13 August that one person had dropped out of the boot camp already?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Because one extra young person who put their name forward was accepted to join the pilot programme.
Tamatha Paul: How many of the original 10 young people that were a part of the pilot project remain in the pilot?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Nine.
Mark Cameron: Can the Minister explain the role of the intensive mentors?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The mentoring component of this pilot programme is the biggest part of the programme. We know that these young people need that support. The mentoring component has been a crucial element in helping these young people build positive relationships. This is how I know we can bring this pilot programme forward, because I am seeing the difference that this programme is already making.
Tamatha Paul: Why is she proceeding with her boot camp experiment when already one child has dropped out, representing a 10 percent failure rate of her experiment? [Interruption]
SPEAKER: I’d just remind people that silence when a question is being asked lasts all the way to the end of it. The Hon Karen Chhour.
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think I’ve made it very clear in my first answer that I have seen the difference that this pilot programme has made to these young people—their confidence and their belief in themselves, and just the change is inspirational. I’d like to thank all the staff, all the agencies, who had a role to play in this, who came together for the betterment of these young people.
Mark Cameron: What update can the Minister provide on the community stage of the pilot?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: From the outset, the military academies pilot had been designed with the transition back into the community in mind. Each young person has received a detailed transition plan to help their reintegration back into the community and ensure that they have every chance of success. This is a major difference from previous programmes, like the Military-style Activity Camp programme, and the majority of the pilot is actually about the community phase rather than the in-residence phase.
Tamatha Paul: How can she look survivors of abuse in State care in the face and say “Sorry” next month while at the same time ploughing ahead with unevaluated and unevidenced military-style boot camps that they want gone?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: This pilot is completely different to the boot camps that were mentioned in the royal commission report. These were run decades ago with untrained staff, no proper oversight, and in an isolated setting. I’m kind of disappointed that we are using the survivors of abuse in State care for political gain instead of actually supporting these young people to be as successful as they possibly can. This is comparing apples with oranges—apples with oranges. For an evidence-based party, I am disappointed in you comparing apples with oranges. [Interruption]
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Listening to that barrage, could we suggest to you that maybe we do a few courses on how the House should be run and how MPs behave. If you want to compete, then put your mind together, get some understanding of that, and not just shout out like a sick idiot every time you don’t agree with something. It’s going on every day. I’ve never seen the House like this in my time here, because back in a former time when it was a contest of ideas, we understood that. But these people are so woke that if they don’t agree, they’re just offended, and then they make noise.
SPEAKER: OK—thank you very much for that. I’d just point out that I’m not responsible for who the voters send to this House, but the electors to this House would most certainly have an expectation of a high level of decorum in the conduct of our proceedings.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order.
SPEAKER: I was in the middle of talking about something. It’s exactly what we’re talking about. Just wait till people have finished talking. Now.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. Seems like my timing wasn’t too wrong, but I just wanted to raise quite a serious issue. There was some quite, what I thought, unparliamentary language referring to members opposite to him, calling them “sick idiots”. I think that’s pretty disgusting and I just want raise with you what I think is the Deputy Prime Minister’s lowering of standards in this House. I could quote about five Speakers’ rulings that he has broken throughout this week, and I think this is setting a pretty low bar in terms of the kind of name-calling that we’re expecting in this place.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. If you want to raise a point of order, get the facts right first and don’t get up and say what someone didn’t say. Go and listen to the parliamentary record and the member will know, for the umpteenth time, he’s not understanding how this House is properly run.
SPEAKER: As usual in these cases, I will look at the Hansard and make a determination about whether or not the Standing Orders or Speakers’ rulings have been breached.
Question No. 8—Veterans
8. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister for Veterans: What recent announcements has he made regarding Anzac Day?
Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Veterans): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government is making changes so that more veterans who have served New Zealand will be formally recognised as part of official Anzac Day commemorations. What many people don’t realise is that, as a matter of law, Anzac Day currently doesn’t commemorate the contribution that New Zealand forces have made in conflict since 1966, which was when the Anzac Day legislation was last updated. The final conflict mentioned in that Act is the Vietnam War. The Government is doing something about this by progressing a bill to amend the Anzac Day Act so that the day will officially recognise those who have taken part in more recent operations, including our peacekeeping forces, as well as those from previous wars.
Tim van de Molen: How has Anzac Day evolved over time?
Hon CHRIS PENK: Anzac Day commemorations were originally designed to commemorate those who had fallen at Gallipoli. Kiwis are grateful for the courage, comradeship, and commitment of men and women of the services, not only of the past but also, of course, the present, and Anzac Day is of course one of the key ways that we are able to express that as a nation. The service personnel of today are part of a long and proud tradition therefore, and so we think it’s important to acknowledge that all of those who have served New Zealand in time of war and other operations be officially recognised, and it is appropriate to do that through amending the Anzac Day Act.
Tim van de Molen: When will the changes to the Act take place?
Hon CHRIS PENK: We’re keen to make these changes as soon as possible. The Anzac Day amendment bill will be introduced to the House prior to Anzac Day of next year, and then pass into law ahead of Anzac Day 2026. I’d like to acknowledge with thanks the support of my colleague and friend the Hon Paul Goldsmith as Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, in whose name the bill will currently sit.
Tim van de Molen: Why is the recognition of veterans important?
Hon CHRIS PENK: Veterans often tell me that recognition is the most meaningful form of thanks, and I suspect that colleagues across the House have probably heard similar sentiments expressed to them as well. Serving their country has come, in many cases, with great personal sacrifice that can never be fully repaid, but recognising the service personnel through official commemorations like Anzac Day does, of course, go some way indeed. I’m also looking forward to progressing other initiatives in due course alongside fellow Ministers and other veterans-supporting organisations such as the Royal New Zealand Returned Services Association, to ensure that we can better recognise the contributions of all those who have served New Zealand.
Question No. 9—Police
9. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement that it was “nothing new” for Police resources to be distributed according to the Government’s priorities; if so, why?
Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): The member’s characterisation of that statement is not factual.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Did he ask for Police to increase numbers on the ground in Auckland CBD in order to counter retail crime and public disorder?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: No.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Was it his expectation that Police staff would be redeployed from neighbouring Police areas into Auckland CBD?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: It is my expectation that the Police and the commissioner will always operate with complete operational independence and decide where staff are deployed, and that’s exactly what they do.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Why is it that Police consider that operational staff have been “ring-fenced” and not able to be deployed to demand, therefore creating a crime displacement?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I mean, I haven’t seen any of those statements. I’m not sure where the member is getting that from.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Is the Palmerston North Police Association delegate at yesterday’s conference correct when he said, “There is fear among officers that the Government gang disruption units will mean that other crimes that had been priorities for Police, such as family harm, will be forgotten.”; if not, why not?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: He absolutely raised a genuine concern, and I was able to allay those concerns by saying that this Government takes all forms of crime and violence in the community seriously, and we’ve got a big piece of work to deal with family and sexual harm.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the Police Association representative from South Canterbury, who said yesterday, “There is an increased fearfulness that rural policing is being hung out to dry as officers were redeployed into urban areas.”; if not, why not?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I listen to everything that front-line police officers tell me. I spend a lot of time on the ground, getting around and seeing them, and I have to say that the job that our rural police are doing is outstanding, and they get great support from their provincial colleagues. I’ve seen an increase in the operations that the police are running to protect rural communities, especially those with boy racers.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he concerned that there is a growing view within New Zealand Police that politics is directly influencing operational deployment decisions?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, I don’t. I think there’s a growing view within our police service that we’re getting back to basics, that they’ll be given the tools, and they’ve got a Government that supports them, to get out there and actually do their job, roll up over the top of gangs, start to suppress boy racers, and get on top of violent retail crime. They know that this Government is supporting them to do that.
Hon Nicola Willis: Is there a growing view within front-line police officers that it’s pretty good to have a police Minister who backs them?
Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, that’s a very good question. Look, our police service know that they have got a police Minister and a coalition Government that actually backs them and wants them to be successful and is making sure that we give them the powers to be able to go out there and do that.
Question No. 10—RMA Reform
10. LAN PHAM (Green) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: How does he justify his proposed inclusion of projects in the Fast-track Approvals Bill that have previously been denied by the courts?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): The Fast-track Approvals Bill, which is currently still before the Environment Committee, will facilitate delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant regional or national benefits. Where projects have previously been declined by the courts, they will have been considered under different Acts—for example, the Resource Management Act (RMA), the exclusive economic zone Act, or the Conservation Act—which all contain their own particular tests. That should not preclude them from being considered under the Fast-track Approvals Bill, which has its own particular legal test. It’s important to note that under New Zealand’s planning system, applicants who have had proposals turned down by courts are fully within their rights to amend those proposals and try again. The other thing to note is that listing projects in Schedule 2 of the bill does not automatically grant approvals for those projects. Expert panels will still need to consider the substantive applications against the tests in the final version of the Act. To help address this concern, Cabinet has agreed that applicants will be required to include information on previous decisions by approving authorities, including previous court decisions, in their applications.
Lan Pham: Why did Cabinet choose the fast-tracking of projects previously declined by the courts on environmental grounds, like dams and seabed mining, over projects like hospital developments for Nelson, Tauranga, Hawke’s Bay, Whangārei, Wānaka, and Palmerston North?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s the Government’s view that we can do a lot when it comes to the projects that are in the bill. It’s not to say that there may not be other projects in the future. I don’t want to preclude the final decision making of the select committee when the bill has not yet been reported back to the Parliament, but the Government has recommended that there will be the ability for the Minister for Infrastructure to refer projects in the future into the fast-track process.
Scott Willis: What does he say to the people of Waimate, who have been engaging in an Environment Court process to stop the Project Kea waste-incineration-to-energy plant and have now had this process undermined by it being included as a fast-track - listed project?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, without commenting specifically about that particular project, I’m surprised to hear that the Greens are now opposed to the conversion of waste to energy.
Simon Court: Does Parliament have the right to make laws like fast-track to make it easier to deliver infrastructure and housing, and, if so, is replacing the Resource Management Act with a system based on property rights, as stated in the ACT coalition agreement, another example of this?
SPEAKER: Well, the Minister may like to answer briefly, but that is quite wide of the wicket as well.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Successive Governments have realised that the RMA and, indeed, things like the Wildlife Act and the Conservation Act are outdated and are not keeping pace with the level of economic development this country needs to grow, the houses we need to build, and the infrastructure we need to create for the future. That’s why the previous Government had two versions of their own fast-track regime legislation. That’s why this Government is doing its version of it as well, whilst we go forward with a replacement regime for the RMA that better recognises the balance between the development of our resources and our infrastructural needs with the environment. A myopic focus on the adverse effects on the environment of development projects means that, ultimately, it is too hard to do things. This Government is redressing that balance.
Scott Willis: Was it appropriate or fair for the then candidate and now MP for Waitaki, Miles Anderson, to tell the local Waimate community at a “meet the candidate” meeting that he shared their opposition to the waste-incineration-to-energy plant?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I don’t have any responsibility—
SPEAKER: Well, firstly, I would point out that the Minister has absolutely no responsibility for what a candidate might say—and I’m sure most party leaders would be happy with that ruling. Does the member want to use that question?
Hon David Parker: Supplementary—
SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute. Just to be clear: this is part of your allocation but you’re not losing one for the question that hasn’t been answered.
Lan Pham: Will the Minister take personal responsibility for any environmental damage that occurs if projects that have previously been declined by the courts are now able to go ahead, and, if not, who will?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That’s not the way our legal system works or indeed our ministerial system. But the point I’d make in a general sense is that the Government is proposing that Parliament list 149 projects. Those projects will then be referred to an expert panel. The expert panel has the ability to decline those projects—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute. You want to have that conversation? Have it outside of the House. Start again, Mr Bishop.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I was just making the point that the Government has recommended 149 projects for referral to the expert panels. The expert panels will have the ability to decline those projects, but the expert panels will also be required to apply environmental conditions to the permitting of those projects.
Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that the Waimate waste-to-energy project is the first large incineration project proposed in New Zealand; and that it was referred to the Environment Court at the request of the council so that the complex issues relating to greenhouse gas emissions from burning plastics could be properly considered, including with input from environmental organisations and locals, neither of whom will have a right of appearance before the fast-track panel?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, in a general sense, and I’m sure that some of the factors that the member is talking about will be considered by the expert panels.
Question No. 11—Commerce and Consumer Affairs
11. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding the Confirmation of Payee service?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I am pleased to share that, last week, the banks responded to my direction that I set out earlier this year and agreed to enhance protection of their customers by introducing a confirmation of payee service. Confirmation of payee allows customers to verify that the account name matches the account number, providing a crucial safeguard against scams like investment fraud where money is sent to fake business accounts. It also helps prevent common errors where people mistakenly send payments to the wrong account.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: What is the time line for rolling out this service, and how will it be introduced?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: In February of this year, I instructed the banks to report back to me by the end of September and I’m pleased to confirm that they have delivered. The roll-out of the confirmation of payee service will begin next month and will be in place across 13 banks by Easter 2025.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: How will the confirmation of—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just wait a minute—OK.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: How will the confirmation of the payee system improve payment security for individuals and businesses?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: The confirmation of payee system adds an extra layer of protection by verifying the payee’s name matches the account number before a payment is made. As members of this House will know, investment scams are a common form of scam, and it is one that is personally devastating to many people. Now customers will be able to check that the name of the bank account matches the information they’ve been provided with before they make a payment.
Dr Vanessa Weenink: How does this service compare to similar systems in other countries?
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: New Zealand’s confirmation of payee system follows international best practice and is similar to what has been implemented in the United Kingdom and Australia. Both countries have seen significant reductions in scams and errors. By way of example, the UK reported a 31 percent reduction in bank transfer fraud within the first few months of its implementation. I’m pleased that New Zealand banks will soon be catching up with the rest of the world, and Kiwis will benefit from enhanced modern security systems.
Question No. 12—Foreign Affairs
12. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Was New Zealand asked to co-sign the letter from 104 United Nations member States in support of the UN Secretary-General António Guterres after he was declared persona non grata by Israel; if so, did he or his office have contact about this issue with other Government party leaders or their offices prior to New Zealand’s decision about whether to co-sign it?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): New Zealand made a public statement on 14 October which included the following quotes: “declaring diplomats persona non grata, is precisely the wrong direction … New Zealand supports the role of @antonioguterres, as UN Secretary-General, to travel widely around the world to support peace and prosperity and foster dialogue and understanding.”, and “We regret Israel’s decision to declare the Secretary-General persona non grata.” As for the letter, my understanding is that it was circulated in New York to all UN member States. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade judged that it was preferable that New Zealand express our views on the issue in our own voice and make our own statement of support of the UN Secretary-General. And that is what we did and this is what it looks like. [Holds up printed statement.] And it went out, so that’s the answer.
Hon David Parker: Isn’t New Zealand’s failure to sign the letter in support of the UN Secretary-General made worse by the recent bombardment by Israel of the UN peacekeeping mission on the Israel-Lebanon border?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We’re dealing with the issue of the letter that was co-signed by a number—and dare I say it, at the beginning it looked like there weren’t many signatories to it. By that time, I had already commissioned the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to put our own statement out, which is what I’ve just shown you now. That is an ancillary matter that’s happened, about which we’ve also made a public statement.
Hon David Parker: Why is he not progressing formally recognising Palestine six months after he said it was a question of when, not if, given that like-minded countries, including Spain, Ireland, and Norway, have since done so?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because it’s one thing to make a statement because it’s an aspiration, but when it doesn’t have any chance of actually going into effect, the futility of that is as frustrating for the population you’re concerned about as it is for everybody else. We are not on a different page; we’re just far more common sense and practically aligned. For example, I’ve spoken to the foreign Ministers for Jordan, the Palestinian Authority I’ve spoken to, the Egyptians I’ve spoken to, the Turkish I’ve spoken to, and the Gulf States—a whole lot of countries have been spoken to; all aligned. But on this practical question—as to when you make a statement, can it happen and can it be established, and who will be the Government—there are still no answers.
Hon David Parker: Well then, given that the UN Secretary-General said he was “deeply alarmed by reports that a large number of communication devices [that] exploded across Lebanon”, killing, blinding, or injuring more than a thousand people, including children, what progress has New Zealand made in concluding who was likely responsible for that, given his answer to a primary question on 26 September saying it was too early to tell, and will he now condemn that barbaric act?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, when that act happened, of course, it was as a result of the people who perpetuated it being the recipients of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of rockets going on for month after month after month as though somehow there would be no consequences. The reality is we’re here in New Zealand and advocating—and have been for a long time, consistently across the political—
Ricardo Menéndez March: Are you comfortable with civilians being killed?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, we don’t just make a lot of noise like that member and don’t do anything about it. It’s just so typical of the Green Party—full of condemnation but haven’t got one idea how they’d help anybody, including finding one cent to help them the way we have.
SPEAKER: Good—that’s enough.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We have found millions to help them. So back to my point—
SPEAKER: Don’t.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is a serious issue and I wouldn’t expect it to be the result of that sort of arrogant comment.
SPEAKER: Yes, but you’re actually calling attention to it. But carry on.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m bringing attention to the practical, common sense—that too often in foreign affairs, people evince and evoke sentiments when it’s of no practical help to the people on the ground. In the end, people on the ground want real help. That’s what we’re seeking to do and have always done, and we have always consistently been, across the liberal divide and across decades, for a two-State solution, and we still are.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Minister requested or received any advice about economically sanctioning the State of Israel for its plausible genocide, and, if not, when, if ever, will Israel face those so-called real consequences that the Deputy Prime Minister talked about?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I have no intention of answering questions with judgmental statements such as “genocide” when no international body has made that allegation with any proof at this point in time at all.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That statement of “plausible genocide” comes from the ICJ, the International Court of Justice.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, it doesn’t—no, it doesn’t.
SPEAKER: Sorry, there is a point of order taking place. Don’t speak while a point of order is on.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, if I may—
SPEAKER: No, you can start again.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister—the Minister of Foreign Affairs—just refused to answer the question which you did not rule out of order. So, firstly, I would like your response to that and whether the Deputy Prime Minister is indeed required to answer or at least address questions. To the second—
SPEAKER: Well, I was very close to ruling it out of order, because New Zealand, of course, doesn’t have an autonomous sanctions arrangement, therefore couldn’t do what the member was asking for, but—
Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, I asked about advice and whether there had been any asked for or received by the Minister’s office.
SPEAKER: The Minister certainly addressed the question. Do you want to say more?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The fact of the matter is that that member made a statement which is not backed up with international evidence, and the one she gave requires her to surely get a legal adviser in the plain language in which it was written which does not express what she said.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is that the point you want to make here?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yeah. That’s it.
Hon David Parker: Accepting the Minister’s statement that there are barbaric acts on more than one side in this conflict, did I understand his answer to my last supplementary to be that he will not condemn the use of exploding mobile devices that blinded, killed, or injured thousands of people, including children, as a barbaric act?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that when that member asked the question, he asked “Were there other statements we made?”. Well, yes, we did make statements with respect to the Israelis’ improper treatment of the Secretary-General. We also reflected on the proper concerns that happened arising from the attack which led to the UN peacekeepers in Lebanon being put in danger and risk. So we always have, and I would invite the member to follow the constant foreign affairs pronouncements, which we do on an almost daily basis.
Hon David Parker: When he was at the United Nations in recent weeks, did he express disquiet to the US about US financial and military support for the protracted and expanding war in Gaza and now Lebanon?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have no recollection of mentioning that. We were talking about other matters closer to home.
SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for the consideration of the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill and the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill.
House in Committee
House in Committee
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill and the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill.
Bills
Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill
In Committee
Clause 1 Title
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We come first to the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill, and we begin with the debate on clause 1. This is the debate on the title.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill. I do have some questions for the Minister, and I note that if we are due to take the debate in parts—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We have no instruction otherwise.
RACHEL BOYACK: Yes, I just note that and that some of my contribution—and I don’t intend to make more than one contribution—may be more appropriate for commentary from the Minister in the future stage.
I do note that through the first and seconding readings of this bill there has been unanimous agreement across the House to support the bill, which I think is a good thing, and I just note that it responds to a policy issue that occurred during COVID times and has led us to a point where we’re now putting in place some permanent legislation. I think most members of Parliament will support that. Certainly, I do, and as chair of the select committee that heard submissions, the Governance and Administration Committee, I certainly support that.
One of the questions that has come up, which I’d like the Minister to address—and it may not be in this part; it may be in a future contribution, and I accept that—is around the ongoing policy work to address harm minimisation. One of the suggestions that the Labour Party made during the select committee process was to look at including some harm minimisation clauses. When reading the departmental report, people will see that there is nothing that is absolutely certain in legislation or regulation or the application process for a class 3 licence to have harm minimisation practices in place.
My question to the Minister is a genuine one: has she considered advice relating to harm minimisation for class 3 operators, even though there is a low risk, by making this extension permanent? We do need to acknowledge as a House that it does increase that risk somewhat. My genuine question to the Minister is twofold: what is the ongoing policy work to reflect the need for harm minimisation approaches for gambling generally, specifically related to class 3, but also did she consider the opportunity to put into the bill a clause that would address that? I appreciate that we’re talking about the title so it might be later on that the Minister may be willing to make a response to that, and I’m happy to be patient and wait for that. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of this particular bill, when we’re looking at the title of the bill—and, again, understanding that we are debating the title at this stage, but, again, some of these concerns and questions that we have for the Minister may be addressed in clause 4. I think when we’re looking purely at clause 1 in terms of the name of the bill, I feel like “definition of remote interactive gambling” doesn’t actually do justice in terms of the content of the bill or even address some of the issues that we have highlighted up until now in both the first reading and the select committee stage.
I think that in order to address some of the concerns the previous speaker, Rachel Boyack, has mentioned in terms of the ongoing work and policy work around harm minimisation—but I also want to draw Madam Chair’s attention and also the Minister’s attention to the fact that this particular bill has had no regulatory impact statement. What isn’t expressed succinctly in the title of the bill or elucidated in the title of the bill is around the permanence element of the fact that class 3 gambling operators would be allowed to operate using remote internet gambling methods permanently. I think this is sort of a step beyond the temporary permission that was granted under COVID-19 conditions.
From a title perspective, I wondered if the Minister would consider rewording in a way that highlights the key elements of this bill around the permanence and address some of the concerns that we have around the fact that by making it permanent but having no real record or real data or evidence or even regulatory impact statement around this, it’s really hard for us to see the impact of this particular bill on things like harm minimisation, particularly in communities that are traditionally more susceptible to gambling, such as Māori communities, Chinese communities, and other various Asian and Pasifika communities. I think that is a really important element that we want to kind of tie into and would like the Minister to respond at this stage.
Reuben Davidson: Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, I forgot—Reuben Davidson. Apologies.
REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve been called far worse than—
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, I didn’t call you anything, actually, until I mentioned your name.
REUBEN DAVIDSON: In having the opportunity to speak to the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill, I think that the approach should always be one of firstly ensuring that we are doing no harm. What this bill gives us is the ability to shift our support for community groups and charities that we’re supporting to make sure that we support stronger communities, ultimately, so I think we do need to acknowledge that the work that these groups do is very important. As a Labour Party member, you’ll be unsurprised to know that I am very familiar with the concept of a raffle, as many political parties and MPs are. They are a mandatory part of participating in democracy.
The groups we’re talking about here, though, are not the kinds of groups like political parties; they’re non-commercial groups. They’re groups like the Heart Foundation and the Coastguard. Just yesterday, I believe, in speaking to this bill, I had the opportunity to acknowledge the remarkable work that happens at the surf lifesaving clubs within the electorate of the mighty Christchurch East that I represent, as well as in many other electorates around New Zealand—and I can see you looking, Madam Chair. I will get to my question regarding the specifics of this.
One of the things that I noticed looking through the notes is some references to the damage and harm that gambling can cause to communities. I think that whilst this is a tiny bill—and it is, really, a very small number of words; a tiny bill—gambling can leave large bills for people who engage and are unable to manage responsibly their engagement with gambling. These bills often put people into debt spirals or into situations where they’re unable to service that level of debt and they’re unable to keep up with other bills in their life, not just those bills associated with the gambling activity.
I think, if we look at page 5 of the parliamentary report on this, we see a note here around the Salvation Army raising some valid points, specifically around the Ministry of Health consulting on the three-year strategy to prevent and minimise gambling harm. There is a lot of work to do in this area, so the question I’m getting to around that specifically is that given the lack of the ability for other parties to submit, given the short time frame, and a small number, and I believe only 15 or 16 members of the public did submit on this amendment—and given the fact that the bill was first amended in 2020, in the period between when the bill was first amended and this point in time from which we are looking to extend it further, there seems to really be no meaningful insights into the impact of the shift of that activity from real-world activity into online activity.
The suggestion and question from me is around whether the Minister had put time or thought into the idea of review clauses or further insights being made available so that the impact of this bill, both up to this point in time but also—if passed—beyond this point in time, can be measured and gauged to ensure that, ultimately, we come back to that first point of ensuring that the activities that we do, do no harm to the communities that we strive to serve. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 Commencement
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We now come to clause 2. This is the debate on commencement. The question is that clause 2 stand part.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. For clause 2, when we’re looking at the commencement date, now, one of the things we have mentioned that the Minister has mentioned previously is around the time frame—that the temporary nature of the existing provisions expires on 31 October 2024—and is also one of the reasons why we had the truncated the select committee process where we were unable to tease some of that out. However, the first question is whether the Minister would consider, considering some of the concerns that have been brought in terms of the lack of data, rather than having the bill come in to effect on 1 November, pushing it out by three months into something like 1 February 2025 and giving a three-month grace period in which we are able to, or the communities are able to, work with the Minister on addressing some of the issues that we weren’t able to tease out as a result of the limited time frame we had for this bill?
The first question would be, then: would the Minister consider pushing that time line out a little bit, just to give a bit more time to work with the affected communities? I know that, in terms of the submissions—and in terms of some of the conversations we had previously—potentially, those foundations that do undertake those class 3 gambling operators currently existing and have been using the remote interactive gambling format have some data around this, but we also note that the communities themselves haven’t really had a time to contribute to the development of this permanence. Would the Minister consider pushing the amendment date out by three months to have that time to be able to work with the communities on what that may look like? Noting that that is something we can still allow or we can still give the class 3 gambling operators the confidence to say, “Yes, you can continue doing this because we will, in effect, pass the bill. However, we will have a provision in place that allows that transition.”
That’s the first question. The second question is: I more wanted to get clarification from the Minister in terms of subclause (2) of clause 2, which is around “if the date of the day after Royal assent is 1 November 2024, the Act comes into force on that date.” Essentially, my understanding is that what it’s saying is that, if they fall on the same date, then it is that date, but I am curious to know from the Minister: is this a formatting or drafting reason for you to have to specify that? Presumably, subclause (1) already is clear enough.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 Principal Act
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We now come to clause 3. This is the debate on clause 3, “Principal Act”. The question is that clause 3 stand part.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. When we are looking at the Gambling Act—again, this is something that was highlighted in my second reading speech, and I’ll be interested to hear from the Minister—it is around the fact that although the bill itself is reasonably small, in terms of its broader implications within the Gambling Act, particularly when we’re looking at some of the definitions of other areas.
In my speech, I pointed out definitions, particularly around our corporate society and also in terms of society, and that it also impacts and affects a number of other pieces of primary legislation, such as the Incorporated Societies Act 1908, the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, and the Companies Act 1993, as well as the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982. One of the things around this, again, coming back to the granting in corporate societies the permanence when it comes to remote interactive gambling, is that when we are looking at the primary legislation, I wondered if the Minister has considered the broader implications it has to other sections, particularly when it comes to clause 4 of the Gambling Act in terms of definition. I think there are other definitions that it’ll be good to highlight later on as part of clause 4, but I think that in this case, I really want to draw the Minister’s attention and seek the Minister’s advice on how that broader element—and particularly those other primary Acts within the definition of “corporate society” in clause 4 of the Gambling Act 2003—would be affected and would, potentially, need to be reviewed.
Again, because of the fact that we had a shortened select committee process and a lack of regulatory impact statement, I simply don’t know how some of these would be affected. I think that as lawmakers, it’s a dangerous territory to get into when we haven’t teased out the extent of the affected and related Acts in the primary Act.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister is just taking some advice here.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you for your very specific question, I say to the member. Look, societies are defined in the Gambling Act, as you have rightfully identified, but, of course, incorporated societies, charitable trusts, companies, friendly societies, etc.—those are definitions that are set out in the Gambling Act for gambling-related purposes. They don’t automatically give any of those groups a licence. Class 3 lotteries will still require a licence, and that licence is acquired when the Secretary of Internal Affairs is satisfied that they meet those conditions.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4
Section 4 amended (Interpretation)
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We now come to clause 4. This is the debate on clause 4, “Section 4 amended (Interpretation)”. The question is that clause 4 stand part—
HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just in time!
HŪHANA LYNDON: Thank you, kia ora. I’d like to take a call with our Minister of Internal Affairs just to query and follow on from some of what our colleagues from the Labour Party have also raised in terms of the wider impacts that problem gambling does have on our communities, and raise, again, the truncated process that we’ve undertaken with only six days available for community and for the sector to submit on. Further, in terms of the data available on the impact of class 3 gambling, we were told in the select committee very clearly by the officials that from the data available, because of the systems within the ministry, they were unable to tell the story, were unable to dig deep and understand actually how many referrals, how many brief interventions have been captured by the system available.
That’s one of the questions that I’d like to ask directly to the Minister. In terms of this amendment that we see, this ability for these operations to now be permanent within our communities: will the ministry put in place the relevant systems for data capture to be available so that we can critique the progress and, in fact, any potential impact that this form of gaming or gambling could have in our communities? This is something that’s important for the Green Party, for us to be able to really examine and evaluate how this legislation is both applied but then thinking about our community groups and our clubs as they execute their raffles in the communities and take this mode of advertising and engaging with people as a fundraising mechanism. Will we establish a system that will capture data for those presenting with gambling-related harm but also the types of supports available to them?
This is a systems question specific to the way in which all other forms of gambling and presentations are captured. It was shared by officials that there’s a narrative section in the data capture but you have to go in there and flesh it out. In terms of improvements and the way that we can look back on the implementation of this legislation, we ask the Minister: will the officials establish a system that can finally look to provide the relevant data so that we can understand the success, or, actually, the need for us to increase our focus on problem gambling - related harm in relation to remote interactive gambling now and into the future? Kia ora.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): While the Minister is taking advice, I just want to take a very short call to add on to what my colleague Hūhana Lyndon has mentioned.
Now, first of all, thank you so much, Minister, for responding to my previous question relating to the principal Act. I think that was very helpful and also very concise and clear. In terms of this, I’m more interested in terms of what is considered class 3 gambling under section 27 of the Gambling Act. When we’re looking at this insertion into section 4(1) when it comes to remote interactive gambling, one of the things we have heard in the second reading is that this is something that is already becoming reasonably prevalent by various charities and societies when it comes to using this sort of format, and we have heard from submitters as well. But, during the second reading, people mentioned that it only captures, potentially, 1 percent of what the class 3 gambling operators are currently working on. I think, further to what my colleague has mentioned in terms of capturing some of the data, that when we are seeing again the level of permanence here, does the Minister anticipate that there will be increasing prevalence of this, which then will be—following from what my colleague Hūhana Lyndon mentioned—the increasing need for us to capture, specifically, class 3 gambling operator data, and in the context of their data for remote interactive gambling?
Again, we’ve heard from various members in this House that this doesn’t provide a potential risk or harm because it’s a delayed effect, but the reason that we think it doesn’t create that harm is because, currently, there is simply no data for it, partially because it was a temporary measure. When we are making something into a permanent feature and with the possibility of increased prevalence, it would be really good to know from the Minister—in addition to the question that my colleague has asked—whether there is anticipated need for that data capture as we are seeing more people and more class 3 operators are going to be using this particular format.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you, and I thank the committee for the range of questions on harm minimisation. I believe the concern is genuine across the committee, but I don’t believe it is accurate in proportion to the level of risk of gambling harm for class 3 lotteries. When consulted on this particular bill, officials from the Ministry of Health didn’t indicate any concern that class 3 lotteries result in harm or that any amendment would change this. When you look at some of the statistics from the Problem Gambling Foundation, a major gambling harm service provider, that they came to the Governance and Administration Committee with, they were very, very, very low statistics in terms of gambling harm. There is data that is collected, and I don’t believe any more data would change that. It would be actually very resource intensive in terms of the effective use of resources.
I’d also just note that the Heart Foundation, when they were submitting in the select committee, actually pointed to a very good use of technology in providing hope to people on the concern of harm minimisation, in that having online technology use with these lotteries actually provides details of the people that are using these lotteries, rather than having in-person raffles. If they’re buying a ticket online, that data is captured and they are able to provide any concern to the Ministry of Health or to Health New Zealand in future.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for the response to that question. I think something that the Minister mentioned in terms of how the data is currently captured also reminded me of something else that I mentioned, which I wanted to ask the Minister about, which is the way that the remote interactive method that is currently being used is done by, for example, phone calling. One of the options is that, when you’re phone calling, they’re able to take payment over the phone. As you mentioned before, from the Heart Foundation’s submission, we’re seeing more and more people are probably finding a level of ease when they’re doing that, and a level of comfort when they’re doing that, because, as the Minister probably would be aware and probably use herself, sometimes we do make that phone call.
However, what I don’t know at this stage—and I’d be keen to hear the Minister’s advice and clarification—is what is the level of privacy precautions that are currently being taken. Again, when it’s something that is temporary, maybe we have given more lenience in terms of this area, but when we are making it into a permanent feature, I’d be keen to know whether there is going to be more collaboration or more work done with those class 3 gaming operators around privacy concerns, particularly when it comes to people’s personal information, as well as payment information.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I thank the member for his question. Look, I personally just want to caution you about my age: I don’t often buy lotteries on my phone. If I ever did, it would be online. My generation don’t tend to pick up phone calls too often. When you look at the statistics, 80 percent of these lotteries are actually being conducted online, which means a minority are actually taking place via phone call, but I’d also just suggest that the collection of information by private entities is the purview of those private entities, and how they capture that information is up to them.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills
Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill
In Committee
Part 1 Substantive amendments
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, and we start with Part 1. Just let me clarify—we’ve got a Minister in the chair, so we can go ahead, thank you. We’re starting with Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 16, “Substantive amendments”; and Schedules 1 to 3. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): With the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, when we’re looking at Part 1, considering that there are various subparts, I want to first focus on subpart 1 of this bill and just ask the Minister a question partly around, in clause 5, new subsection (4), but also in conjunction with subsection (8).
One of the provisions for this bill—we’ve now seeing a switch of Minister in the chair; that’s all good. One of the things we’re seeing with this particular bill is around the fact that judges will have to have regard to the following circumstances regarding having that protection, and this is to do with litigant abuse—I’m looking at new subsection (4) of section 128B. One of the things I’m interested to hear the Minister’s advice on is around what the threshold is for some of this judgment, particularly when it comes to the threshold for a number of acts that form part of a pattern of behaviour. Now, this is a definition that is given under the litigant abuse under subsection (8) of new section 128B.
Now, as we all know, one of the major issues when it comes to family violence and other forms of violence, like domestic violence or even sexual violence, is the fact that it is very hard for us to determine that sort of incremental and potential microaggression throughout the different periods. I would like to know: when we are looking at how judges give regard under subsection (4), what would be the way that the judge may be able to identify patterns of behaviour, as opposed to the more clearer way of having a singular instance? For example, would the judge be able to go, based on microaggression or certain terms being used and/or the frequency of some of the terms being used? So, yes, I would really like to hear from the Minister on the judge’s identification or some of the advice around the identification of patterns of behaviour over a number of acts.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I’m hoping the Minister will walk us through the Amendment Paper that’s been tabled. It does refer to it being technical amendments, but obviously, it having been put on the Table there, it’s not tracked or anything, so it’s hard to know exactly what those allegedly minor and technical drafting changes are. I’m assuming it’s something that the Parliamentary Counsel Office’s come up with, but it would be useful if they could be identified.
I’m sure the Minister will appreciate that this bill does do something relatively significant in that whilst its intention is entirely appropriate and we’re in support of the bill, what it does do is limit peoples’ ability to file proceedings or take any steps, in some cases, in court in situations where there is family violence. There is a delicate balance to be struck. I’m particularly interested in the Minister’s view of the Government’s intention as to where that line is drawn, because, trying to put it sensitively, what is an abusive use—not abusive to a court, but to a person. What is an abusive use of a procedure? There are very differing perspectives on that, and whilst almost any legal proceeding is difficult, onerous, stressful, and sometimes even traumatic, that in and of itself doesn’t make it an abuse.
I’m just wondering if the Minister can give guidance in terms of, in particular, new section 12B—the key section of this legislation—where that threshold will be, because I’m not sure the language entirely captures it. How are we going to strike that balance between those who, rightly or wrongly, feel they’ve got a point to make, whether it’s accurate or not, and those who want to make that point, whilst at the same time we act protectively? Even if an action is unfounded, it may be brought for the genuine purpose of asserting an erroneously believed right, and that probably falls on the permitted—not ideal, but permitted—side of the line, whereas clearly the real issue is where people know full well that they have no legal right or entitlement, and the sole purpose is when you bring the action to, essentially, harass—I think is one of the words that’s used.
Absolutely, this is a good piece of legislation, but I’m keen to hear the Minister’s view on, in particular, how we expect the judges to approach that problem. For the benefit of the Minister who has been subbed in, I was just asking for a walkthrough of the Amendment Paper, as well as the other thing. Well, I’ll leave those two things there, and the third point I’ll come back to.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Further on from my question before, my question is around Schedule 1, which is part of Part 1—so we’re looking at clause 12.
Now, in terms of Schedule 1, with the transitional element—and I fully agree with the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, that this is a good bill and that this is a necessary bill for communities, particularly when it comes to victims of family violence. However, I want to check with the Minister: in Schedule 1, clause 1, particularly around the transitional element, I would like some guidance from the Minister around the application of section 12B, and specifically clause 1(3), which is where it says, “the Judge must only have regard to a party’s conduct that occurred after the commencement.”
Previously, I asked the Minister a question around the definition of “pattern of behaviour” in subsection (8) of new section 12B, but I want some guidance from the Minister about whether that pattern of behaviour needs to have commenced only when this bill comes into effect or whether the judge is able to draw on a pattern of behaviour that occurred before but has been continued on as part of that—knowing that the judge may not be able to use it, but whether the judge is able to refer to it as a continuation of a pattern of behaviour.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their comments on this piece of legislation, the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill.
Just by way of introduction, the bill’s purpose is to strengthen the courts’ statutory powers to protect victims of litigant abuse in family proceedings—and we’re all, I think, conscious of the fact that, particularly when marriages break down or where family disputes have arisen, there can be an enormous amount of emotion. In the vast majority of cases, people resolve those outside of the court process, but often they do end up in the courts, and there are examples of when the court processes themselves can become so difficult for one or other party to cope with—this legislation has been brought forward to enable the court to be able to make an order. First, they need to look broadly at the behaviour inside and out of court proceedings, focusing on the intent of the behaviour to determine whether it’s litigant abuse, and then, if an order is made, the court will require a party to seek approval of the court to make any further steps in existing or new family proceedings for up to three years. The order is to bring some discipline.
We’ve had a few questions raised, first, about what is meant by conduct and why the bill doesn’t define it. Well, when a person applies for an order, as I said, the court is required to look broadly at behaviour in and outside of the court proceedings, focusing on the intent of the behaviour to determine whether there is litigant abuse, and so that’s what is being referred to in terms of conduct. Limiting the definition of “conduct” to particular types of behaviour would likely narrow it in a way that would exclude relevant behaviour and may also lead judges to focus on the form of behaviour rather than whether it is intended to abuse.
Another question has been raised around what litigant abuse is. Litigant abuse occurs when someone uses the court system to harass, contact, and control their victim rather than to resolve legitimate disputes. It can include things such as filing excessive, sometimes abusive, documents that require the other party to respond or attend multiple court sessions. It can also cause significant emotional and financial harm to victims. The bill defines litigant abuse as abuse to another party to the proceedings—conduct that is intended to harass, annoy, or harm other parties to proceedings.
We also have a question around the Amendment Paper, around drafting changes. The first change clarifies that the policy intent of the bill is that the judge should look at all relevant conduct when deciding whether a party is in litigant abuse. The version as reported back from the Justice Committee could be misinterpreted as excluding the conduct towards other parties in related proceedings from the circumstances, to consider whether making an order—for example, conduct towards grandparents who are not part of the main proceeding—and that wasn’t intended. The second change shifts the definition of psychological abuse to the definitions subsection. This simplifies references throughout the bill, to avoid repetition.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you very much to the Minister for those helpful answers to the questions already. Just further in relation to the Amendment Paper, I would be interested to know whether those were changes that were generated from the Parliamentary Counsel Office—whether they were simple drafting corrections or clarifications—or whether that was, in fact, departmental advice. That would be useful for us to understand.
My question to the Minister relates to the intent of this bill and one of the main issues that has been raised—by, particularly, those who advocate in family violence support services or women’s refuges and those NGO spaces—that particularly affects women is that there was a concern that this legislation may in fact possibly be used against the very people we’re trying to help. When there are long-term spouses that are using the legal system to stalk and harass and make people’s lives a misery, there was a concern that this provision could be used by the perpetrator against the victim when the victim was potentially seeking a protection order or other types of legal instruments and going through the courts to try and seek the protection of the courts. For me, it actually demonstrated how little trust the users of the Family Court or the court system have. They have like zero faith, really, in the process itself, which is very sad.
I’d be really interested to know from the Minister if he’d received advice about this issue, whether he has any concerns about how this new provision could be used in other contexts, and if he has any plans in fact to monitor this and to review it to understand how it is being used by the courts down the line and if he will take any steps to build that into the process. Thank you.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): My question is around the scope of the breadth of this amendment. This is an amendment to the Family Court Act, and I guess that means it relates only to family proceedings. I guess the hook is the fact that abusive litigants can use other jurisdictions, and although the provisions refer to a judge, I’m assuming that that’s a judge in the Family Court jurisdiction. Although the Family Courts are part of the District Court, my question is whether these provisions will protect someone from, say, a civil claim in the District Court or a claim through the employment processes, including the employment court—say, for a family company that employs spouses—or not.
That’s the first thing, and I guess the second thing is: if not, then what? If not, then how do we protect people in other jurisdictions, because vexatious litigants are well-known for finding every way and every jurisdiction in which to file proceedings. Will this extend to the wider courts, only the District Court, or only the District Court in exercise of its family jurisdiction?
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 53 be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Part 2 Consequential amendments
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 17 to 22, “Consequential amendments”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well, first of all, I wouldn’t mind putting on record that it’s extremely disappointing that the Minister of Justice didn’t answer a couple of genuine questions from members, from the Hon Ginny Andersen and myself. Certainly, no objection would be made from this side of the Chamber were he to leap to his feet to answer those questions. It certainly would show good, accountable governance if he were to do so.
Given that we’re now talking about “Consequential amendments”, which also deal with proceedings of an abusive nature, including vexatious proceedings in the Family Proceedings Act and similar provisions in the Care of Children Act, I think the question still stands: what’s the scope of this, and how do we ensure that this form of family violence, which is controlling and abusive behaviour, in courts other than simply the Family Court is captured? This was needed for a reason. This whole idea not of abusing the court process but abusing a participant to the court process—it doesn’t just sit within the family jurisdiction; it bleeds into other areas of the courts’ jurisdiction. An answer to that would be appreciated.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Sorry, I apologise to the members, I was slow to get to my feet previously, but in terms of the question around whether it applies—
Hon David Parker: I thought you were a martial arts expert.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —to other areas—yes; seen better days. It won’t apply to other jurisdictions outside the scope of this bill, but protections around vexatious litigation do apply in the other areas.
Another question was asked around the amendments, whether they had arisen from departmental reports or drafting instructions. My advice is that the changes came after drafting clarifications rather than departmental reports.
The question around the issue of whether this bill would sort of capture unintended people involved in the process—look, that’s always a challenge in all legislation, because, in litigation, who the victim is is obviously always an argued point when you’re dealing with relationship breakdowns. Humans have the capacity on all sides of arguments to act in inappropriate ways. In terms of the procedural safeguards to protect the right of justice, to prevent it being used against victims, there is the requirement for evidence that the party’s conduct demonstrates both the intent and the effect of litigant abuse, and there is also judicial discretion about whether or not to make an order. So we do have confidence in the ability of the judges to recognise litigant abuse from whichever direction it comes in the given circumstance.
In terms of how the bill will be monitored, the Ministry of Justice is responsible for the implementation of the bill, including evaluation. I think, overall, it’s good practice, and I think all members of the House, across all administrations, will be conscious of the need for good stewardship of existing bills and regular assessment of their effectiveness. That will certainly be our approach.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you for those responses from the Minister. I was looking at the regulatory impact statement which specifically refers to name suppression, and in that statement it does say that, “We assume that most adult sexual violence complainants want to keep their automatic name suppression in place [come] the trial, but that in explaining the options for lifting name suppression some will want to apply at that time, while others may choose to apply in the post-trial context.”
Now, this bill directly overlaps with another bill that is currently before the select committee, and I wanted to, I guess, get an update because the issue of name suppression and the ability for victims of sexual violence to be able to have power over whether their name is suppressed or not is a very important issue that overlaps directly with litigation abuse. I do note that we’ve been surprised that the Minister has twice written to the committee asking for an extension on that particular issue. I would like to know: did he consider, when making amendments at this committee stage, whether it was possible to also make those required changes in relation to name suppression, given this is a specific bill designed to assist victims of family and sexual violence through the court process, and what are, in fact, his intentions in and around the ability for victims to have name suppression lifted through the court process?
My second question to the Minister is in relation to when the committee received submissions on this bill, the most striking thing was the deep lack of faith, particularly with the Family Court. We know that people are typically not satisfied with the court process, but specific to the Family Court, there seemed to be an inordinate amount of dissatisfaction particularly from victims who go through this process, particularly with the way they are treated through the system, and an inability for their voices to be heard. We also really heard through that process about how there was an inability for the process to be explained to victims of family and sexual violence—they’re simply being given a time to turn up, and whatever.
If we are through this, turning our minds to the fact that we want to give a better victim experience through the court system, particularly for family and sexual violence victims and if we want to be able to prevent them from having the court process used as a tool to revictimise people, I would like the Minister to speak to the point, which also relates to my first point in terms of name suppression. What other actions can he do, or is he considering, alongside of this legislation that will further address the direct concerns raised through the select committee process in relation to this legislation?
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask for some clarification from the Minister, looking at clause 18 in subpart 1 of Part 2, around “Amendment to Family Proceedings Act 1980”, in particular around vexatious proceedings. The previous speaker, the Hon Ginny Andersen, has already possibly mentioned an element of this, but one of the things I would still like clarification from the Minister on is: when we are looking at this particular bill and also other aspects of the vexatious proceedings within the Family Proceedings Act, it’s still within the context of behaviours or acts that are sort of, I guess, with the knowledge of the judge or with the knowledge of the court.
As we see on page 4 of the bill, particularly when you’re looking at aspects outside of the proceeding and around stalking abuse, I want to get clarification or some guidance from the Minister that although he mentioned that there will be a member’s bill around this—and I think it might be the Hon Ginny Andersen’s member’s bill—it hasn’t really, as far as I know, based on the Order Paper, been drawn from the ballot. What is being done or what considerations are there currently, looking at litigant abuse outside of that system, particularly when it comes to stalking?
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My next question to the Minister is really looking at how we can increase reporting rates for victims of family and sexual violence. If we look at particularly sexual violence, a rape trial can take up to two or three years for that to play out, and that can be really retraumatising for the victim. Similarly with instances of family violence, whether they be child abuse or other intimate partner violence instances, the number one ideal or objective we should be aiming for as a country, I believe, is to increase reporting rates of sexual violence and family violence.
My concern—and the Minister may want to speak to this—is that while this bill is great because, I guess, it tinkers at the edges by enabling judges to make a call about when a potential offender is using the very structure of our judiciary to attack or victimise someone repeatedly, I would like a level of confidence from the Minister about the changes made by this Government; specifically, that police don’t attend family violence unless it’s at a certain high threshold, which is difficult to unpick explicitly, because that has to be a serious offence or threat to life before police will attend a 111 call in that space.
Secondly, the fact that a lot of the contracts that provide counselling to families who may be undergoing high levels of family violence, it is largely community providers that received funding through Oranga Tamariki and other Ministry of Social Development - type (MSD) services; those are the ones that go into those families and provide that help and assistance. Both Ministers responsible for those contracts, Oranga Tamariki and MSD—there’s been a statement pretty much that, particularly for children, they will only be given assistance if they’re in State care—nothing more, nothing less.
If we know that the main reason people don’t report family violence or sexual violence is because they’ve previously asked for help and not received that help, and then we have an approach by this Government where ability to ask for help is being curtailed or shut down, how is that going to assist increasing reporting rates of family and sexual violence and how are we ever going to get on top of this issue as a country? While it might be great that we all agree on the fact that the court can be used as a tool to revictimise families—women and children more so than others, given the statistics that I have seen—really, is this bill a drop in the bucket?
The Minister may have a view, given the fact that this Government has taken significant steps back from finding out where that hurt is happening and resourcing the ability to address those family problems. It’s almost like if violence happens in a street, we care about it then, but if it happens in someone’s home, that’s not our business. That seems to be the overarching business that if that’s domestic violence, we just don’t go to that unless we see it. My concern is that this sends a message out to people going through difficult times in their family—people who want some assistance and don’t know where to turn. Often they do call police, who then could refer on to another agency, if possible. There does not seem to be an overarching approach that there’s no wrong door for family or sexual violence, and that is a real concern for advocates within this sector. I think it is a real concern for the next generation of young people growing up in New Zealand if we aspire as a country to be violence free.
Part 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to clauses 1 and 2. Clauses 1 and 2 is the debate on title and commencement.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): My colleague’s just reminded me that the genesis of this bill was a former member of this House: Emily Henderson. I know it’s not traditional, but perhaps we could just call this bill the “Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Emily Henderson Bill” to recognise the significant contribution that Emily Henderson, former MP, made to this House. In particular, this was part of her kaupapa, but she really was a fierce advocate across the board for victims of family violence. That would be a lovely indication. Perhaps the Minister of Justice could just slip in an Amendment Paper like that.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Madam Chair, thank you. I have a question for the Minister around the commencement date, and, hopefully, it’s quite a simple clarification from the Minister. I would like some clarification on why a specific date wasn’t given for the commencement of this bill. I mean, this is a bill that has pretty much—you know, everyone agrees it’s a really good bill, it’s a really important bill, and it should come into effect; and we have seen other bills of a similar nature, when it comes to court proceedings, that the Minister has introduced that do give a specific date or are enacted, basically, after Royal assent. I want to know why there are provisions around this bill that it has to come into force after an Order in Council, and, if there is no Order in Council, it will come into force one year after Royal assent. If the Minister would just clarify that level of curiosity, considering, again, we’ve seen other ones that have been given specific dates—why this one isn’t going to be coming into effect almost immediately or having a specific date given.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The Act comes into force by Order in Council or one year after Royal assent. The 12-month lead time is necessary to make changes to the court rules, such as the Family Court rules, the District Court rules, or the High Court rules, so that’s what we’re doing, and then it will take effect.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
House resumed.
Report of Committtee of the Whole House
Report of Committtee of the Whole House
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee also considered the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Bills
Contracts of Insurance Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 15 October.
TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Contracts of Insurance Bill in the name of the Hon Andrew Bayly. Now, Mr—oh, it’s Madam Speaker. I’ll let you take your seat, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.
TANYA UNKOVICH: Currently, Madam Speaker, insurance contracts come under an umbrella of various case law and Acts. There are approximately six Acts, and some of them are very old—some of them are up to 100 years old. It is time now for the area of insurance to be looked at and new legislation put in. Now, this bill has been in process for a while—I believe it’s been here for a little while from the previous Parliament. It’s really looking at a whole lot of areas of which many stakeholders have come forward and said, “Look, these are problem areas.”, and it’s now time to consolidate and modernise this legislation so that it is more in today’s world.
I was speaking to someone the other day who’s in the insurance business, and I was asking her a question about what the perception is of insurance companies. Is it getting better over time? And she said no, it’s not. The relationship isn’t as good, and, often, the feeling that someone has about an insurance company is their own personal experience of an insurance company. Now, I’ve personally been very lucky, but many people have not and their experiences are as a result of some of these antiquated bits in the current legislation. Maybe by putting this legislation through, that perception will change, but it will take time. However, it does need to start.
In this current legislation, many issues are looked at, such as disclosure remedies, and more instances have been looked at in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Now, whilst I read in the first reading and am now reading in this reading, I wasn’t part of the select committee, so I will talk a little bit about that later on, but there were some interesting areas on genetic discrimination that I will touch on.
One of the things about insurance is that it is often something that we put our head in the sand about. I do know that I myself once just let policies lapse, and then before I knew it, I was paying for something that I didn’t really need to pay for, which is why I personally decided I’ll just pay a lump sum every year. That way it is one way that I can look at the policy—it makes me look at the policy. Many people don’t; they just pay something monthly and things just get put aside until one day you go, “Wow, this is what I’m paying for.” A lot of people get a little bit sucked in that way. My father was one of them. I know other seniors and other people who maybe aren’t as inclined with their finances, and they get a little bit—well, they put their head in the sand. Every now and then, I’d get the phone call from my father. You know, “Tanya, I need you to look at something.” I always knew it was looking at some of the fine print. Now, hopefully, with this legislation, things won’t be as difficult and as intimidating.
One of the areas, like I said, was about disclosure, and it will look at and simplify the insurance process and it will stop any miscommunication between the policyholder and the insurance company. What this legislation does is it looks at what is called “consumer insurance policies” and “non-consumer”—consumer being more domestic and non-consumer being more of the business type of policies. It is important during disclosure that the consumer does his or her best to not misrepresent when they are actually applying for insurance and for the insurance companies to fairly represent the risk to the customer.
Now, one area that has also been spoken about and written about in this legislation are remedies. There will be more certainty now on remedies if something occurs, whether it be an innocent mistake in disclosure, whether it be reckless, or whether it be deliberate. The level of remedy will depend on what scale of misinformation or error has been done in the actual policy.
There’s also something else that is of interest, and that is that the bill introduces penalties for insurers who fail to act in good faith—sometimes they might delay in processing the claims. That is something that I’m really happy to see, because I know people who have struggled and waited a long time for their claims to be either looked at or paid out. That will be addressed here.
Now, just very briefly, I’ll talk about the genetic discrimination, which was brought up in the select committee. This is something that is used by people to find out whether they are genetically disposed to any illnesses, like some forms of cancer, Huntington’s, various sorts of illnesses. What is going to be addressed is to ensure that insurers do not somehow take advantage of this. We don’t want people to be discouraged from having these tests, because it is very important for many. This is something that has arisen in the select committee process.
Just in summary: fairness, clarity, common sense, and it is time to relook at this legislation and bring it into the modern day. On behalf of New Zealand First, I commend it to the House. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call. I call Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke.
HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau hei waha i ngā kōrero a Te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei. E tautoko ana mātou i tēnei o ngā pire. E mihi ana ki te Minita nāna i kawe mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata.
[Thank you, Madam Speaker, indeed greetings to all of us of the House. I stand to give voice to the statements of the Māori Party today. We support this particular bill. I acknowledge the Minister who brought it into the House of Parliament.]
Mō ō mātou whānau e whakarongo ana i te kāinga, ko te ngako o tēnei pire [For our families listening at home, the essence of this bill, the purpose of this legislation is to] reform insurance contracts law and to streamline and modernise the existing insurance legislation framework in Aotearoa. The primary aim of this bill is to ensure that insurance contract law effectively facilitates well-functioning insurance markets for both insurers and the policyholders. It seeks to empower consumers and businesses to adequately protect themselves against risk, while also minimising costs and impacts on insurers’ willingness to provide insurance here in Aotearoa.
The current framework governing insurance contractors is fragmented across six different Acts, some of which are over a hundred years old. Consolidation and modernisations of these laws are deemed necessary—a view shared by industry stakeholders and consumers and groups alike. Various reviews, including those conducted by the Law Commission, have highlighted longstanding issues with insurance contract laws, which this bill aims to address. This bill also addresses the issues of unfair contract terms by removing insurance-specific expectations from the Fair Trading Act 1986.
I roto i ngā mahi o tēnei pire, e tautoko ana mātou i tēnei pire i roto i te mana motuhake. [With respect to the actions of this bill, we support this bill in our own autonomy.] This mandate for clear wording allows whānau to gain a better understanding for their insurance policies, which will lead them to have more informed decisions.
I roto i te kaupapa o te mana ōrite, e tautoko ana Te Pāti Māori i tēnei pire. [With respect to the subject of equality, the Māori Party supports this bill.] The removal of expectations from the Fair Trading Act 1986 will promote equality between insurance contractors and other types of contracts, all of which will benefit consumers.
I roto i te kaitiaki o tō mātou whakapapa, ka tautoko Te Pāti Māori i tēnei pire. [With respect to the protection of our genealogy, the Māori Party supports this bill.] Only 30 percent of Māori have house insurance, compared to the national average of 48 percent. Furthermore, only 40 percent of Māori have contents insurance and only 20 percent have health insurance—compared to the national averages of 64 percent and 29 percent, respectively. This bill will make insurance more accessible and fairer for Māori. Nō reira e tautoko ana mātou o Te Pāti Māori i tēnei pire. [And there we, of the Māori Party, support this bill.]
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Contracts of Insurance Bill on behalf of the Green Party. Understanding in terms of this particular bill has quite a long history that spanned multiple Governments. It started off as a review by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment around insurance contract law, which then was adopted as a Government bill, and then as the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s member’s bill, and now as a Government bill again.
What we do have, then, is three different versions of this bill. One of the things when we were going to select committee is that a certain provision that was put in the original bill by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb was not found in this updated version of the Government bill. The Green Party has two main issues around this which we have Amendment Papers on. We’ll be very interested to see if the Minister would consider these amendments in order for the Green Party to support this bill.
The first one is around health and genetic testing, which is, granted, very important from the some of the submitted that we heard as part of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I think, for me, what’s really, really important here is the watering down from what is considered “fraudulently” to “dishonestly” when it comes to the contracts or in terms of some of the elements here. I think this is a really important point because what we have seen is that it gives insurance companies potentially more flexibility to void or to even challenge some of the claims that consumers might be making when it comes to that particular differentiation. What we wanted to see before when it comes to “fraudulently”, that was really important from a mens rea perspective; a really important element of whether the consumer knowingly is misleading or didn’t include certain information in an attempt to create fraud or be in that kind of situation.
However, there are definitely good elements of this bill and I think some of the speakers have highlighted that one of the key elements of this bill, among many others, is the distinction between what is considered a non-consumer insurance contract and a consumer insurance contract. I think that particular distinction that we see throughout this bill is something that is really important and it also allows that level of clarification.
Now, there are a couple of other submitters that submitted on various elements of the bill, and there are two additional issues that I would like to bring up and I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s advice or clarifications around this as part of the committee stage.
The first one is around the fact that the original bill was introduced and considered a stronger penalty around what is going to be for brokers, whereas it’s no longer in this particular bill in the same way. This has to do with specifically when a duty on a broker to notify the insurer if the premium is not paid or pay interest when a broker failed to notify the insurer. I know that, within the bill, it talks about the fact that they wanted to do it in a way that claims cost from the broker as opposed to putting almost a criminal charge on the broker, but I think the idea is that we see a lot of duties and a lot of obligations on the insurer. I genuinely do think that in terms of the broker element, it hasn’t been as tight in terms of rules and regulations when it comes to brokers.
The second thing is also understanding that this bill tries to consolidate various elements of insurance law. However, one of the things that came out really, really strongly during the select committee stage is around the changes to the Marine Insurance Act 1908—particularly when it comes to clause 167 of this bill, which I would like to discuss more on during the committee stage. Now, the marine insurance is a very specific section of the insurance contract, which then led to an amendment to clause 7 of the of the bill, which changes from “contract of reinsurance” to “non-consumer” contract. However, I do not think that it goes far enough. Again, I’m looking forward to the committee stage where we can discuss this bill in more detail.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to be able to speak on the Contracts of Insurance Bill, this being an omnibus bill. I’m growing quite fond of omnibus bills because they do a lot of things productively, which we’re all about. In fact, this bill seeks to reform, I think, seven different Acts and cuts across the Life Insurance Act 1908—and the member Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke mentioned that that Act is actually 100 years old, so it’s amazing today that we’re actually updating an Act that’s over 100 years old; it was actually 1908—the Law Reform Act 1936, the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977, the Insurance Law Reform Act 1985, and the Insurance Intermediaries Act 1994. But it doesn’t stop there; in fact, there are two more that it actually implicates. It also amends the Fair Trading Act 1986 and the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013. It’s a really important bill that modernises those things, as has been well spoken about.
I would like to pay some tribute to the Hon Duncan Webb, who had a member’s bill to recognise and update some of this outdated legislation. I would say he made some good contributions. We had a constructive Finance and Expenditure Committee. As you can see through this, I think the House is largely in support, bar three little things, which I’ll speak on shortly. Fortunately, we had the great Minister Andrew Bayly, and he took the bill to a whole other level and it’s going to be fantastic. You can see from the stakeholders that are involved that private insurance, the consumer, and insurers are going to be happy with the outcome of this, because it’s really important that it simplifies and modernises a lot of what can be a very complex situation.
A couple of the key, quick things are that this will shift the onus of disclosure duties to insurers rather than on private individuals, who may not know that they had to disclose umpteen loads of information. It makes it clearer for them, and it puts the responsibility on the insurer. A bit like open banking, it’s going to make it more competitive for consumers to be able to choose different insurance companies, with greater clarity and greater transparency, and that’s really important. Going forward, insurers must also use simple terms to make sure their policies are easier to understand, and they will also have to pay customers within a reasonable time frame. I know the member Catherine Wedd can talk from personal experience through the cyclones that have affected her territory and the importance of insurance companies paying up in time and in full and in appropriation.
You might ask what’s wrong with the 100-year-old Life Insurance Act 1908. Well, there’s a few quick things I’d just touch on as to why we need to update this. In fact, they do translate across all the other bills, too. One of the first ones is transparency, which I touched on. It’s really important for the insurance policy to be transparent to consumers so they know what they’re buying, because insurance, as we know, can be very complex and goes across property, assets, and vehicles. Life insurance is very complex and can be very convoluted, and when people pay premiums, they want to ensure that they are getting what they’re signing up for. Of course, regulations have changed a little bit since 1908, too, so it’s important that this bill is more reflective of the modern economy which we’re living in.
The third reason is technological changes. Obviously, we didn’t have the internet in 1908. We had snail mail, which we actually don’t even use a lot today. This bill reflects a lot more modern-day technology. The economic outcomes are quite different, too. You’ll appreciate that the wages people got, the inflation rates, the bank standards, the lending, the whole insurance ecosystem, was very different from what we have today.
Finally, the claims process—and this is perhaps one of the key elements of this bill—it’s to make the claims process easier but also clearer for insurers to accept, for consumers to access, and for the settlement of those claims. One of the things which we settled on was that insurance claims are paid within a reasonable time frame, and that was a little bit of a sticking point. Some members wanted to try and land on a definitive date, but the advice we got back was that “a reasonable time frame” does give flex, because there is a lot of complexity when setting payment terms and payment times.
The other key point of difference—and the Green Party member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan touched on it before—was “fraudulent” to “dishonest”. We landed on “dishonest” because it was more in keeping with other countries around the world, in terms of Australia and England. I do have to say it was a bit odd that the Labour Party actually wanted to go to “fraudulent” when, in the past, they actually wanted to reduce the prison population and were a little bit soft on crime. Here, they were actually wanting to make it a criminal activity and embed the word “fraudulent”, but “dishonest” actually softens it and gives a little bit more grace, so that if someone makes a dishonest mistake, it’s not going to affect the whole insurance premium and throw the baby out with the bathwater. That’s why we thought it was a much more nuanced response.
At the end of the day, the consensus was largely supportive of where we landed. Genetic testing was a new one, and it did delay the settlement on this piece. We had to talk to the industry a little bit more about it because there’s, obviously, incredibly new technology in the space of genetic testing, and it’s a double-edged sword. People can have their genetics or their DNA analysed and actually have a better sense of where they are in the health spectrum, but, conversely, there was fear that insurance companies having that visibility might actually penalise or lift premiums or not insure at all. We wrestled with that, and where we landed was, we thought, a nuanced response where we’ve left it open for regulation-making powers to the Minister.
All in all, I think we’ve landed on a very good, a very consensual bill which reflects modern society, reflects a fairly broad view across the House. And, with that, I commend it to the House.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I’ve said before, this is the second-best insurance bill that’s been introduced to the House this year, because I did have a cracker, and I was surprised that, as the member Ryan Hamilton was speaking, the Minister who’s sponsoring this bill was heckling him from behind. I do want to say that you don’t often get a call from a Minister, particularly when you’re not in the governing party, but the Minister did call me and said, “About that insurance contracts bill, it’s awkward, because I’ve got one that I want to introduce as well.”, and he sort of said, “Would you mind just withdrawing your bill?”
I know you’ve got to be careful what you say in this House, so I’ll quote: I said, “Bugger off.”, and he was not pleased. But with the way this place works—
Hon Andrew Bayly: I wanted to work collaboratively with you.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Don’t worry—I’ve still got plenty to say. But the way this place works is that, if the Government introduces a bill and bumps it up the Order Paper and reads it for the first time, mine is put on ice. But don’t worry—
Hon Andrew Bayly: But I did change it—I did change it.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: You did do some changes. You’re right, Mr Bayly—well done! You did do some changes, and they were not very good.
I’ll tell you, Mr Bayly, here’s the one that really gets to me—I’m going to go straight to the one which I find perplexing, and that’s the amendments to the Fair Trading Act. The Fair Trading Act has got a part of it which allows the Commerce Commission to identify and prohibit unfair contract terms. Now, for pretty obvious reasons, insurers have hated that since it came in, and they got a free pass from when it was originally introduced. That’s never been right. It’s always been the case that they should be drawn into the unfair contract terms provisions. They’ve always said, “Oh no, insurance is different. It’s complicated. We don’t want things like exclusion clauses and the amounts of the premium and things like that to be able to be ruled unfair.” The draft that I introduced into this House said premiums, sure, I understand that—you can’t argue about premiums: it’s a yes/no question.
Why should exclusion terms be themselves excluded from the unfair contract terms regime? Let’s just think what that means for a minute: that there can be an exclusion clause which an insurer uses in its form contracts which is unfair, yet the Commerce Commission is not allowed to look at it. It beggars belief to me that the Insurance Council of New Zealand would come to select committee and say, “Don’t touch our insurance clauses. We want the right to have unfair exclusion clauses.” That to me is a nonsense. But, Mr Bayly, don’t worry—I’m here to help. I have many Amendment Papers drafted. I’ll try to get them in early so that your officials can adopt them all, and I won’t even mind if, like Minister Paul Goldsmith, you adopt them and put them in your own name just so that you look like a clever little Minister.
The other thing I want to talk about is delay. One of the biggest problems in insurance is delay. Whilst the Minister did pick up some of my work and require the insurer to settle a claim within a reasonable time, it simply doesn’t go far enough. He’s chosen a list of factors to determine reasonable time, and that’s one way to go, but I’ll tell you what it doesn’t have and what it desperately needs, and that is teeth. It needs real damages, because in the Tower case in Christchurch, an architect sued Tower, who had wrongly refused a claim for six years, and that court awarded—because that’s the way the law of general damages works—$20,000 for six years’ delay and having an unlivable house for that long, whilst the insurer sat on millions of dollars for that period of time.
There are two things we need to address in this bill when it comes to the committee of the whole House stage. One is making it clear that interest on claims that are wrongfully denied, or the value of them, is included as damages, particularly in consumer contracts, because if someone’s going to be out of their house—and Christchurch has seen every possible permutation of this—doesn’t have insurance for the rental they’re having to pay, and yet is being denied the value of hundreds of thousands of dollars of repairs, they deserve to be compensated for that.
The other thing is genuine damages—damages that count for the distress and anxiety that goes along with that—because the fact of the matter is that that kind of distress in a very significant insurance claim can be life-changing in a very negative way. I’ve seen relationships break up and all kinds of heartache, and even if you do come out of it at the other side, certainly that’s six years or more in many cases—there’s still cases from Christchurch that are outstanding—which can cause real heartache indeed. The third thing that I’ll help you with, Mr Bayly—
Hon Andrew Bayly: No, no—don’t need it.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I’ve heard you say that you don’t need any help before.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh, he needs help, all right.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —yeah, he does, Mr Kieran McAnulty—is good faith, because, once again, insurers don’t like good faith being thrown up. Good faith cuts both ways. Usually, it’s been used against the insured—“policyholders”, in the language of the bill—to say, “You didn’t tell us the truth. That’s a breach of bad faith.”, but we need to make sure that we make it abundantly clear that good faith is a duty owed by the insured and the insurer, so that when an insurer comes to assess a claim, or even to deny a claim—which they’re entitled to do in many situations—they should do so fairly, honestly, promptly, and taking into account the interests of all the parties.
For far too long, insurers in these very important contracts have taken into account only their own interests—only their own balance sheets—and they’ve paid lip service only to what goes on outside of their own companies, and many of the better insurers will admit they’ve had to up their game here. That has meant a culture of delay, denial, and deferral, and that has caused problems across the industry. I think they’re doing better now. Perhaps my MP colleagues from the Hawke’s Bay or Auckland can tell us how they’re doing up there, but we absolutely need to make it clear what that good faith is. It’s not just at the outset of the contract—it’s not just when you enter into it—but it’s at renewal. The point where it matters the most is in claims handling, because, to be perfectly honest, no one takes a lot of notice of their insurance arrangements until they get to the claims point.
There’s plenty more to go through in this bill, including some of the language of it. I’m not sure why we’re still using the language of “general average” and “pro rata claims”, and why we can’t use a bit more plain English. But that kind of amendment—
Hon Andrew Bayly: What’s wrong with pro rata?
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: What’s wrong with general average? I mean no one in this House, I imagine—well, a few people in this House understand what general average is. But we’ll fix that up when we come to the thing.
The genetic testing material, while it is a useful improvement—and that is something which wasn’t in the original bill. It is a really good example of where some ability to make rules to make sure insurers behave in a way which is consistent with the public interest—because, of course, we know with genetic testing that it can reveal genetic dispositions to illness or disease, and if we have to disclose that, we might not go and get those tests. The flip side is that knowing that information means we can take preventative action, protective action, which will greatly enhance the health of our population. So that’s a good initiative—
Hon Andrew Bayly: Are you going to explain about your tie?
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —and I’m sure that the submitters on that will be very pleased indeed. But, Mr Bayly, as you’re yapping away there in the background, if you want to give me a call and have a yarn, I won’t tell you to bugger off. Thank you very much.
CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I rise in support of the Contracts of Insurance Bill. I’d just like to do a shout-out to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and to our wonderful Minister Bayly for navigating this very comprehensive piece of legislation through, because it’s really going to make a difference modernising our insurance laws. I can speak from personal experience when it comes to insurance, having undergone Cyclone Gabrielle in our region, where there were record numbers of insurance claims across Hawke’s Bay, across the East Coast, and obviously across Auckland in the Auckland Anniversary weather events as well.
These were two of the largest insurance events in New Zealand’s history. The most recent statistics that have come through show that insurers have settled 112,746 claims out of 118,037 claims. This amounts to approximately $3.8 billion—about $4 billion, once everything is settled. These are record numbers and there are still communities that are in difficult positions where they have not got their insurance claims yet, and particularly there are some communities where they were under-insured.
This has been a really emotional and tiring process in Hawke’s Bay and it’s still really very raw for a lot of people. I would just like to acknowledge the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. As he rightly pointed out, insurance can be a very emotional and stressful time for people and causing a lot of heartache. That brings me to acknowledging the communities that are still going through that heartache in Hawke’s Bay. I would just like to acknowledge Pakowhai, Waiohiki, Puketapu, Fernhill, Ōmahu, and Central Hawke’s Bay.
Just a few weeks ago, I visited the Ōmahu community. Ōmahu is a community in Hawke’s Bay which was completely flooded by Cyclone Gabrielle. The Ōmahu Marae has been the strength of the community, and many people there have been living in the marae since those February floods last year. Just recently when I visited, the last three families were moving out of the marae into their homes. I think this just makes it very real as to the position that we still are in in Hawke’s Bay, with families still out of their homes and still moving back to temporary accommodation, actually.
I visited a beautiful lady there in Ōmahu who had had her house completely flooded and she had some temporary accommodation moved on to the property by the Ministry of Social Development, and yet her property was under-insured, so she can’t do the repairs on that property. She has to look every day at that house that she used to live in, still smeared in silt, and that’s a really, really difficult time.
I suppose what it does—and this brings me back to this insurance law—is it really, really highlights the importance of having robust, modern insurance laws, which, when disaster strikes, we can put these insurance laws into action. I think the member spoke earlier about our Māori communities being more vulnerable when it comes to insurance, and we did see that in Cyclone Gabrielle. I can’t speak more positively about these very good insurance laws that we are going to be passing through today and how important it is to have full cover to ensure that you have a very good, robust insurance policy in place. It’s very relevant to Hawke’s Bay, it’s very relevant to the East Coast, and, of course, Christchurch and Kaikōura, and especially when we’ve had those natural disasters.
Many of my constituents, during this time, did contact me a lot with insurance claims, and we had to navigate through those really emotional processes and those emotional times, and so I’m really, really happy today to be speaking to the Contracts of Insurance Bill, which is going to update the laws. The purpose of this bill, as has already been spoken about today, is to obviously make the law more effective, but it also enables more protection for the consumers to protect themselves against risk and minimise those costs and impacts on insurers’ willingness also to provide insurance in New Zealand, so it works for both the insured and the insurer, and this bill is going to provide a single, modern framework for that. As we’ve already heard, it is an omnibus bill, which is going to tie a lot of those bills into a modern framework.
Under this bill, there are many, many changes that it makes, but I think one of the key elements that will be really good is the requirement for insurers to pay any due sums in reasonable time. The “reasonable time” is key, because this is a significant change, because when disaster hits—as we’ve already heard, if you lose your home and you lose your business—you want to be able to get some certainty and some clear time lines around insurance. That is absolutely imperative. It’s emotional enough when you’ve lost everything and you’ve lost your home and your livelihood and then you’re having to go through the stress of insurance and obviously wanting to be paid out within reasonable time. People want to be able to move on with their lives quickly and a better framework around insurance will ensure that that happens, so this is going to be a very welcome change in the legislation, that reasonable time framework.
The bill also shifts that responsibility towards the insurers to ask the right questions and ask specific questions so people know what is required in their policy and how much cover they essentially will have, but also the detail of that cover. I did see a lot of that in the aftermath of Cyclone Gabrielle. People were a little bit uncertain around what was covered and what wasn’t covered, because potentially they just didn’t have that clarity. This bill is going to iron out some of that and ensure that—you know, the change aims to stop the unfair denial of claims and ensure people receive the support they need, which is really important. By fostering a more robust insurance market, the bill will not only protect consumers and the people who suffer loss but it will also provide insurers with the certainty they need for that comprehensive, affordable coverage.
This balance is crucial for rebuilding and strengthening our economy. As Ryan Hamilton spoke about earlier, providing competition and a more competitive environment is also very, very important for resetting our economy as well, and so this bill will bring immediate benefits and set a precedent as to how we handle natural disasters moving forward. It’s about ensuring fairness, transparency, and efficiency in our insurance system and especially as we need to adapt to climate change. After seeing so many families struggle across Hawke’s Bay, I think that having a robust, modern insurance framework is going to be really, really positive for New Zealand. With that, I commend this bill to the House.
REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to take a call on this bill, the Contracts of Insurance Bill. It’s a good start, but it doesn’t go far enough—but it is a good start. I think we can all agree that insurance should be clear and insurance should be fair.
Glen Bennett: Clear and fair.
REUBEN DAVIDSON: I’d like to—thank you; yes, very fair. It should be very fair. Speaking of very fair, I’d like to just reference the earlier speech from my fellow member the Hon Duncan Webb and really acknowledge the work that he’s done in this space too. Now, Mr Webb—member Webb, the Hon Duncan Webb—is a person who knows a lot about insurance, both being a lawyer but also being from Christchurch. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that Christchurch underwent huge pressure and enormous insurance pressure as a result of the Christchurch earthquakes.
Now, there’s one thing that I want to speak about specifically in here—well, there’s several, but there’s one thing that I want to start with—and that is around the possibility of policy holders making a mistake. Let’s be fair, we all make mistakes; we’ve spoken about several that we’ve spotted already in this bill; so, you know, we do all make mistakes. I think one of the things that’s important to point out is that, as amended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, the bill does away with “fraud” and uses the less clear “dishonesty” standard. I think it’s probably a good point to talk about what the difference between fraud and dishonesty is. In my books, fraud would be telling someone, for example, that they’re going to get a thousand bucks a fortnight and a sweeping tax cut, whereas dishonesty would just be adding the words “up to” in front of that. There is a difference between fraud and dishonesty. I think being less clear about that definition really is a risk because it means that genuine mistakes could be met with much, much harsher penalties.
I also think it’s important that if we’re talking about the fact that insurance should be clear and fair, we also accept that insurance isn’t simple. I point members to a NielsenIQ report that has found just recently in August that only a third of insured homeowners are confident they know what damage to their home would or would not be covered by insurance after a natural hazard event. Now, that’s one-third of New Zealanders having a reasonable understanding of what coverage or support they can expect after a natural hazard event—and we’re seeing an increasing number of natural hazard events—and 26 percent were confident they understood what could be covered for damage to their land. Those are not big numbers, and that should be of concern to us all.
What should put us at ease is the Minister Bayly saying that under this bill, there will be no more guesswork for consumers. Well, thank you, Minister Bayly. That’s a big promise to make, and I can see you’re looking at me saying, “When did I say that?”—I can see the member’s looking at me saying, “When did he say that?” That’s been reported in the New Zealand Herald as recently as 2 May this year, Minister Bayly, so it’s good to see that you’re guaranteeing there’ll be no more guesswork for consumers as a result just of this bill. As far as insurance goes, what I would like to suggest is that if the Minister is looking for an underwriter for policies such as this, he should look no further than the aforementioned Hon Duncan Webb, who does know a lot about insurance and could potentially underwrite some of the insurance policy and some of the remits that you’re trying here.
I also think—as I finish—that, in talking about clear and fair insurance, reasonable time for settlements is a big part of that. There were 650,000 insurance claims in Christchurch as a result of the 2011 earthquake sequence, and there are still homeowners and property owners waiting to settle some of those claims. I think we should be concerned that this bill walks back the requirement for insurers to settle claims quickly. I think that is a mistake. I don’t think that’s clear; I don’t think that’s fair. I support the bill. There’s much more to be done, Minister Bayly. Duncan Webb is the man to see—he won’t always give you that rude greeting. Thank you.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): They just can’t help themselves, can they? They have to get in a dig about how much they hate tax cuts, even with inflation at all-time lows and tackling the cost of living crisis. Had to get in a dig about how much they oppose hard-working Kiwis getting the money they deserve. This is a bill that was designed for those hard-working Kiwis—those ones that are benefiting from that tax relief—because this is about sorting out insurance contracts for them. I just want to touch on maybe three or four points as we think about this.
Maybe they’ve lost the plot; they’re just in this mentality—over the other side—where they just have to argue everything and oppose everything out of principle. Here we have a Minister that’s doing a great thing, putting a bill through that, on the one hand, they wanted to claim credit for because they thought of it first; on the other hand, they’re opposing because it’s not what we need. I’m baffled by what it is that last speech was meant to cover.
One of the key principles going through this—and it’s exactly what Minister Bayly was speaking about. If you read the context of that speech that was reported back in May, it is about making insurance contracts easier to understand. It’s about using plain language, everyday language, that when mum or dad rang up to get their house insurance, their contents, their vehicle, maybe life insurance—whatever it might be in that particular instance—using language that they can understand. There won’t be many Kiwis that have claimed to have read and understood every little bit of fine print in maybe their home and contents policy.
Using everyday language that people can understand is really important, but more than that, it is about moving the onus from the consumer to the insurer themselves. That principle that says, “Well, look, we’re not the experts in insurance when we ring up to insure a car. Actually, the insurance company is.” The responsibility to ensure that they have the information they need to enact that policy must sit with them, it doesn’t seem reasonable, nor does it seem fair, to hold against someone the fact that they didn’t know exactly which technical bit of information may or may not have needed to be provided in that instance.
There are some very tragic examples, instances, of policies being refused or having to be challenged about whether or not they would be paid out because a bit of information wasn’t provided which doesn’t actually—perhaps in the case of one that I read was around a life insurance policy and the information that was missing was completely unrelated to a tragic accidental cause of death. But it was used as a clause to get them out of that. This says, “Actually, if the insurer wants that bit of information, they need to pose those questions to the consumer at the time so that they can go and get that language.” They know what they need. They can be the one to go and use that. Of course, the other aspect there about timely payments and just ensuring that consumers, when they are entitled to that claim, will get paid out in a timely fashion.
Now, the second bit that was of interest to me was the bit around genetic testing—around “genetic discrimination”, as it’s called. This was a new issue that came up in the select committee process and I haven’t heard a huge amount of discussion around this, but the bill does go into some detail. Now I’m comfortable with where the committee landed in their recommendation of effectively leaving the door open that in future it could be done. That maybe we’re not quite ready to go there yet—some countries have, some haven’t. We need a bit more information, we want to learn more about this, but it leaves it open to future Ministers and there can be questions about wanting to ensure the appropriate safeguards are in place.
As I read section 4, as I look at clause 86, particularly 86B, which goes through the regulations of how this can be done, when the Minister can approach the Governor-General, I’m satisfied that the appropriate safeguards are in place at that moment, particularly when you read, through 86C, the need to consult the Financial Markets Authority, the need to consult those that will be impacted by any change in this regard, to ensure that it’s not going to unduly prevent insurance companies from getting the information they need. Equally, we want to ensure we’re safeguarding people’s privacy and their right to hold on to some of that medical information.
Considering that, I do commend this bill to the House and maybe just finish with Kris Faafoi—quoting him—congratulating Minister Bayly for his support and commitment in modernising insurance law—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member’s time has expired.
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to be able to take a call on this. The previous speaker, Tim Costley, said he was baffled. Now, those of us that know him are not surprised by this, but he seems confused as to the Labour Party position, so for the sake of him and the clarity of the House, I’ll spell it out real simple. This bill has come about because of the work of the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, who, I think it’s fair to say, knows more about insurance than anyone else in this House, and that is because before he came to this House, he was a professor of law and he represented countless people who were having issues with their insurance companies after Christchurch.
Now, through that experience, Dr Webb saw ways in which policyholders were not being treated fairly by insurance companies, and upon coming into Parliament he sought to correct that and, through a member’s bill, used his experience and expertise to come up with a proposed law that would’ve evened out the ledger. The Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs has come in, said, “That’s a good idea, but it goes too far for us, so we’ll take this on and we’ll water it down.” That is where we stand. Of course we support the bill, because it’s better than the status quo, but it’s entirely fair and reasonable to point out where the bill was going to go and now isn’t, and the consequences of those decisions.
The Minister has made changes that allow things to occur to the disadvantage of the policyholder. If the intent of the bill was to improve the protections of the policyholder and the intent of the bill, as many Government speakers have said, is to make it a better experience for the policyholder, why would they make these changes? They actually go counter to what they’re saying. As Reuben Davidson pointed out, the change from “fraud” to “dishonesty” opens up a massive, ambiguous loophole that would allow a genuine mistake to be accused as dishonest and therefore thrown out. It’s a much higher bar to prove that it was fraudulent behaviour than it is to prove dishonest behaviour, and if this goes through as is proposed, some people that made genuine mistakes will miss out on coverage because of the wording of one word.
Now, that could be fixed. It was proposed; it’s been watered down, but I hope the Minister reflects on that and, at the committee of the whole House stage, considers the amendments that will be proposed by Dr Duncan Webb, because if we are true in our intentions—as has been stated today—that we want to protect consumers, then that change will need to be made.
Some speakers have spoken about the difficulty that people have had dealing with insurance companies and getting an answer, be it acceptance or be it rejection or whatever, in a timely fashion, and the importance of that. The fact is there isn’t a single region in this country that hasn’t had a significant event, be it a natural disaster or a weather event, hit them in living memory. Everyone has been affected by this, every region, and no one can say that they won’t be in the future. You cannot guarantee that you’ll be immune from the impacts of a natural disaster, be it flooding or an earthquake or whatever. Insurance touches all of our lives, and if we are going to be true to the statements that are made in this House and we want to make sure that claims are settled and completed in a timely fashion, why did the Minister water down the proposals that were in Dr Webb’s bill? I think that’s a question we should consider. In whose interest is this amendment working? I don’t believe it’s in the interests of consumers.
As Dr Webb pointed out, why on earth would they want to water down the protections that were proposed to allow the Commerce Commission to look over the exemptions that can be included, to make sure that they’re fair and that they’re not solely in the interests of the insurer. They’ve taken that out. What is there to be scared of there? The Commerce Commission can look at something; if they think it’s fine, they say it’s fine, as they do in most other areas, and if they’ve got a concern, they raise it and they work through it. Why on earth wouldn’t you want that there? Whose interest is that change working in?
Now, the fact is that the insurance industry in this country is absolutely crucial. If it weren’t for them, we wouldn’t be anywhere near as advanced in our thinking around managed retreat or around climate adaptation. In fact, the insurance sector has done more work on climate adaptation than this Government, and they’re concerned about the trajectory of this Government, because this is an issue that we cannot overlook and ignore. If people are concerned about insurance premiums—they’ve gone up 20 percent this year—they’ve got to recognise that insurance premiums are linked to risk, and if the Government is going to walk away from its responsibility of climate adaptation and investing properly in the likes of flood protection, etc., we should all expect higher premiums. That’s a fact. The insurance companies are the ones that have, in many respects, led the conversation in this regard.
It’s important that the contracts that people enter into with insurance companies are fair. Dr Webb’s bill would’ve definitely achieved that. The Minister’s bill does to some degree, but if the Minister is open-minded and wants to listen to someone of Dr Webb’s expertise and experience and accept his amendments, then this bill will be even better.
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Just responding to the accusation, if you like, that the good work of Dr Webb’s has been stolen, my understanding—and correct me if I’m wrong, Minister Bayly—is that bill supposedly never got off the ground. He sat on it for years and years and years, and when our Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs said that he wanted to pick it up, they said, “For goodness sake, you know, you’re going to have to change some things, because premiums, under Duncan Webb’s proposal, will go up.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what our Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs got right with his changes here, and he’s doing a great job. He’s what we call one of the “omnibus Ministers”, being a Minister of Statistics, Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing, and now he’s modernising the insurance law to protect Kiwi households.
I wasn’t on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, but Dr Webb now wants to put up all these amendments and waste time. Looking at the recommendation from the select committee report, can I just leave you with this thought? “The Finance and Expenditure Committee has examined the Contracts of Insurance Bill”—i.e., Minister Bayly’s bill—“and recommends by majority that it be passed.” So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 102
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 15
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Amendments agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Statutes Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Statutes Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon NICOLE McKEE: Thank you. I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.
It is important our legislation continues to remain accurate, fit for purpose, and reflective of the policy intent. We all have a responsibility to be stewards of our systems and legislation. Regularly progressing these types of bills is one way we can ensure we continue to prioritise and maintain the quality of our legislation.
Statutes amendment bills make minor, technical, and non-controversial amendments to several Acts. This allows amendments to be made that would not usually be given sufficient priority. Amendments are progressed through the support of all parties in Parliament. This bill comprises of 96 proposals that will amend 42 Acts administered by 14 different Government agencies. Many of the amendments in this bill correct drafting errors, such as incorrect wording or references. For example, the proposed amendment to the Crown Entities Act 2004 will replace the outdated term “Minister of State Services” with “Minister for the Public Service”, or replacing the reference to the State Sector Act 1988 with the Public Service Act 2020 to refer to the current Act.
Other changes make technical amendments to provide clarity or better reflect the intention of the legislation. For example, a proposed amendment to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 will clarify that lenders are not required to keep records for applications from borrowers that are declined or withdrawn, to remove an unnecessary compliance burden.
Some amendments make non-controversial improvements to how legislation works in practice. Another example: one of the proposed amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 will extend the time frame for submitting prescribed transaction reports, or PTRs, from 10 days to 20 days. This will improve the quality of those PTRs that are submitted to the Financial Intelligence Unit. Another example is the proposed amendment to the Radiocommunications Act 1989, which will include that an infringement notice may be sent to a person’s electronic address if the person does not have a known place of residence, to reflect developments in digital technologies.
This bill also provides an opportunity to address outdated language, such as that used in the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004. The description of certain people as “subnormal”, “idiot”, and “imbecile”, specified in historic specified offences, will be removed.
Even though I’ve only covered a few amendments from this bill, these examples demonstrate the value of statutes amendment bills as a way of advancing minor but important changes. While all the parties in Parliament have indicated their support for the amendments proposed in the bill, I look forward to hearing the select committee’s views on these matters as well as any views of the public. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I rise in support of this bill on behalf of the Labour Party. This is a really interesting tradition that has come up—that these bills are collaborated on—and it’s a good thing for the New Zealand public that that happens.
This is going to go to the Governance and Administration Committee, and I urge the public to make sure that they do look through the list of the bills affected. There’s a lot of bills that will be affected by this that may be of interest to the public. For example, there are quite substantial changes to the Privacy Act, and while we think we’ve got it right—and that’s why it’s before the committee with a support level that is unusual—that doesn’t mean that we necessarily have. It may be that things come up for the public—they are working with these Acts and they see things that they don’t think are right.
One of the wonderful things about the New Zealand process is that we have select committees that truly do listen to the public. I’ve been in situations on select committees in the last term where things turned and changed on the basis of what we were told by either experts in the field of that particular law who said, “You’d think this might be a good idea, but it’s not” or actually just general comments from members of the public who made the same kind of contribution. I think that’s one of the wonderful things about our system, and I see this as an opportunity to do that.
Some of the little changes here are things that we probably need to be ashamed were ever in our laws—words that were used that were just inappropriate—and we have come a long way, and it’s good to see those things being swept up and changed. These are often seen as housekeeping bills, and that’s one way of looking at them, but that does not mean that some of the things within these bills are not significant. It’s really important that the public look at these things and second-guess us on it. I invite the public to do that. I am very pleased to see this go to the Governance and Administration Committee, who are a very thorough, hard-working committee and will listen to all the submissions. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): On behalf of the Greens, we support this bill. As others have noted, this is a bill that had consultation from all parties and the tradition is to bring it forward. While knowing that parties don’t have any major issues with the contents of this bill, I do think it’s interesting to examine the language around “minor, technical, and non-controversial”, because that is actually relatively subjective.
What may be deemed non-controversial for us may not be for others. I think how I would interpret the non-controversial kind of aspect of this is that it has had agreement amongst all parties, but it is important to note, as others have, that some of the language that we’re changing, some of it was controversial, and it is a good thing that we’re modernising pieces of legislation to ensure that not only do they reflect the modern times but that we look at errors that would have meant that the legislation was not doing what it had intended to, or would have been written in ways that were not accurate. Interestingly enough, I note that changes in the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 contain words that the previous speaker Helen White noted were out of touch and would not have been used nowadays—words that would have been used, actually, by senior figures of Government earlier today in question time.
I do note that, for example, the amendments to the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Act has significant implications for Māori and Te Tiriti. This was actually a change that was proposed by the last Government explicitly as a correction to errors in the implementation of the Heretaunga Tamatea Treaty settlement, to give effect to the Treaty settlement. I do think these are good opportunities for the House to get things right, particularly for historical wrongs.
As others have noted, there are 42 Acts that are being amended as a result of this. They include the Accident Compensation Act, and, if you look alphabetically, it goes all the way down to the Wildlife Act. It just shows the breadth of the bills that are being touched on.
I do note that, for example, there are things in relation to how wages could be recovered and employment agreements. Those things are actually, like, I would not say necessarily minor in terms of the things that we’re updating, and that is important to note.
As the previous speaker noted, I would encourage submitters, despite our kind of reassurance that we treat this as minor and non-controversial, to pay close attention to the bills that are being updated, because sometimes submitters in the past have noted things that we have not gotten right. This would be an opportunity for submitters to just make sure that we are doing due diligence in this process so that the select committee process can be smooth. The Green Party will do our due diligence and engage in the select committee to make sure that we get this process right and that the legislation that we have reflects modern times.
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): The National Party, like all others in the House, supports this Statutes Amendment Bill. The contents of it have already been canvassed and I don’t seek to repeat that. The Governance and Administration Committee is looking forward to receiving this bill.
If I can just use this through you, Mr Speaker—and I think you’ll probably be the most compliant Speaker for me to allow this—the Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill second reading that has just gone through and been reported back to the House by the Governance and Administration Committee is set down in this House for 9 a.m. Thursday next week. We look forward to continuing to process that and we look forward to receiving the Governance and Administration Committee—the Statutes Amendment Bill—in due course. Thank you.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Andy Foster, speaking about that committee.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Mr Speaker, this is an exceptionally exciting bill to end the week with! Look, on the turn, this looked like a very routine, vanilla bill—probably is. It’s been described as common sense, as being administrative, as being routine, and as being one of those tidy-up bills. And there’s a bit of modernisation in there as well. New Zealand First values good governance, and it has been interesting, actually, in a couple of select committee conversations, to hear some people say that everything is about politics. Well, not everything is about politics sometimes—I think that portrays a sense of mind—sometimes things are just about common sense and good governance, and that is what this bill is.
It’s an omnibus bill; it covers 42 Acts, and I’m not going to go through 42 Acts. Generally, they’re very minor changes. Actually, it was interesting because—I pity the people who actually have to trawl through existing legislation and find these minor changes that need to be made; I admire them as well for the work they have to do. But there are things in terms of modernisation. We get rid of the requirement to advertise public notices in newspapers, because there are less of them. We remove the references to cheques. We update organisations’ names, which used to be one thing and are now something slightly different. We are also looking here at updating the references to legislation which has been replaced by other legislation, so we get those names right. Actually, interestingly, there are also several pieces which are about fixing mistakes made by this House. That just shows that we’re not perfect here, either. Sometimes, things have got to be fixed, and somebody picks those up, sometimes several years later.
I’m going to be really interested, as part of the Governance and Administration Committee—at least I hope I’m going to be really interested—because it’s going to be fascinating to see what the public makes of this! You never know, there might be some gems in there. There’s a couple of favourites that I just wanted to point out to finish off with. The first one of them is the amendments to the Conservation Act 1987, and I was particularly taken by the addition of a new infringement offence to cover offences related to the taking of indigenous freshwater fish. So, while Freddy the frog might be in danger, Freddy the fish might be in a much better place after this change! I don’t know about Eddy the eel; he might be covered by that as well. The most substantive change is around the Privacy Act. I think it’s interesting to read the comments there, or the changes which are suggested, about access to information held about yourself and access by other people to information about other people, and also the complaints process.
I commend the bill to the House, and I look forward to the Governance and Administration Committee considering this bill and any submissions.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you. It looks like this bill is heading straight to our select committee, the Governance and Administration Committee, so I don’t want to pre-empt what members of the public might want to say. It will be interesting to see some of the comments that come in on some things. I see some changes to Armed Forces Discipline Regulations and, of course, the Armed Forces Discipline Act. In particular, I have to note the changing of “airman” to “aviator” and a bit of history, perhaps, is lost as that change gets brought through into law. It’s all in the aim of modernising the language, just like they changed “crewman” to “loadmaster”—I’m not sure “master” is any less gendered, but that seems to be the way that the world goes—so it’ll be interesting to see what comments there are on that.
Rather than use up the House’s time now going through in infinite detail on these changes, I look forward to members of the public having their say on how much tradition do we want to keep and how much do we need to change with the times. People will have their say, and I commend this bill to the House.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Most of us, I guess, come to this House to make transformational change to Aotearoa, but also there are the little bits of housekeeping that have to be done from time to time, and the Statutes Amendment Bill is one of them. Therefore, as has been said across the House, there’s not a lot to say other than to move this quickly through to select committee. On this side of the House, we commend this bill to the House.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was having—TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty):[Interruption] Pretty excited for the Statutes Amendment Bill on this side of the House. I was having a quick flick through and I saw a couple and I thought, “Gosh, these are pretty straightforward.” Crown Entities Act 2004: replace “Minister of State Services” with the “Minister for the Public Service.” Small, minor tweaks which may not mean much to the general public but are really important to make sure that our legislation in New Zealand is absolutely bang on the money. Employment Relations Act 2000: replace reference to section 28B of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992—which has been repealed—with section 191 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 in section 233B.
These are just minor tweaks in pieces of legislation. As a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, I’m looking forward to progressing this legislation on behalf of the Government, and I commend it to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): [Hon Dr Duncan Webb and Hon David Parker rise to seek call] Bit of aerobics on a late afternoon in the House. I call the Hon Dr Duncan Webb.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): There you go—you had two of the greatest legal minds leaping to their feet. What a choice for Mr Speaker!
Look, there’s one thing I want to say about this, and that is around the money-laundering proposals. The Associate Minister of Justice has signalled the loosening of anti - money-laundering and the countering of financing of terrorism rules in a press release that she put out on, I think it was, Sunday. I must say, whilst this, in the Statutes Amendment Bill, looks innocuous, we do have concerns that we want to raise at select committee.
For example, I think one of the changes here in this bill is simply to extend the reporting time for lawyers who have suspicious transactions from three days out to five days—now, sounds reasonable, but we have to be very careful to take an all-of-system view of what’s going on here and make sure that just by inches we don’t see an erosion of our anti - money-laundering framework. We know that 19 roles were disestablished at the Department of Internal Affairs, including front-line staff who were assessing and investigating alleged money-laundering. Those two things in tandem are not a good look.
It’s also worth noting that the Financial Action Task Force, which reported on New Zealand in July this year, found a number of non-compliances with the international requirements around money-laundering. I think we’ve got to approach this with some caution. Certainly, there are people out there who think we’re not pulling our weight on the money-laundering front. Martin Dilly and Fiona Hall have, in fact, said that that the actions of this Government are a “signal to businesses that the public sector is not interested in doing its part to ensure [the] success of [our anti - money-laundering] … regime”.
Let’s just keep a weather eye on this. It may well be that the two minor changes—what appear to be minor changes—are nothing to be alarmed about, but I do want to ask: but why? I mean, I have made Suspicious Transaction Reports: one for a cash transaction where people were paying their legal bill with a wad of cash—fine by me, but then again, who knows where it came from—the other one for a request to send money to Uganda, which was, again, suspicious. When the lights go off, it’s not that hard to go online and let the police unit know that you’ve got concerns. I don’t know why you need to wait an extra two days before you do that. Let’s have that discussion.
The Minister’s also signalled that she may look at examining how we finance anti - money-laundering. The idea that the private sector might participate in how we fund anti - money-laundering frameworks is perplexing to me. What I want to make sure of is that when we come in to look at this, we look not just at this tiny little amendment but how it fits in with the framework of anti - money-laundering and countering the financing of terrorism as a whole. Thank you.
CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Well, there’s a lot of excitement for this Statutes Amendment Bill here tonight. I’m seeing two members on the other side of the House stand up in such anticipation—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): We all need a bit of exercise!
CATHERINE WEDD: —who, obviously, want to speak about it. So I’m very pleased to be the last speaker on this first reading of this bill tonight, which is really all about common sense. On this side of the House, we are always about common sense and ensuring that we have good, solid, modern laws in place here. Of course, this bill, as we’ve already heard, is going to modernise and bring a lot of our legislation up to date. As the member opposite rightly pointed out earlier, it’s a bit of a housekeeping bill.
I’m sure the Governance and Administration Committee is going to hear some interesting submissions on this bill and navigate it through, because it certainly impacts quite a few different Acts. There’s 96 proposals which amend 42 Acts administered by 14 Government agencies. It sounds complex, but, obviously, there are lots of little things that need sorting out, as we’ve already heard, with the Crown Entities Act, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act, and the Radiocommunications Act, just to name a few. Certainly, in the Real Estate Agents Act, they’re going to replace the term “inconsequential” with “not sufficiently serious to require [disciplinary] action,”. I mean, just that kind of language, obviously, bring us up to date in the modern world, and so this is a very, very good bill.
It certainly is non-controversial. It appears that everyone here in this House does support it because it is common sense. It’s a practical solution. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the second reading and seeing this bill, of course, proceed through the House, and I will commend it to the House. Thank you.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That the Statutes Amendment Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.
Bills
Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: I present a legislative statement on the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I move, That the Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
This bill will update the Fisheries Act to better meet our international obligations, and it will strengthen New Zealand’s capacity to address illegal, unreported, and unregulated—or IUU—fishing. This bill has been considered by the Primary Production Committee, and it recommends that it be passed with amendments to a number of clauses, which I support in full.
I thank the Primary Production Committee members—and, of course, I’m speaking on behalf of the Hon Shane Jones—for their support and constructive participation in considering this bill. I appreciate the time and effort the committee has taken to understand this bill and the complexities of the international fisheries framework. I also want to acknowledge the submitters who took time to express their views on this bill. Finally, I want to thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Ministry for Primary Industries officials that contributed to this bill.
By way of background, New Zealand’s international fisheries regime was established in our Fisheries Act almost a quarter of a century ago, in 1999. Since then, international obligations against IUU fishing have evolved. As I stated during the first reading, this bill responds to this context by updating the Fisheries Act, aligning it to best practice and allowing us to exert greater influence to prevent, deter, and eliminate IUU fishing. This is important because IUU fishing threatens New Zealand’s interests in the Southern and Pacific Oceans. This was highlighted in the report on IUU fishing by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that was presented to this House in August last year.
I note that this bill was introduced by the previous Government and obtained support from all speakers in its first reading. This reflects New Zealand’s unflinching commitment to the fight against illegal fishing, which the Government expressed in our response to the report. It also shows the strong focus that this Government has on the delivery of outcomes that benefit all New Zealanders, and in particular those that contribute to our economic recovery. The bill will ensure that New Zealand continues to be a world leader in the sustainable management of our fisheries. Ensuring the sustainability of our fisheries protects our continued access to lucrative fisheries in the Pacific and the Southern Oceans, and seafood trade with important markets—a position our $2 billion seafood export industry benefits from.
The bill seeks to achieve these outcomes through two overarching objectives or aims. To remind you of these, they are, first, to enable New Zealand to better meet its international fishery management and compliance obligations in respect of IUU fishing; and, second, to improve the efficiency and clarity of the provisions and decision-making processes related to international fisheries. The bill will do these things by amending provisions in the following areas: first, the permitting regime for New Zealand vessels fishing outside our waters; second, the efficiency and effectiveness of actions against fishery violations; and, third, New Zealand’s capacity to prevent and combat IUU fishing.
It was against this international background that the Primary Production Committee undertook its scrutiny of the bill. I thank, once again, Mark Cameron for his chairing and committee members for their dedication. International fisheries governance is underpinned by a number of international legal instruments, and the committee has provided excellent insights as to how to best address this complexity. I thank you again for this.
The Primary Production Committee recommended six changes to the bill. These changes align with the policy intent of the bill and improve several aspects. The first one relates to the evidence of authorisation by foreign country. Our international obligations require that fishing is duly authorised and the flag States are fully able to exercise responsibility over their vessels. The committee recommendations improve the change in the bill around the decision making on permits to provide greater clarity and certainty.
The first recommendation in the committee report seeks to ensure that before issuing a permit, the fishing has been authorised by that country. Requiring a Ministry for Primary Industries permit for a New Zealand vessel to fish in another country is one main change in the bill. It enables us to strengthen our cooperation with the countries where New Zealand fishing vessels fish. Given that we share fisheries with our Pacific neighbours, strengthening this cooperation is in our best interest.
The second committee recommendation represents an improvement of the decision-making processes for issuing international permits. The committee recommends that, before making a decision, the Ministry for Primary Industries chief executive may take into account previous non-compliance in any jurisdiction. “May take into account” means that non-compliance is something that the chief executive may consider but is not required to; that is, that previous non-compliance does not result in a mandatory decision to decline a permit. This enables proportionality in the decisions; ensures that we maintain a risk-based approach to assessing and responding to offending; and prevents undue, disproportionate consequences for the industry. A risk-based approach has also been taken by the committee in recommending changes to the power to suspend or revoke a permit to fish outside New Zealand waters where there’s evidence of offending.
The third recommendation that the committee report notes is that a permit issued to fish in a foreign country and on the high seas must be fully suspended or revoked at the request of the foreign country. This addresses the risk that a vessel may offend in another country and continue fishing on the high seas, and ensures that New Zealand can exercise its responsibility to ensure that vessels do not undermine the effectiveness of international conservation and management measures.
The fourth recommendation is to enable the chief executive to suspend or revoke an international fishing permit when an offence has been allegedly committed against the Fisheries Act within our waters, and this offence is of the most serious nature—that is, knowingly making a false or misleading statement, using a false communication to obtain a benefit, or knowingly acting in contravention of the Act to obtain a benefit. This ensures that the powers can only be used for the most serious of suspected offending. It would also require a reasonable basis for the belief that the offending has occurred, and it would be limited to the permitted vessel, not to other vessels related to the permit holder. These limitations are foundational to ensure a correct and proportional application of these powers and to ensure that they enable New Zealand to fully exercise its responsibility as a flag State.
The fifth recommendation improves the process for operators, who can invoke a defence when breaking the permit conditions when it is necessary to comply with the laws of that country. The time frame to invoke this defence has been adjusted to make it more suitable to both the prosecution’s and defendants’ interests. Taken together, these recommendations are useful to improve the efficiency and clarity of the permitting provisions. Clear and efficient regulations are a fundamental part of the enabling environment to industry, and I thank the committee for recommending these changes.
Finally, the last recommended change is a fine point of international law, and I thank the committee for its thoroughness in their examination of this bill. The recommendation would amend the clauses related to the detention of vessels in port. It would further clarify that the serious violation for which it is detained took place on the high seas. The vessel must be released on request of the vessel’s flag State; whereas, if the violation took place in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone, the vessel must be released on payment of the bond. This makes sure we correctly apply two cornerstones of international law on the oceans: the Law of the Sea, or U-N-C-L-O-S, and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement—
Hon David Parker: UNCLOS.
Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Yeah, UNCLOS—thank you, Mr Parker. Taken together, these changes improve the bill by continuing to meet all the obligations I set out earlier. The recommended changes ensure that the bill is clear and fit for purpose. It provides the clarity and certainty that operators need to support the seafood sector’s role in this export-led recovery of our economy and further strengthens New Zealand’s ability to take effective action on IUU fishing. In conclusion, I thank those who contributed to the development of this bill, and I commend this bill to the House.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Can I thank the Hon Andrew Bayly for that fair description of the bill. He’s a man who prides himself on his maths, and, unfortunately, he must have read a speech that was prepared last year rather than this, because he will recall—he’s not going to sleep tonight when he realises this—that he said that the 1999 legislation that this updates was prepared just about a quarter century ago.
Hon Andrew Bayly: Well, it’s a little bit more.
Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh, it’s a little bit more, he now concedes. It is, of course, a quarter of a century ago, because the difference between 1999 and the year 2024—which we’re nearing the end of—is, of course, 25 years.
The main aspects of this bill that will be of interest to the House relate to illegal, unreported fishing—IUU fishing: illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. This occurs both within countries, but the bit that is dealt with particularly by this bill is fishing on the high seas. It’s been very hard for the world to develop rules to control IUU fishing on the high seas, because it requires treaties because it is no one’s territory. No one country can make laws that are effective to control fishing in that area. It’s not so many decades ago that people used to say, as a saying, “There’s plenty of fish in the sea.” Sadly, that’s not true in large parts of the world now because there has been overfishing of the fishing resource, including on the high seas. To combat that, you need an international treaty and then you need to give effect to the provisions of that treaty through domestic law so that Governments of the world can cooperate to enforce rules around fishing in the international waters.
Now, there’s a number of ways we do that in the Pacific—and let’s not forget that the fishery in the Pacific is the main source of not just food or protein for people living in Pacific islands; it’s also the main revenue source for those island States. Fishing within their territorial seas, their exclusive economic zones—their EEZs—and the international waters are all very important in terms of the sustainability of the economies in the Pacific and the lives that people can live there and the food they can consume.
The USA is a force for good in this. They provide satellite imagery that records the beacons that all vessels that are fishing in these areas ought to be displaying. Unfortunately deliberately, some countries sometimes “go dark”—is the phrase—and they turn off their beacons so that they can’t be tracked. In addition to the compliance activity, it’s interesting that Governments around the world aren’t doing enough and private sector NGOs are taking up some of the slack. There’s a very wealthy New Zealander, who’s been very, very successful, who’s one of the funders of Sea Shepherd, who funds a fisheries enforcement vessel in the Pacific. It does wonderful work. He’s also funding drones to police illegal fishing activity in the Caribbean and in parts of Central America, such is his belief in the importance of proper fisheries protection.
Now, in order for that sort of surveillance to create enforcement activity, there have to be powers for Government agencies to take action where they find suspicious activity, and that’s where this bill makes some important changes. This bill now makes it possible for New Zealand to enforce a licensing regime for New Zealanders and New Zealand - flagged vessels that are fishing on international waters, and creates enforcement powers to hold people to account for doing that properly. That’s not all that contentious.
Where this bill takes another step, which until recent years has been contentious, is the policing of actors that are not your own citizens who are fishing on the high seas. Until now, these people haven’t been able to be conditioned, essentially, by New Zealand enforcement because we haven’t had the laws to enforce rules on the international seas in respect of non - New Zealanders or unflagged vessels. These provisions are set out in, for example, clause 40 inserting a new section 113SA, and around there. There are powers now that will be conferred on New Zealand authorities to stop those vessels, particularly unflagged vessels, and to hold them up in port if they’re in a New Zealand port, if there is a suggestion that they’ve been involved in illegal activities.
Can I thank the Primary Production Committee for working through these issues, and officials for working through these issues, because these issues of extraterritorial jurisdiction are quite complex. I’m pleased that the Government is continuing with this legislation, which had input from the prior administration. It is good law and I commend it to the House.
STEVE ABEL (Green): I think I might be speaking next week on this! I appreciate the previous speaker, Mr Parker. We did have very substantive briefings from the ministry, on this bill. The complexities of the challenge of managing illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing at sea became well understood by us, I think. It is an inherently challenging space: you have vessels from multiple jurisdictions that may be operating both inside our exclusive economic zone and then outside our exclusive economic zone, different flagged vessels, vessels belonging to different companies. The challenges of how you enforce regulations around illegal, unregulated, or unreported fishing became very clear to us.
One of the things we canvassed somewhat was what does one do when a ship that is registered in New Zealand is behaving poorly in international waters. How do we manage that? Or vice versa, when there is a ship that is flagged to a different nation that is breaking international fishing rules in the jurisdiction that we have some say over. How do you manage the right to, for example, impound the vessel and take action that could be deemed as challenging in terms of the jurisdiction of our nation over that nation’s flagged vessel? One of the things we got to was the necessity to get the permission of the flagged nation to take that action.
This is an interesting instance of a bill that had a small number of very substantive submissions—I think a total of six submissions only, but they were of very high calibre and quality. It’s sort of a telling example of where scrutiny that can be made by those with sophisticated understanding of a complex issue is very helpful.
I note that the Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ Inc. submitted expanding the scope of the bill to include wider international obligations relating to the conservation of biodiversity and marine pollution, international human rights, environmental impacts, and impacts on host communities and indigenous people.
We have major challenges with the way that vessels operate outside of exclusive economic zones in international waters, and one of the obvious ones is slavery, where extremely poor and challenging working conditions are experienced by workers. There was a suggestion that we could broaden the scope of the bill to allow that; it was determined and advised by the ministry that we should not do that. Some of us on the committee would have liked to have done that, but we determined not to.
Another submission we received, from the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, made several requests: relating to the criteria that must be met before issuing an international fishing permit, and offending in New Zealand waters should be included in the IUU fishing definition—in a way, a definition that would trigger the automatic decline of a permit—and the post-offence stand-down time frames precluding vessels from being issued permits should be extended. Where a vessel has been restricted, or when there’s an offence alleged to have been committed, the challenge is that that vessel still may be able to operate until such time as that a resolution is made about that offence, so there is a need for there to be some sort of right or jurisdiction of the authority to actually suspend that vessel. It’s analogous to putting somebody on remand before their case has been heard, though they are regarded as innocent until proven guilty—it still may be regarded as necessary that the vessel should be restricted until such time it’s deemed that they did commit that offence.
There’s questions about how readily a company can get back a vessel that has been restricted, with a liability fee placed on that vessel. It could be that it’s too easy: in some instances, the cost of the bond may in fact be less than the cost or the value of the fish that was illegally fished. That is something that could potentially be improved in future.
On the whole, this is an example of New Zealand trying to keep pace with the inherent challenges of managing that commons that is the oceans; that resource that is of good for all of us, for our environmental health, for the provision of nutrition to people. We are part of that global challenge. This legislation is an example of us working within the international community and within international law to achieve the best outcome for our fisheries, for our oceans, and for, indeed, all people of this planet. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 22 October 2024.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.