Wednesday, 23 October 2024

WEDNESDAY, 23 OCTOBER 2024

WEDNESDAY, 23 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.

List Member Elected

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand—Benjamin Cody Doyle

SPEAKER: Members, I have been advised by the Electoral Commissioner that, under section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993, Benjamin Cody Doyle has been declared to be elected a member of the House of Representatives to fill the vacancy created by Darleen Tana. Just giving a bit of a gap before I go on, just in case there’s a point of order.

Urgent Debates Declined

Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—Ability of Councils to Notify Freshwater Plans

SPEAKER: I’ve received a letter from the Hon Rachel Brooking seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the Government’s decision to amend the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, restricting all councils’ ability to notify freshwater plans. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. The matter was debated and voted on in committee of the whole House yesterday. The third reading of the bill is the first Government order of the day today. There are ample existing opportunities to debate it. The application is declined.

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

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

SPEAKER: Petitions have been presented.

CLERK:

Petition of Jaeger Sims requesting that the House urge the Government to include feral cats in Predator Free 2050’s eradication goals

petition of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan requesting that the House urge the Minister of Education to protect te reo Māori in kura and not make proposed changes to section 127 of the Education and Training Act 2020.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. One paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Vote Business, Science and Innovation report on non-departmental appropriations for the year ended 30 June 2024 for the tourism and hospitality portfolio.

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Ministry of Education: Promoting equitable education outcomes. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. One select committee paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. No bills have been presented.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on Government finances?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The year-end financial statements for the 202324 financial year show net core Crown debt of $175 billion, which is 42.5 percent of GDP. The good news is that this is lower than the Budget forecast; the bad news is that, over the past six years, Government debt has skyrocketed. Some of this, of course, was due to COVID, but Government spending outside of COVID also increased significantly. Overall, net debt has gone from 19.4 percent of GDP to 42.5 percent, which, in dollar terms, colleagues, is an increase of $118 billion over six years, and the cost of financing that debt has also risen to $8.9 billion a year.

Dan Bidois: How much did net debt increase in the year 2023 to 2024?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Net core Crown debt at the beginning of the year was $155 billion; over the course of the year, an extra $6 billion was borrowed to cover the cash deficit from core Crown operating activities. This is what’s known as borrowing to pay for the groceries. Another $13 billion was borrowed for investments. These include capital expenditure for things like roads and schools, advances and contributions to the Superannuation Fund, and there was a $1 billion fair value movement in financial assets and liabilities. That adds up to a $20 billion increase in net debt over the year.

Dan Bidois: What are the Government’s objectives for debt?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Core Crown operating cash-flows have been negative since 2019-20, meaning that the Government has been borrowing for the groceries for five years straight, and, obviously, that is not sustainable. The debt should be used to fund investments and deal with economic shocks, not to fund operating activities. The coalition Government also has an objective to stop the rise in net debt as a percentage of GDP, put it on a downward trajectory towards 40 percent, and, eventually, keep it below that level, subject to shocks.

Dan Bidois: Will the Government need to borrow for tax relief?

Hon Members: It already has.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: This is an answer which members opposite should listen to. The Government will not need to borrow at all for tax relief—tax relief is fully funded—neither has tax relief added to inflation. Let me remind members that there were some in this House who stood up and declared that tax relief will lead to higher inflation for longer, and they must feel so embarrassed now that annual inflation is down to 2.2 percent. Don’t trust the economic forecasts of the team opposite.

Hon David Seymour: Has the Minister seen any recent reports that the debt could be approximately $860 million lower had the previous Government adopted the new Government’s model for delivering the healthy school lunch model at half the price, and, if so, does the Government have more plans to do things smarter, bring business, Government, and civil society together and deliver better results for less money?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, it is correct that the Minister is not just delivering butter chicken; he’s delivering savings too, and he reflects a sentiment that the Government is very much attached to, which is that the whole reason for managing the books well is so that we can deliver better services to New Zealanders. We do not presume that doing things the way they have always been done is the best way, and we will always be on the lookout for opportunities to drive better value for money.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all of his Ministers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes. In our coalition Government, we have outstanding Ministers, delivering on our ambition to rebuild the economy, to restore law and order, and to deliver better public services. I would put them up against his former and current team any day of the week, person on person, because whether it’s Nicola Willis ending the era of high inflation or high interest rates delivered under Labour, she’s getting the job done; Winston Peters, out in the world, doing the business, lifting our engagement with our fellow countries; look at Chris Bishop and the work of Simeon Brown, cracking down and getting delivery, doing the projects—not phantom projects on Post-it notes; real projects, getting it done. Erica Stanford and David Seymour are doing an awesome job getting our kids to school—novel idea: teaching them the basics well on how to read and how to write—and whether it’s Paul Goldsmith and Mark Mitchell, they are making sure we are restoring law and order with tougher sentences, cracking down on gangs and retail crime, as well. Across the Government our Ministers are getting New Zealand back on track and we’re incredibly proud of them. Again, I would just say that I’d line them up against the current Opposition front bench or the former administration any day of the week.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it—

SPEAKER: Just before I call the member, can I just say that the general level of noise during that question was just far too much, from both sides of the House, and I am making this comment because of the amount of correspondence I get about those sorts of barrages.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it his expectation that a Minister will inform him if they receive a complaint about their conduct as soon as that complaint is received; if not, what is his expectation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, in the case that you’re referencing, which is Andrew Bayly’s behaviour that we’ve talked about over the last day or so, he apologised to the person concerned as soon as he realised he’d caused offence. He thought he had it resolved, but he didn’t; it then did come to me.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That wasn’t the question that I asked the Prime Minister. It was a pretty straightforward question relating to his confidence in his Ministers, and it was what his expectation was about when a Minister would inform him of a complaint about the Minister’s conduct.

SPEAKER: Look, the Prime Minister might like to add beyond his thinking ahead of where the question might be going.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In terms of each case, each circumstance is different. In this case, Andrew Bayly thought he had resolved it. It wasn’t resolved, and it came back to me later. But each case and each circumstance is different.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did he ask Andrew Bayly why he thought that calling someone a loser and making an “L” sign on his forehead was funny?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I went through the account with him. He doesn’t dispute the account. He actually takes full responsibility for his actions. He acknowledged that and, importantly, apologised to the individual concerned, and he assured me it won’t happen again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked him specifically about a question as to whether or not he had questioned Andrew Bayly on a particular topic: why he thought it was funny. The Prime Minister hasn’t addressed that question in any way.

SPEAKER: Well, I think to say that he hasn’t addressed it in any way is too much. The Prime Minister may wish to add to the answer.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I’m quite good.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was it acceptable for Andrew Bayly to deny in the House yesterday, saying that he hadn’t consumed any alcohol, and then return to the House just before 10 p.m. to correct that answer and confirm that he had?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, out of an abundance of transparency and for the avoidance of doubt, he was very clear he wanted to clarify that he had no alcohol before the interaction, as you would well know from the letter that the Leader of the Opposition would have received from the complainant. The second issue, where he did have alcohol after the interaction, was not in dispute.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Had Andrew Bayly consumed alcohol between the time when he first left the warehouse and the two occasions when he returned to the warehouse to repeatedly ask the worker to come and drink with him?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I don’t know how to be any clearer: Andrew Bayly declared yesterday, and he’s been very clear from the beginning, that he had not consumed any alcohol before he had the interaction with the individual—the first interaction. With the second interaction, he talked about going for a drink and inviting the complainant to come with him for that. He admits that he had alcohol after the interaction with the individual.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It is important that this is clear, because Andrew Bayly, in his description yesterday, denied that he had consumed any alcohol in any of the interactions he had with the worker. If he had gone off and started drinking and then come back into the warehouse, that personal explanation cannot be true, and I think it is important that the Prime Minister is very clear about that in his answer.

SPEAKER: And I think it’s important that when you take a point of order, it is related to the order. If those points that you are talking about are in dispute, there are mechanisms for you to do something about that. But I would invite the member to ask another question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: A further point of order, Mr Speaker. When a member makes a personal explanation in the House, we on this side of the House have to take them at their word; that is what the rules of this House require. Andrew Bayly came to the House to make a personal explanation correcting an answer that he had given, and we have to accept him at his word. The Prime Minister has just indicated that what Andrew Bayly said last night just before the House rose for the evening at 10 o’clock was not true. I think it is important—it is important—that the Prime Minister is very fulsome with the House about that, because otherwise he is questioning the word of a member.

SPEAKER: Well, that would be a way in which you could view it, but I would think that the series of answers potentially leads to another course of action from the member, if he chooses it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If someone declines an offer of an alcoholic drink, is it acceptable for a Government Minister to return to their worksite two further times to harass them into changing their mind?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said to the member yesterday and as I say again today, there is nothing that is acceptable about that behaviour. The Minister has come forward and acknowledged that he was completely wrong. He is mortified, he feels appalled about his behaviour, he’s apologised to the individual, he’s apologised to me, and he’s reassured that it won’t happen again, but there’s nothing that accepts that behaviour.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So had Andrew Bayly consumed any alcohol before the second and third interactions with the worker concerned?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, that member has one of his colleagues asking questions of the Minister, and I’m sure our Minister will give a very fulsome answer to the questions that are asked.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That question relates directly to the previous supplementary question that I asked the Prime Minister; he has to address that. This is a serious matter to do with the conduct of a Minister; I don’t think it’s unreasonable that the Prime Minister should answer the question.

SPEAKER: Ask the question again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Had Andrew Bayly consumed any alcohol before his second and third interactions with the worker who complained?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ve accepted the Minister’s account where he has said that he had not consumed alcohol before the interaction. He came to the House and clarified that he had a small amount of alcohol after the interaction.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There are three interactions with the worker. I think it’s not unreasonable to ask the Prime Minister to be clear about which of these interactions he’s referring to in his answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is a matter of chronology. The complaint is based on the so-called first offence admitted by the Minister—that’s what’s important here. What we’ve got here is someone trying to go from the first offence, on which the whole complaint was made, and then add on a whole lot of things after, as though something you did after the offence which would have had an influence on you if you’d done it before the offence, is relevant. It’s that simple.

SPEAKER: Well, I think the clarification was about what the questioning should be about. Whether or not the Opposition choose to accept that or not is for them, not for me to rule on. So I would say, in this case—what was your point of order again? I’m sorry, I got lost in that one.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The question was very specifically about the second and third interactions that Andrew Bayly had with the worker who made the complaint. The Prime Minister, in his answer, simply referred to “the interaction” with the worker. There were three separate interactions. I think it’s not unreasonable, given the specific nature of the question—that it was about the second and the third interactions—for the Prime Minister to be clear about whether that’s what he was referring to.

SPEAKER: Yes, the Prime Minister did make the point that there are further questions coming for the Minister concerned to answer, and I think it’s not unreasonable for him to say that he should answer those questions.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question on notice is whether the Prime Minister has confidence in his Ministers, and—

SPEAKER: That’s right.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —only the Prime Minister can form that judgment. Andrew Bayly can’t form the judgment about whether the Prime Minister has confidence in him; only the Prime Minister can do that. He has given us a lengthy explanation for why he thinks he’s got confidence in all his Ministers and why they’re all wonderful—including the ones who call workers losers—but I think it’s not unreasonable for him to answer specific questions about an incident that he himself has said was completely unacceptable. We don’t know the period of time which could have elapsed between Andrew Bayly leaving the warehouse and coming back on two further occasions. So it is material as to whether or not Andrew Bayly was drinking during that time, and I think it would be unbelievable to think that, given the publicity that this has had and given the significance of the incident, the Prime Minister wouldn’t have asked him that.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s something that you can contemplate; it’s not for me to speculate on. What I would say is that you have asked questions of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has answered those questions, I think, given the information that he has to hand. The question you’re now asking about the way in which an event might have transpired is probably not easily known to the Prime Minister—he wasn’t there. So do you have another question?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Are you giving me more?

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll tell you what, because it is a serious matter—and I’m not going to deny that—yes, have a question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister: has he been mindful in his decision on this of the massive injustice done to the Hon David Parker and the Hon Dover Samuels, both of whom lost their ministries when they were utterly innocent, and their colleagues would not stand behind them?

SPEAKER: That’s an interesting reflection on the history, but, no, it’s not a question for the Prime Minister.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no, point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry, Mr Speaker, but I’m asking about how did he come to his judgment. That is not, surely, out of order.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll tell you what: I’m not going to get into too much trouble here if I ask the member to ask the question again in that context.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he in his decision making been mindful of the massive injustice on occasions like this that were delivered to the Hon David Parker and the Hon Dover Samuels, both of whom were accused of being guilty when they were utterly innocent, and their colleagues would not stand behind them?

SPEAKER: OK, so there’s no responsibility for the Labour Ministers, but I think the point is made. The second point I’d just want to make is that the questions are to the Prime Minister, and pushing them off to another Minister is not appropriate in question time.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did the Prime Minister ask Andrew Bayly whether he was consuming alcohol between the first, second, and third interactions with the worker who made the complaint?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I went through the account with Andrew Bayly on Friday morning. I have assurances from the Minister there was no alcohol consumed before the first interaction. He came into the House—as you know—yesterday and confirmed that there was alcohol consumed after the second interaction.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to crack down on organised crime. It was absolutely outstanding news yesterday to see police deal a major blow—another major blow—to gang operations, this time in Ōpōtiki yesterday, with search warrants executed across the North Island. Police, as always, did an outstanding job and I want to thank them for their efforts. Twenty-eight individuals were arrested and six firearms were seized, and—more good news—later that afternoon, the gang disruption unit that was just recently stood up in the Bay of Plenty continued to target and to harass gang operations. Next month, police will get more powers to target organised crime as our gang laws take effect, ensuring we have the tools we need to combat violent crime and restore law and order.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister think that young people should be taken seriously when they say that they are not getting access to food or fresh air?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, with respect to the issue yesterday, there will be a full review. What was important is that it was safely resolved, and all 13 individuals came down off the roof.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Prime Minister, tell the House why young people at the Korowai Manaaki facility were protesting on the roof of that facility this week.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There will be a full review in due course to understand the motivation.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Prime Minister directly spoken to, or spoken to anybody who has spoken directly to, the young people who were protesting on the roof of that facility this week?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yesterday morning, I had a 6.20 a.m. meeting with the acting CEO of Oranga Tamariki and also the Minister. I was very pleased to see it safely resolved, and now there’ll be a further conversation and a further review. But what I would say is that the Minister is working incredibly hard to implement Mike Bush’s nine focus areas: 40 key actions. And what’s been good to see is that while this has been disappointing—to have one roof incident this year, compared to the 15 that happened in 2023.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Was the Prime Minister aware when he made his joke about these young people not getting KFC that they were protesting about not getting access to food or fresh air?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, there’s no jokes about this; this is actually a very serious matter. When our most vulnerable and some of our most serious young offenders end up in a facility like that, it’s important that we look after them and protect them and protect the public, too.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister truly intend our country to be one that celebrates—as one of his Ministers did this week—the punishment of children?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, I’d just reject the characterisation of that question outright.

Question No. 4—Health

4. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcement has she made regarding funding for Hato Hone St John?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Today, the Minister for ACC and I announced that Hato Hone St John will receive over $21 million in additional funding this year to address the inflationary cost pressures. This increase follows a 32 percent increase over the last two years for emergency road ambulance service providers. Road ambulances provide critical services that New Zealanders rely on in an emergency, and this additional investment in a constrained fiscal environment demonstrates the importance of ensuring these services are adequately funded.

Tanya Unkovich: How much funding do Health New Zealand and ACC jointly provide to Hato Hone St John?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I’m advised that this $21 million increase now means that Health New Zealand and ACC will jointly provide nearly $357 million to Hato Hone St John this financial year. I’m pleased that this additional funding has meant that negotiations with Hato Hone St John’s unions have been settled. Any disruption to road ambulance services is unsettling for New Zealanders, and I know it wasn’t always easy, but settling the negotiations is a testament to the hard work put in on all sides of the negotiating table. The National - New Zealand First coalition agreement commits to meeting a greater portion of Hato Hone St John’s annual budget, and this increase is a step in the right direction.

Tanya Unkovich: Can she provide any other updates about emergency services?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Emergency services are integral to this Government’s priority of delivering better public services. It is critically important that every New Zealander knows that they can rely on highly skilled and compassionate professionals during an emergency. While I’m not able to provide any updates about funding negotiations for Wellington Free Ambulance as they are ongoing, I expect to soon make further announcements about additional investment into emergency air and road services.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that “Parties on this side of the House are backing the workers”; if so, how does the growing number of unemployed people reflect this?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do. I made that statement when announcing that personal income tax thresholds were rising for the first time in 14 years, letting workers keep up to $40 a fortnight more of their hard-earned income; I made that statement when announcing that the in-work tax credit, which supports low to middle income working families with children, was increasing by $50 a fortnight; and I made that statement when announcing that eligibility for the independent earner tax credit, which is for workers who don’t receive a benefit or Working for Families, was being extended from $48,000 a year to $70,000 a year of income, and parties opposite voted against it. To the second point, unemployment and inflation impact workers. The member’s party might have considered that when they led New Zealand into a cost of living crisis and a recession.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How do her tax cuts help the 143,000 unemployed people in New Zealand when they have no job?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The reason we are so fixated, on this side of the House, on better managing the economy is because we want to see New Zealanders and their families in good-paying jobs, receiving good quality Government services, and what the last Government conclusively proved over six years of economic mismanagement is that just spraying the money hose around does not deliver that. What it actually caused was pain, rising inflation, rising interest rates, and a recession at the end, which of course, in due course, means that unemployment rises. We regret the situation we have inherited, but we’re fixing it up.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does her hundreds of millions of dollars of tax breaks for a tobacco company help the thousands of care and support workers who are waiting for pay equity?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the characterisation in the first part of that question.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does cutting back programmes like Apprenticeship Boost help retrain or get people into work?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Oh, the cheek of it! This is the party that short-changed funding for Apprenticeship Boost by creating a fiscal cliff—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has taken swipes on—this is the third question she’s taken a swipe at. She referred to a “money hose” before, and she’s having—and you’ve established well in this House that it’s not appropriate to use a question which is a straight question, albeit from the Opposition, to attack the former Government’s administration.

SPEAKER: Well, it is a straight question, and I’ll accept that, but you then have supplementaries. If it was all based on what the Minister has said—parties on this side of the House are backing workers—that would be fine, but they’re not. They’re going beyond that and are putting out circumstances that are going to end up with a political-type response.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Well, speaking to the point of order, the question—

SPEAKER: Well, no, you weren’t—I wasn’t, actually. I was trying to give you a ruling, but if you go to a new point of order, that’s good.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Well, my point is simply that the question was simply about apprenticeships, and there was no material in there inviting any response about the previous Government’s administration.

SPEAKER: Well, by saying that the Government had cut the spending, it invites an explanation, and I think you can’t deny that. You can’t just expect that there’s no response to something like that. But I will watch it. The Hon Barbara Edmonds.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Can I have another go at the answer, because I was conveying some useful information and I got cut off by the point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, yes, but I’d also advise that using answers to attack a former Government is not appropriate in the Standing Orders, and so—

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, speaking to the point of order, I’m happy to give it a go—

SPEAKER: I’m not—I haven’t actually finished talking.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: OK, sorry. Well, I’m happy to give it a go—

SPEAKER: No, no, I still haven’t finished—

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —in another way.

SPEAKER: I still haven’t finished talking.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Sorry.

SPEAKER: So I’ll go back to what I said: using answers to attack a previous Government that is outside of the bounds of the question asked is not appropriate. So would the Minister like to continue with her answer.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: One of the areas we prioritised in the Budget this year was finding funding so that the Apprenticeship Boost scheme could be continued because we wanted to see that scheme continue, and the Budget that we were left with did not have funding for it to continue, so we prioritised funding for it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: If she stands by her statement that parties on this side of the House are backing the workers, why did she not front to the thousands of workers on Parliament’s forecourt today, who gathered to voice their opposition to her Public Service cuts and attacks on workers’ rights?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I disagree with many of the characterisations in that question. I am pleased that I engage regularly with the Public Service Association, that I fronted their conference recently, and that they engage regularly with the Public Service Commission, and I stand by the record of this Government and am happy to talk to any worker about how we are working hard every day to deliver for them. That is the whole point.

Question No. 6—Immigration

6. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcement has she made about supporting high-skilled migrants and their families?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): This morning, I announced that open work rights will return for partners of skilled migrants. From 2 December, partners of levels 1 to 3 accredited employer work visa holders who earn at least 80 percent of the median wage will now be able to work in any job in New Zealand with open work rights. These same rights will also be available for partners of work visa holders in levels 4 to 5 roles who are on a pathway to residence. This change supports the Government’s efforts to create a world-class immigration system which attracts and retains the skills and experience New Zealand needs to grow our economy.

Grant McCallum: Why did she make this change?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Since I’ve become the Minister, and, indeed, also while in Opposition, I received a lot of feedback about the hardship that the previous Government’s changes created for migrants and their families, including the heartbreaking stories about severe financial hardship and mental distress. One person wrote to me saying, “It is very difficult to sustain the family on one person’s income in New Zealand, and due to the conditions of my visa, I am unable to support the family financially, which is becoming very stressful, to a point whereby we are considering returning to our home country.” This is just one piece of correspondence that I have received from a number of people for whom the current settings have caused hardship and undue stress, and we’re putting it right.

Grant McCallum: What will this change mean?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: This change will provide much-needed support to migrant families by allowing partners of skilled workers to have the opportunities to be employed and make stronger connections in their communities. From December, these partners can now work for any employer and uptake any work without restrictions or unnecessary red tape. This change will ensure New Zealand is an attractive destination, and getting our work visa settings right is crucial as we rebuild the economy and get our country back on track.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has she received?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I have received overwhelmingly positive feedback—for example, “This is great news. The restrictive conditions imposed on partners of work visa holders have been tough to bear for many families since early last year. This news is going to be a huge relief for those partners who want to help contribute to the support of their family here in New Zealand but also have other responsibilities like childcare to juggle.” One wrote, “This is welcome news for many families.” This announcement today is just another step closer in getting our work visa settings right.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Acting Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that there is a “workforce crisis” in the health sector; if so, what is he doing to stop doctors being tied up in paperwork as Health New Zealand cuts administration and advisory staff?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Acting Minister of Health): Yes, because, on this side of the House, we acknowledge that there have been ongoing workforce issues. We remain committed to finding pragmatic solutions that will reduce the burden on doctors. An important step to achieve this was passing decision making on recruitment back out of Wellington to the regions. We know that the regions know their communities far better than Wellington ever could.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why has he repeatedly claimed that there is no hiring freeze in place at Health New Zealand when advice provided to him as early as April showed that there was a pause on all inflight recruitment?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: The commissioner has been very clear in his public comments: clinical front-line roles will not be cut or reduced; in fact, the intention is to strengthen them. The clinical front line, including for mental health and addiction services, is key to helping ensure faster and easier access to healthcare.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did he campaign on addressing New Zealand’s health workforce crisis, and then, after becoming Minister, proceed to halt the very recruitment that was alleviating that crisis?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Our Government has already made a record investment into health: $16.68 billion across the three Budgets. The Minister has directed the commissioner to take these appropriation steps to ensure that Health New Zealand returns to budget so that our record investment can be put to good use on the front line and the workforce.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How does he reconcile his stated intent to train a home-grown, culturally competent health workforce, with the experience of graduate nurses and midwives—many of whom are Māori—who are leaving for Australia as there aren’t enough jobs for them?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: This Government is committed to growing a culturally competent workforce, and I would point to the Minister for Mental Health, who has recently published his workforce plan for the mental health workforce, which talks about growing a representative workforce for New Zealand.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has he discussed the workforce crisis with the people who can alleviate it—nurses, midwives, doctors, and allied health staff—or did he just chat about it with Health New Zealand leaders over $32 canapés?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, that member might like to remind herself that they refused to use the words “workforce crisis”. In fact, it was this Minister who was the first to state a workforce crisis, and that’s why the Minister is working with the professional bodies to address the workforce crisis that the last Government left us with.

Question No. 8—Police

8. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Police: Does he agree with the Bay of Plenty district commander’s message to gangs yesterday that police “will find you and you will be held accountable for your destructive behaviour”, and, if so, why?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes. Yesterday, police dealt a significant blow to the Mongrel Mob Barbarians in Ōpōtiki, with the execution of over 30 search warrants across the North Island—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Any gang patches?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —as part of Operation Highwater. This resulted in 28 arrests, $800,000 worth of assets being restrained, and the seizure of firearms, drugs, and gang patches.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Ha, ha!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I want to thank every police officer involved for their outstanding work. Yesterday was a good day for Ōpōtiki.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister offer any explanation as to why Duncan Webb thinks that’s so hilariously funny?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not a reasonable question and not conducive for order.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Using a point of order to attack another member of the House is grossly disorderly—

SPEAKER: Yes, and I’ve just made that ruling. And I’m of a mind, actually, to curtail the question. But we’ll have—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

SPEAKER: Sorry, am I causing a bit of humour over there? I call Dana Kirkpatrick.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What harm do gangs cause in communities?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Last year, we saw the Mongrel Mob take over Ōpōtiki for days while law-abiding Kiwis couldn’t leave their homes. That is unacceptable, and I’m pleased to see police sending a clear message to that gang that it will not be tolerated. Despite being a quarter of 1 percent of the population, gangs cause 19 percent of all homicides, 25 percent of all kidnappings and abductions, and 30 percent of all drug supply offences.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Why, then, is it important to crack down hard on gangs?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Gangs peddle drugs, violence, and misery in their communities. I’ve been in Ōpōtiki and met with local iwi and hapū, the mayor and councillors, and senior gang leadership. The feedback was that they want change for their town. My hope is that with police dealing a significant blow to the Mongrel Mob in Ōpōtiki, the community can turn things around. The message is very clear: police will relentlessly pursue criminals who prey on communities. Operations like this are a chance for those communities to have the space to rebuild in a positive way.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What additional powers is the Government giving to police to go after gangs?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Operation Highwater came the day after Police stood up the gang disruption unit in the Bay of Plenty, an initiative that Police announced earlier this year and staffed out of the Government’s investment in 500 more police officers. From 21 November, the gang disruption units will be significantly powered up with the Government’s new tools to get rid of gang patches, disperse gang gatherings, and prevent known gang members consorting to commit crime.

Question No. 9—Workplace Relations and Safety

9. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she agree with the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions that “This is the most anti-worker government that we’ve seen in decades”; if not, why not?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): No, I don’t agree with that statement, because I believe, in fact, the most anti-worker Government we’ve seen in decades was the previous Government. It was the previous Government that ordered vaccine mandates for workers. Never before had we seen the rights of workers across the country be eroded so swiftly. Not only did this erode workers’ freedom of choice and bodily autonomy; so many people were forced out of their jobs because the Government refused to look at other options like rapid antigen tests. Rather than listen to those affected workers, the previous Government pushed them to the margins of society. The previous Government’s legislative overreach led to ostracism and division that has hugely impacted our civil society and has had a negative impact on the employment and earnings of Kiwi individuals. This Government is delivering for all workers, including the over 85 percent who are not union members.

Camilla Belich: Does she think that abolishing fair pay agreements, bringing back fire-at-will, ordering mass public sector lay-offs, and cutting back increases to the minimum wage is taking New Zealand workers forwards or backwards?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: We need a labour market that works for business, because when it works for business, it works for workers. We need to have business confidence built back, which we know crashed under the previous Government. When we have confidence of business, we will have more and better jobs for other Kiwis in our country.

Camilla Belich: How can she expect New Zealanders to believe this Government isn’t anti-worker when she has proposed removing basic rights and protections for workers by reclassifying employees as contractors and failing to save thousands of jobs in meatworks and constructions up and down the country?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: That’s not what we’ve done. I think it’s really important that what we have achieved under this Government and what we’re committed to do is what people were asking the previous Government to do: to look at the barrier between an employee and a contractor, and clarify it. The previous Government was asked by workers and businesses to do it and failed. We are actually committed to making life easier for workers and businesses to get on with what they do, rather than trying to wheedle their way through compliance.

Camilla Belich: Who should New Zealanders believe: the Minister, who says this Government is trying to make life easier for workers, or the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions president, Richard Wagstaff, who said that this Government has lodged an all-out assault on workers’ rights? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute—just a moment. Questions are heard in silence. Ask the question again.

Camilla Belich: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Who should New Zealanders believe: the Minister, who says this Government is making life easier for workers, or the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions president, Richard Wagstaff, who says that this Government has launched an all-out assault on workers’ rights?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: They should believe this Government, because we don’t represent just the less than 15 percent of New Zealanders who are labour union members; we represent all workers. We want businesses to have confidence to employ people in our country across a range of industries, from your supermarket worker to your seafood processor, and everyone in between. We care about having the cost of living decrease by getting our inflationary pressure under control so that more people have more of their own money in their own back pocket. We care about building that business confidence so that they have more money.

Hon Willie Jackson: Is the Minister aware of any reports of employers consuming alcohol at work and then telling workers they are losers and to eff off, and, if so, what advice would she give to workers who have been subjected to this type of abuse?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I see lots of reports all the time on various sectors of our economy. However, I would just suggest that I think it’s very important that we respect all workers in New Zealand. Everybody who gets up every day, who contributes to our economy every day, and is hard-working—you know, they have my backing.

Question No. 10—Police

10. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Minister of Police: Is he confident that bias and structural racism in the police force, as was found in the Understanding Policing Delivery report, has no influence on the conduct of police during raids in Māori communities, such as the raids in Ōpōtiki yesterday?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes. I totally reject the premise that there is systemic racism and bias in our police force. I want to again acknowledge the outstanding work done by our world-class police force in Ōpōtiki yesterday, giving Ōpōtiki the space to rebuild after years of dealing with the misery that gangs have inflicted on the community. I’ve been to Ōpōtiki several times and have met with local iwi and hapū, the mayor and councillors, and senior gang leadership. All of them expressed to me a strong desire for the town to take a different path than the one that it was on, and I hope that yesterday will be the circuit-breaker that Ōpōtiki needed.

Rawiri Waititi: Why was Te Whakatōhea iwi not consulted on the police raids that occurred yesterday in Ōpōtiki, despite the police informing Aotearoa during a media stand-up that iwi had been consulted? And I know this to be true because I was with iwi leadership yesterday in Christchurch.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’m not going to talk directly to police operations, but they do have operations security around the operations that they put together. But the one thing that I would say is that they are right; it is that police are constantly working with and consulting with local iwi and hapū.

Rawiri Waititi: If this Government’s objective is to crack down on gangs, why, then, were tamariki, kaumātua, and mothers breastfeeding babies subjected to the police raids yesterday in Ōpōtiki, and now are fearful that police actions are targeted, calculated, and planned to create an unsafe environment?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, we don’t want tamariki being in a gang environment. It’s not the police officers that choose to keep weapons and drugs in the houses; it’s those gang members that choose to do that, and we know that there’s been too much intergenerational harm related to gangs in this country. We should all be motivated to addressing that, and the police’s job is to crack down on the violence and the drugs and the misery that these gangs peddle in our communities.

Rawiri Waititi: How can Te Whakatōhea have confidence that the raid in Ōpōtiki yesterday was not premeditated to coincide with te hui ā-motu in Christchurch, when Te Whakatōhea leadership was in attendance?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’m sorry, but that’s starting to move into conspiracy theory territory. The reality of it is that I know that the member sought reassurance from the commissioner, and the commissioner gave him reassurance that that wasn’t the case. I have visited Ōpōtiki personally myself because I love Ōpōtiki. I think that it’s a beautiful provincial town in a beautiful part of the country. I don’t think it wants to be known as a gang town. I’ve met with local iwi leaders and they feel exactly the same way, and we’re all joined up, we’re all motivated, in making sure that Ōpōtiki becomes a safe community that isn’t known as a gang town and that can enjoy a strong reputation in our country.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that the greatest victims—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just—sorry, we’ll just wait till the whole House goes quiet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I ask the Minister, is it not a fact that the greatest victims of gang crimes are, in fact, Māori, and particularly in Ōpōtiki?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes. Unfortunately, Māori are grossly overrepresented in victimisations, being 60 percent more likely to experience violent crime and more than twice as likely to be highly victimised, and a lot of that sits inside the gangs. That’s why we should all be motivated to try and fix the intergenerational gang harm that impacts our young people and our children. We should be trying to fix that.

SPEAKER: Rawiri Waititi.

Rawiri Waititi: Oh, one more supplementary—I do? Sorry, I miscounted. Can the Minister explain how many women, children, and kaumātua were affected by the raid yesterday when your target is gang members?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I don’t have that number to hand, but the better question is this. It is how can we stop the people that are really responsible, and those are the ones that decide to have illegal firearms, commit violent offending, deal in methamphetamine, and, by the way, use the schools to peddle their drugs, as well? Those are the questions that we should be asking—how do we deal with that—and not pointing the finger at the police and blaming them for all these problems. The police are there to make sure that communities are safe, and they’ll continue to do their job. We’ve got a world-class police force that we should be proud of.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was clear—

SPEAKER: Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: —around the amount of tamariki, kaumātua, and women who were affected by the raid yesterday, and not talking about gang activity.

SPEAKER: Yes, but he’s answered that question once already this afternoon. The second point I’d make is that he, effectively, rejected the question that was asked, and that’s a reasonable thing for a Minister to do.

Question No. 11—Small Business and Manufacturing

11. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing: Does he stand by his answer to oral question No. 6 yesterday?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing): Yes, though I note for the avoidance of any confusion that I made a clarifying statement last night. I was asked: had I had any alcohol at the beer garden or the winery I visited that day? I took that to mean whether or not I had any alcohol prior to the incident that led to the complaint. However, for the avoidance of any doubt, after the incident and at the end of the day, I had a small wine-tasting.

Arena Williams: Had he had any alcohol before he talked with the worker on 3 October the first, second, third, or subsequent time?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I have repeated many times, and I will repeat it again in the House: I had not had any alcohol that day prior to the incident with the individual concerned.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was the precise question that was put to the Prime Minister, and, Mr Bayly, in answering that question—well, he didn’t answer the question, because the question was whether he had consumed alcohol prior to interactions on the first, second, third, or subsequent occasions, and in his response, he said “the incident”. Now, there are three incidents there at least, and so he should be very clear in his answer to a very clear and important question.

SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the Hon Andrew Bayly.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I will be clear again. I have made it clear previously, and I reconfirm in this House, that I had not had any alcohol on that day before any interactions with the individual concerned.

Arena Williams: So is he still saying he wasn’t drinking when he asked the worker to come for a drink?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: As I’ve said before, and I’ll repeat again: I had not had any alcohol prior to any interactions with the employee concerned.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a responsibility for a Minister to answer questions that are the subject of a complaint, but it stops there. What’s happening now is this prurient interest to try and find out whether at some time later—not relevant to the complaint itself—someone had a drink. Well, that’s his business and our private business, and we should not have that sort of abandonment of respect for personal responsibility in this House. That member can’t make out her case, but she’s making it by innuendo and inference without laying out one fact in front of the House, and she should be stopped from doing so.

SPEAKER: Well, that would be a fair comment if it weren’t for the fact that a Minister is a Minister at all times, and we’re only just following through on statements that have been made to the House, including the personal statement from the Minister. Is there another question from Arena Williams?

Arena Williams: Did he tell the Prime Minister he had been drinking on 3 October after question time yesterday, or did Christopher Luxon know he’d been fudging it in interviews?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I reject the assertion of the question, and I’m sure the Prime Minister will. But I can assure the House that the Prime Minister’s office was fully aware of all the sequence of events.

SPEAKER: This is not a court and there is not a prosecution here. There are reasonable questions, but they’ve got to be reasonable.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Anybody with legal training knows that you’d never ask a question on a matter like this unless you know the answer before you’ve asked the question. What you’ve got here is a fishing expedition at a great cost to the Minister’s privacy, and it’s not warranted any longer.

Hon Willie Jackson: You’re a Minister all the time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, you’re not.

SPEAKER: No, that is a fact: the Minister is a Minister because he has a Crown warrant all the time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, sorry, that’s a misunderstanding.

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With the greatest respect, sir, that is a misunderstanding. The reality is that people are entitled to a private life, and as long as it’s legal and as long as it’s above board, they have no reason at all to disclose it to this House, unless it’s part of the Standing Orders or the requirements with respect to finances and others. This is a blanket decision you’re making, and it’s wrong.

SPEAKER: No, it’s not a blanket decision I’m making—it’s not a blanket decision I’m making, at all. I agree with you that the questioning is getting to an interesting stage, but in this case, the incident, the incidents—whatever you want to call it—occurred while the Minister was on a ministerial visit, and I don’t think it’s fair to say that halfway through or partway through or towards the end of a ministerial visit, suddenly it becomes a private matter.

Arena Williams: Why are there discrepancies between what the Minister has told media in the House and what the Prime Minister has said today?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I’m not sure if there are any discrepancies. I’ve been clear about the drinking arrangements. Last night, I was absolutely crystal clear about the arrangement—that’s why I returned to the House. It wasn’t that my answer was wrong; I just wanted to make sure there was no element of people trying to construe this or misconstrue this or trying to use it for other purposes. That’s why I took the earliest opportunity to return to the House to make it clear that I had not been drinking prior to any of the interactions with the individual. But I did make it clear that at the end of the day, before I left to come home to Auckland, I had had a small wine-tasting.

Question No. 12—Environment

12. LAN PHAM (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does she stand by her comment in the committee of the whole House yesterday that “I made it very explicit that this Government wants to see improvements in fresh water over time and that our Resource Management Act work will be towards that”?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Yes, this Government is committed to improving the quality of fresh water for the benefit of all New Zealanders by ensuring a sustainable and balanced approach that works towards improving environmental outcomes for waterways. The Government’s view is that the current national policy statement for fresh water has become extremely complex and expensive to implement, and, despite that, it will not deliver the outcomes for fresh water that New Zealanders would expect. This is reflected in our objectives for our reform of the Resource Management Act system, including the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) that seeks to make it easier to get things done while safeguarding the environment and human health.

Lan Pham: Why does she expect freshwater quality to improve when she has cut funding to the freshwater improvement programme, she’s weakening or removing freshwater protections, and she’s removing the health of the water—Te Mana o te Wai—as the primary consideration in consenting decisions?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: A short pause has been called on the regional and unitary authorities in notification of their freshwater plans. The short pause is until this Government has developed the NPSFM so that the regional authorities can ensure that their plans take regard of the new NPSFM, and that is an appropriate and pragmatic and sensible thing for us to do to ensure that ratepayer money is not wasted and duplication of work does not happen. But I can assure the speaker that the good work that is going on with the various catchment groups, farmers, and other primary producers across the land, where they are fencing waterways, they are planting riparian plantings, they are improving their effluent disposal, and they are bringing about better farming practice, will continue.

Lan Pham: Is it the Minister’s view that councils, alongside communities, should not be allowed to have any ambition above the bottom-of-the-barrel baselines when setting environmental limits on freshwater pollution?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: It is my aspiration that councils and local communities will take regard of the national policy statement on fresh water when it is available to them so that they can be informed by that to ensure that their plans are workable and are not too complex and too complicated and too costly to bring about the improvements in fresh water that we all desire. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I just remind the House that questions are heard in silence.

Lan Pham: How can the Minister expect to see freshwater improvements when she is removing the ability of all democratically elected regional councils to exercise their functions to improve freshwater outcomes until the end of 2025?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: A short pause for a matter of months and a maximum of up to one year will not stop the many aspects of good work that are carrying on across the country. Unlike the Opposition, we do not think that writing something in a plan makes things happen. We understand that working collaboratively with the people on the ground—the catchment groups, the farmers, the primary producers on the ground—who do the work is the way to get things done.

Lan Pham: Is she saying, after a five-year process of Otago Regional Council updating their 20year-old plan with involvement from thousands of people, public meetings, partnership with mana whenua, and a wide variety of rural urban industry groups working towards freshwater improvement, that, actually, the Government knows better?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Again, this is a short pause to ensure that the Otago Regional Council’s freshwater plan aligns with the new NPSFM that will be in place by next year and to ensure that ratepayers’ money is not wasted, and it is deeply regrettable that the Otago Regional Council had to spend $18 million to try and interpret and meet the unworkable regulations and standards the previous Government put in place.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. We’ll take a short break to allow members to leave the House before we move to miscellaneous business.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, hang on. Let me do things right. We’ve got some very pedantic members in the House who call me on all these things, so I’ll do it absolutely right. Would some honourable member care to move that the House take note of miscellaneous business?

General Debate

General Debate

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

This week, Ayesha Verrall sent out a press release saying that she had sent a letter to the Auditor-General with a slew of accusations about New Zealand First and, in particular, the decisions of one of my Ministers. The letter and press release are not only riddled with false claims and blatant mistruths; it is totally political in nature and a ham-fisted attempt at a political hit job.

Verrall and her certain fellow travellers in the media have been trying for almost a year to investigate, question, interrogate, and publicly accuse, and make Official Information Act requests on any spurious accusations they can throw around, with nothing to show for it at all. That’s why the Auditor-General’s complaint wasn’t sent to the Minister, but, instead, first to a journalist, before the Minister even knew about it. That is what is rotten in this borough. The continual, deliberately misleading, and false smears Verrall uses—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who wrote this rubbish?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —I’m able to write my own speeches, unlike that idiot—have now culminated in a complaint to the Auditor-General that reeks of desperation and failure. Let’s point out some facts that Verrall conveniently forgets to mention which prove her statements to be totally baseless, illogical, and untrue.

She knows this, of course, but refuses to address them, but $216 million is only a contingency figure for excise calculated by Treasury. It is not a tax break; it is a gross overestimation, with no merit or basis. The 2023 excise for that product was $6 million. The $216 million figure was derived from comparing New Zealand with the likes of Japan, where nicotine-containing vapes are not available as an alternative to heated tobacco products (HTPs). It’s that simple.

She knows, of course, that the reduction in excise on HTPs is only for 12 months. It is temporary, to assess if it is effective in getting people off cigarettes and achieving the Smokefree 2025 target. Is she still going to make those spurious allegations when the levy goes back up when we increase it next year? No. Do you know why? Because it doesn’t make one iota of sense.

She continues to say that there was a tax break for Philip Morris. Fact: in December last year, the Minister increased the tax on tobacco. Fact: Philip Morris cannot sell their product due to new regulations being introduced. How can they benefit if they can’t sell the product Verrall is suggesting they would benefit from? This person is not even logical.

She continues to state that there’s no evidence. She says there’s no evidence or research that indicates HTPs are less harmful than smoking cigarettes. Well, on Wednesday, 2 October, on TVNZ’s Breakfast, Professor Shahab, a health psychologist from University College in London, was interviewed and he said the opposite. He said, “You do not see reductions compared with those using smoked tobacco. I would like to stress, of course, that our study that we undertook does show reductions in harmful substances for people who use HTPs.” There’s an expert, compared to this person who came here and made a mess of the health portfolio the whole time she was here. I wonder what the law is around misleading the Auditor-General.

In 2018, a study was published by Public Health England titled Evidence review of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products. What does that London study say? “Compared with cigarettes, heated tobacco products are likely to expose users and bystanders to lower levels of particulate matter and harmful and potentially harmful compounds.” It goes on to say that the available evidence suggests that HTPs may be considerably less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, but they’re more harmful than electronic cigarettes.

That’s what their independent finding said, and the American Food and Drug Administration stated—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What about the Cochrane review?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —all this can be found on Google, if she did any work at all—that the heated system heats tobacco and does not burn it. It goes on to say that it removes the exposure to 15 specific harmful products. I wonder what the law is when you’re misleading the Auditor-General.

What she doesn’t mention, of course, is that at no time has it been claimed by the Minister that HTPs are totally safe, nor that they are safer than vaping; just that they’re less harmful than smoking. Why is Verrall against having a 12-month trial to see if it gets people off harmful smoking?

Our aim is to make harmful products more appealing to current cigarette smokers—that’s why it’s a temporary trial. But in the last few days, it’s come to my attention that a close relative of Ayesha Verrall has been involved with, attending meetings, and has had access to papers and has been advising the Minister on this very topic over the past year, without declaring any conflict of interest. That is what’s rotten in this borough, and we are only just getting started, Minister. We are not going to leave off now. You’re not going to get away with that sort of behaviour anywhere outside this House.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s so lovely of the office—[Applause] Thank you. Thank you, it’s very nice the hear the—

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, point of order. Sorry, I didn’t hear that.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, what!

SPEAKER: Too much noise from his own colleagues.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, can we have a ruling from you, please, over the—

SPEAKER: Can you start again, sorry.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. With regards to the Deputy Prime Minister having read a whole speech, given the position that Shane Jones took where he said that “No member in this House”—and he made it very clear—“should be reading anything, and if they’re incapable of doing a five-minute speech, they shouldn’t be in the House.”, what is now the current position, because the Deputy Prime Minister went word for word on his researcher’s speech.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I didn’t.

Hon Willie Jackson: Yes, you did. What’s the position, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Well, the member might want to make the assertion that the Minister was reading it word for word. The reality is that members are allowed to refer to notes all the way through it, and if we stopped that, then the House would be a very, very quiet place indeed.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought all of that cheering from the other side was for me, but apparently not. Thank you very much.

Look, I want to talk a bit about defence to the House, because we’ve had a little bit of trouble, and I want you to know that the Manawanui, when it sank on 6 October off the coast of Upolu—I really want to thank the House for not trying to politicise what was a really difficult time for our Defence Force. I’m really proud of the fact that the captain and the crew got off the ship in really difficult and trying circumstances at a time when we could have expected to have had people coming home in body bags. I’ve got to say that I thought they did a great job of getting people off safely, and a big thankyou to my colleague and friend the Hon Chris Penk for standing in for me last week on this matter.

I can tell the House, too, happily, that the three containers have now been removed. They are sorted in that way and, obviously, work is ongoing in relation to the condition of the fuel tanks on board and the submerged ship with a view to removing that fuel as soon as that is practical. Of course, the Defence Force is working really well with the public of Samoa, the Government of Samoa, and with the insurers to help make all that happen.

Last week, I was at NATO in Brussels, and it was a very simple message from my attendance there as the first time that the IP4—which is the Indo-Pacific Four—defence Ministers were invited to the NATO defence Ministers meeting, and that’s New Zealand, Australia, South Korea, and Japan. The real big message is that what happens in Europe matters here, and what happens here or in the Indo-Pacific region matters in NATO—that’s really clear.

For the first time, we’ve been invited, and people understand that everything is changing. We do not live in a benign strategic environment; I think that history will show us that we never really did. What we were—we were, at a time, post the falling of the Berlin Wall and people hoped that things would be fine and everyone would get along, do some trading, and get along with their business. But what is happening is that, of course, we’ve also had the South Pacific Defence Ministers’ Meeting—which I hosted just before that—and what was clear from the South Pacific defence Ministers is that they were concerned not only about Europe but they were also very concerned, in particular, about the Indo-Pacific region.

We know about the issues around the Taiwan Strait; we know about the issues around the South China Sea; and we know as well that two days before that meeting, China launched an intercontinental ballistic missile that ended up in the nuclear-free zone of the South Pacific. That is for the first time in 44 years. Things are changing. We know now that the North Koreans are sending 1,500 troops to help Russia against Ukraine. We know that things are changing, and it is really important that we keep doing our bit that we can, to work on making sure that not only are we in a safe position, but also our neighbours are, as well.

We’re very fortunate because we have great intelligence that comes through the Five Eyes system, which we’ve been party to for over 70 years. If we did not have that, we would not have the sort of information that helps keep us safe, particularly around cyber-attacks.

Before I went to Brussels, I was in Singapore at an Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) cyber Ministers’ meeting. The amounts of tax, the amounts of activity from various actors—State actors, criminal gangs, and individuals are attacking all around the world. In New Zealand, thankfully, we have a very good system, but even we are not immune to those sorts of attacks.

What I will say to the House is that it is a really challenging time. I mean, I grew up in the Cold War, and this is scarier than that—it’s that bad—but the good thing is that people are talking together, working together, and diplomacy is still ongoing. Churchill had this saying that “jaw-jaw is better than war-war”, and I think the more that we can do that, the better. We also need to be very aware that we cannot keep our heads in the sand. We do have to be aware that we are part of the world, and if that intercontinental ballistic missile said anything, it told us, and me, that we are well within its sights should that ever happen, and, hopefully, it never will.

We do need to stand up for freedom. We do need to stand up for Ukraine. We do need to stand up for democracy. We do need to stand with countries that share our values, where people can vote and where they can say whatever they think.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): In the last few weeks, New Zealanders have got real insight into what this Government actually thinks about working New Zealanders. They think it’s OK for a Government Minister to enter somebody’s workplace to mock them in front of their employer, to call them a loser, and to harass them when they will not agree to go drinking with that Government Minister. Not only does the Government think that that’s OK, they’re not even willing to investigate properly what happened. The Prime Minister is unable to answer basic questions about what happened, why it happened, and why the Government thought that it was funny.

Andrew Bayly’s first line of defence was that calling someone a loser and harassing them in their workplace was an attempt at humour. I don’t know any workplace in the country where that would be seen as an acceptable form of humour in 2024. Only members on the other side of the House seem to think that that is in any way an acceptable excuse. The Prime Minister, first of all, didn’t bother to inquire about why he wasn’t told about the complaint existing in the first place. That should have been major red flag number one. When Andrew Bayly received a complaint about his conduct, the fact that he did not have sufficient respect for the Prime Minister to tell the Prime Minister that it has happened says everything about Christopher Luxon’s leadership.

The second red flag was that it took the complainant to email it widely across the House before the Government were willing to take it seriously. Andrew Bayly still had not apologised to the worker concerned directly at that point. It was only when he realised other people were finding out about it that he thought fit to apologise to the worker that he had mocked and harassed in their workplace.

The third red flag should have come at that point to the Prime Minister when he didn’t sit Andrew Bayly down and ask him, “What exactly were you thinking?” Why in any workplace did Andrew Bayly think it was OK to mock someone, call them a loser, tell them to eff off and go home, and then harass them for not being willing to go drinking?

The fourth red flag: the question the Prime Minister never asked Andrew Bayly was, having humiliated this poor person, why did he go back and do it two more times? Andrew Bayly must have known that his harassment of this person in the workplace was unwelcome, and yet he went back and did it two more times. Why did the Prime Minister not ask Andrew Bayly any questions about that?

Then we had the situation today of Andrew Bayly and the Prime Minister saying contradictory things. We had the Prime Minister saying that Andrew Bayly was drinking between his interactions with the worker, and Andrew Bayly saying that that never happened. Is it that the Prime Minister doesn’t believe Andrew Bayly, is it that the Prime Minister never asked him and made it up on the spot, or is it that someone isn’t actually being upfront with the House? They can’t both be correct. The Prime Minister and Andrew Bayly have said contradictory things. One of them will have to be in the House correcting their answer. Is it that the Prime Minister was wrong in that Andrew Bayly wasn’t drinking between his interactions with the worker, as the Prime Minister said he was? Or was it that Andrew Bayly was wrong in that he wasn’t drinking between his interactions with the worker?

The next question which was never answered was: how long was there between those interactions? Was it a significant period of time? Because you can consume quite a lot of alcohol in that time. How long was it between those interactions? Is this a matter of minutes or is it a matter of hours? I think the Prime Minister needs to ask Andrew Bayly a lot more questions. I think him brushing this off and saying, “Oh, well, he said sorry so that’s the end of the matter.” isn’t good enough. This is not conduct becoming of a Government Minister. If this Government had any standards at all, Andrew Bayly would not be a Minister.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought I would talk a bit about the Otago Regional Council because there’s been a lot of very dramatic and misleading rhetoric from the Opposition on the Otago Regional Council.

This Government signalled to regional councils and unitary authorities very clearly at the beginning of this year that the Government was replacing the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) and that the time frame for regional councils and unitary authorities to notify their freshwater plans would be extended out until the end of 2027. More recently, yesterday, we provided some certainty to regional councils by pausing the ability for them to notify their plans until either the new NPSFM has been developed or the end of 2025, whichever comes sooner—a short pause of a matter of months or possibly up to a year. At the same time, during that restricted period, there would be an exemption pathway for targeted plan changes within that period.

This pause is a very sensible and pragmatic thing to reduce duplication of work by the councils, to reduce cost to ratepayers, and to ensure that councils are not notifying a plan which would almost immediately need to be amended to align with a newly developed freshwater statement. It’s appalling—absolutely appalling—that the previous Government’s National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management was so complicated, was so unworkable, so costly, so complex, and so overburdening that it cost $18 million of Otago Regional Council’s ratepayers’ money to develop their freshwater plan—and this simply cannot continue. The national direction on freshwater must be more simple; must be clearer, less complex, less costly, and easier to implement, and able to genuinely lead to freshwater improvements that we all want. People react to council rate increases, but councils have been trying to manage their responsibility to the costly direction from the previous Government.

The degradation that has occurred for some of our waterways has happened over decades, and we simply cannot expect that this can be undone overnight. There is critical work that has to occur, but those changes will come about by the people on the front line that are doing the fencing, the planting, the innovation in their effluent disposal, and the different practices in their farming. It happens because people on the ground do the work, not because a Government writes something down.

Farmers, growers, and others in the primary sector are absolutely keenly aware of the improvements that are needed in our fresh water, and they are actively working towards these improvements. That is why this Government will work with them and not vilify them in a way that members of the Opposition have done. It is appalling to have seen hard-working people in our primary sector being vilified by the Opposition when they work to bring about these improvements.

Unlike the Opposition, we understand that a balanced approach which enables both economic growth and mitigation of the impacts on the environment is necessary because, quite simply, a country that is broke cannot bring about those changes.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’ve got to say it’s been a long, hard winter for New Zealand with inflation, which has driven interest rates and left people struggling to make ends meet at the end of the week. We understand that, because we’ve watched since the previous Government kicked off a cost of living crisis three years ago, but with the Consumers Price Index, or inflation, down to 2.2 percent for the last quarter and with rates coming down to 4.75 at the Reserve Bank and more significant cuts forecast to take pressure off people’s mortgages, we can truly say that at this time of year, the days are getting longer, the sun is getting brighter in the sky, and some hope is finally returning to New Zealand.

I’m proud to stand here, leading the ACT Party as part of this coalition Government, which is working hard every day for New Zealanders. We are saving money and doing more with less, just as our predecessors in the Government did less with more. We are improving the services that people receive so they get better education, they’re more likely to attend, and they’re safer on the streets, and we’re being accountable for what happens in ways that are totally foreign to New Zealanders, had they only watched the previous Government for the last three years.

Let me count the ways and give members some tangible examples. Yesterday, I was thrilled to attend a launch and a celebration of a new initiative—in fact, a new kind of initiative—where Kiwi businesses; our Government department, in the form of the Ministry of Education; and civil society, in the likes of KidsCan and the Heart Foundation, have come together and cooperated to deliver the healthy school lunch programme at half the price and, I’ve got to say—having sampled some of the goods—with better quality than was previously delivered. And the indignance of the left—the whinging, the moaning, and the criticism. The indignance: “It couldn’t possibly be true.” But it is true, and it’s a tribute to the way that those groups of New Zealanders came together and worked to get a better result.

I watched Karen Chhour show real accountability. Last year, there were 15 incidents in 2023 where kids got up on the roof at Oranga Tamariki facilities. Karen rolled up her sleeves and started also strengthening the buildings and improving the culture at those facilities. This year, there’s been one such incident, and, as the Minister, she was up there on the first flight yesterday, on site, and making sure the situation was dealt with, and they were down before lunchtime. Not to have KFC for lunch, I might add, Mr Speaker—he’s smiling at that and he knows that, actually, we have a new style of Government of accountability and a new broom in town.

I watched Brooke van Velden announce a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Internal Affairs, for which she’s responsible; and the Teachers Council to share information and identify any person that is a risk to children around sexual offences faster than they would have been under the previous Government. It’s simple stuff; some would say a minor detail, but absolutely critical for the safety of children, particularly in the wake of the royal commission of inquiry’s shocking findings—doing the business in little and large ways, every day.

I’ve watched Nicole McKee deliver on three strikes. People criticise the way it was introduced to Parliament, so this Government did something. We listened and we toughened it up, and we say to the people who want to commit three serious or violent sexual offences—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Listened to who?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Duncan Webb said, “Listened to who?” The victims of the crime, Duncan—the people your Government should have been listening to for the last five years, but didn’t, as we saw offences rise endlessly. Now we can say to those serious sexual and violent offenders, “Your previous strikes will count under the new law.”, and the Duncan Webbs of the world will say, “Oh, there will be more people in jail.” Yes, Duncan—that’s the point. We want them in there, so the rest of us law-abiding New Zealanders are safe out here.

I watched Andrew Hoggard, one of the true farmers of this Parliament—one of the few true farmers of this Parliament—announce that significant natural areas, those violations of farmers’ property rights, are having the pause button pushed, and then they too will be gone. Just like those kids, down from the roof.

Who could forget Mark Cameron chairing the Primary Production Committee, ensuring that banks and the regulators of banks are held accountable for the costs that they put on farmers?

All of these initiatives are held together by that simple idea that no matter who you are or who your ancestors were, you have a right to make a difference in your own life and the lives of those you care about in this great country. Thank God for the ACT Party.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): What a shocking and disgusting act to follow. This Government and the so-called Minister for Children, who wants to—even more—punish some of the most vulnerable rangatahi in our country and then wants to make jokes about them getting up on the roof because they weren’t being fed. [Hon David Seymour leaves Chamber] Yep, off you go. The reason that those children were up on the roof—go and read the Children’s Commissioner’s report.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I think I know what the point of order is, but go ahead, please.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker, it puts a member in real difficulty when they leave the Chamber and somebody refers to their absence as they’re leaving and says, “Oh, off you go.” Some members with less rectitude than the ones I know might actually react to that, and that creates disorder in the House. I ask that you request that comment be withdrawn.

SPEAKER: I did actually hear that. I thought at the time, “Do I break this up or not call attention to it?”, because it is extremely disorderly to do that, as it would be to point out members who aren’t here. I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise for that remark.

TAMATHA PAUL: Sure thing, Mr Speaker. I withdraw that comment.

SPEAKER: And apologise.

TAMATHA PAUL: And apologise for that comment.

SPEAKER: Carry on.

TAMATHA PAUL: As we’ll continue back to the real issue: on the children who were up on the roof and we have people making jokes about giving them KFC, when the reason they were up on that roof was because they weren’t being fed. This is the same youth justice residence that was inspected by the Children’s Commissioner, who found inappropriate and deeply troubling conduct from the people who work in that youth justice residence. Rather than saying to those young people, “What happened? What’s going wrong? What are you facing in here?”—because Korowai Manaaki has a track record for the way that they treat children—and rather than asking them, “Why are you up on the roof? What are your needs? How are you being let down by this residence?”, instead of that, they’re being charged—they’re being charged—and now they are even more likely to spend a lifetime in our criminal justice system.

This is what people have been raising over and over again: why are politicians trying to win votes and win political point-scoring over the real, serious needs of children? We are talking about children. I think that we get into a really dangerous place when the decision-making people in this country and politicians in this room put votes before the needs of children. We know what happens when their rights are put to the side: they get abused. Two-hundred-thousand children abused in State care, and then we’re going to stand up next month and we’re going to say to them, “Sorry. Sorry about the abuse that you endured, but we’re still going to press forward with our broken justice system. We’re still going to push forward with our failed military boot camp experiment.” It’s just disgusting.

I want us to know who exactly are in those youth justice residences: 80 percent of the young people in child prisons have a mental health disability. More than 70 percent of the young people who are in the youth justice residence in Christchurch have had one serious traumatic brain injury in their lifetime, and that’s because the children who are locked in these child prisons are some of the most vulnerable young people in our country who have had nothing in their lives except abuse, intergenerational trauma, and poverty. I’m not trying to make excuses for the behaviour, but I want us to grow up in this House and I want us to actually address the causes of why those young people have let them down, and for us to not merely contribute even further to the trauma and the hardship that is all they have ever known in their lifetime.

I’m concerned about where we’re moving in the youth justice space. We just passed a law last month that says that now we can mix adult and youth prison populations. Even the remand rules and the fact that young people spend all this time on remand in these child prisons and it doesn’t get taken off their sentence like it does with an adult—we have a real problem. I’m going to extend an olive branch here and say I would love to be part of a cross-party working group on youth justice. I want to work with all the parties in this House to find another way to deal with youth justice, because I know that a lot of people care about it in this House, but I want to see some commitment.

I want to put the Minister for Children on notice that she needs to put the needs of children above this disgusting rhetoric about being tough on crime, because it doesn’t work; it creates more child victims. This Government will be accountable next month when they make the apology to the ways that they continue to repeat history—failed history. Boot camps: failure. Three-strikes law: failure. What other experiments are you going to resurrect and subject our kids to?

Hon Judith Collins: The Speaker’s not going to do it.

TAMATHA PAUL: You—sorry; the Minister will be held to account. Close down the youth justice residences and end the failed experiment of boot camps.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak as the member of Parliament for Southland, and I should say that, as the member of Parliament for Southland, a good part of my electorate includes Otago—in fact, over 60 percent of my population lives in Otago. I am very pleased to see this Government working hard to improve the Resource Management Act, which affects all parts of my region a lot, and the country as a whole.

Just speaking first to the points that have been made by some people who, I think, don’t understand the system maybe as well as they should, they’re trying to say that the Government, yesterday, by putting forward an Amendment Paper which made it clear to the councils that they had to delay publicly notifying their freshwater planning instruments until the Government had completed its work on a reform of the freshwater management policy, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management—some commentators have been trying to say this was anti-democratic for local government. That, frankly, is misunderstanding, at best, the system of government. The National Government—the central government—sets statute, sets the regulations; it sets the national policy statements that the regional councils then implement and put into force, in consultation with their communities.

Now, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management that was brought in by the Labour Government in 2020 is going to change. This Government has made that very clear. To require regional councils to continue to work on implementing a national policy statement that is going to change is, frankly, not helpful to ratepayers and not helpful to residents of our regions and is in fact wasting the time of those councils, wasting the time of those who will be submitting on those plans, and wasting ratepayers’ money.

This Government is making it very clear in law that councils must not, cannot publicly notify those plans until the Government has changed the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, which it is currently working on doing. This provides certainty to regional councils, it provides certainty to farmers, it provides certainty to ratepayers, it provides certainty to everyone in our regions. The work that has been done by regional councils on this will, no doubt, be helpful when the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management—the new one—is available and the councils can go to work on it. It would be, frankly, irresponsible to continue to work on these until the new freshwater management policy is available.

There are some other important things that have been included in the legislation that is going to be voted on very shortly and will become law for the first tranche of some of these amendments to the management of freshwater, which is excluding the hierarchy of obligations contained in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 for resource consenting requirements. That’s while this review of the national policy statement is being done. That’s important because we need to make sure we get a sustainable and balanced approach to water management. We need to ensure that we can ensure that our farmers—and we have very engaged farmers and landowners who are continuing to work on environmental measures in very challenging economic conditions.

I also want to acknowledge this is notwithstanding the incredibly challenging spring that we’ve just had in Otago and Southland, which has seen farms underwater as well as many others and roads affected. It has seen mental health, frankly, challenged significantly, as everyone’s trying to ensure the safety of their stock and people and look after the land, etc. It’s actually been a very, very difficult time, and I’m very pleased to be part of a Government that has provided certainty to everyone in our regions, including the regional councils and their councillors and their staff, that they can focus on the work that they need to and not waste time—precious time and precious money—and create further uncertainty when the Government is going to be providing that clarity in the future on these freshwater planning standards.

So, with that, I would say let’s make sure this debate is one that actually understands how the process works, and let’s focus on the needs of the people in our region. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It seems that there’s just been an invitation for people to actually understand what the process means, and we’ve heard from the Minister for the Environment, before, that there have been some misleading statements. I’m going to take those two comments personally because, in the past 24 hours, I’ve been spending a lot of time on this issue and for the past, I don’t know, 25 years or so, I’ve spent a lot of time on the Resource Management Act, and I think I understand what is happening here, Mr Mooney. What is happening is a disgrace. What is happening is a promise from your Government—

Joseph Mooney: It would be a disgrace to keep it going.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: The disgrace is that this new Government, led by National, wants more pollution. That’s all it can possibly want—

Carl Bates: Stop scaremongering!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —because—oh, now I’m being told that I’m fearmongering—I’m fearmongering! I’m not fearmongering. What is fearmongering is saying that the Otago Regional Council’s plan that they were going to notify today; that they were going to vote on to notify today; to notify on 31 October, in a few days’ time, was somehow going to cause huge problems that were going to need to be changed by a Government that wants more pollution. That is the fearmongering.

That council has spent $18 million and taken five years to work on this plan, to work with the community, to work with mana whenua, and what are you doing? Oh, you’re pausing it—the Government is pausing it. For what? What is the fear that this plan will do something so terrible that the Government’s future—future—policy statement for fresh water will somehow make all of that work be useless, go out of the window? It would only be the case if there is a radical change to those regulations that are there to protect our waterways, that are there to stop the pollution. That is all that you appear to be saying.

Now, we’ve also heard—I wanted to talk about three things: one is the South, one is the terrible processes that this Government keeps continuing with, and the third is what seems to be a hatred for councils that we’ve seen—

Sam Uffindell: What an inspiring vision.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —on ample display this week. Oh, and Mr Uffindell says that’s an inspiring version of events, that his Government hates councils.

Sam Uffindell: An inspiring vision.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Well, this is the vision of the National Government. Now, what we have seen is an amendment dropped into the House yesterday, around lunchtime, that said “the Otago Regional Council that is meeting tomorrow”—being now today—“can not notify its plans.” But, of course, that amendment and that bill has not yet had its third reading and it has not yet been signed off by the Governor-General. There is no Royal assent, so of course it is not law at the moment, today, on 23 October when the regional council was going to meet. Of course, there is, in the Amendment Paper, a retrospective clause to say that, despite the Act commencing when it gets Royal assent, it will be retrospective until yesterday, 22 October.

Retrospective clauses should only be used in really rare circumstances where there is a very strong justification for doing so, and all that I can see in terms of justification here is the Government saying, “We don’t want you, democratically elected regional council, to notify your plan in accordance with the existing laws, because we’re going to change the rules at some point, and the only reason we wouldn’t want you to continue with it is because we want more pollution.”

That is the only logical conclusion to what this Government is doing: they want more pollution and they want more pollution in the South. They don’t want a tertiary hospital in the South. No, no, no, they want more pollution; they want to waste the $18 million of taxpayers’ money; they want to put up rates, with all that they have done, to decrease localisation.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call in this debate this afternoon and remind the House—remind the House—that there is a new team in town. We are a year since the election, and there seem to be some members of this House that haven’t realised that there is a new team in town, that there is a new vision for New Zealand, and that there is a Government that is getting out and getting things done. I know that members, like our member for Upper Harbour and the constituents there, know that there is a new kid on the block. It is legislation, like the legislation we’ve been referring to this afternoon, to make sure that regional councils around this country know that there is a new Government, with a new vision, that is going to get things done.

As I meet with farmers across this country, as I go with my colleagues to field days, to—

James Meager: Ashburton show.

CARL BATES: —Ashburton show—I wasn’t at the Ashburton show, but to shows across the country. As we get out and about, farmers are telling us that regional councils haven’t got the message. Sometimes, you have to make it very clear that the message is going to get through, and that is what the Government is doing this week. We make no apology for that, because it is a year since the election and it is time that everyone across the country got on board with a vision that is designed to ensure we get New Zealand back on track. And that is exactly what we’ve been doing. Surprise, surprise—it’s called achievement; something that New Zealand had missed for the six years of the failed Labour Government.

In 2022, we had inflation at 7 percent—shameful. In June, inflation was at 3.3 percent. Last week, we achieved getting inflation down to 2.2 percent. The era of crushing prices is over. People are telling me in Whanganui that they are pleased to see that we are delivering, that we are getting New Zealand back on track.

Earlier in the year, I had the privilege of hosting Minister Willis in Whanganui on a wonderful Saturday morning. Down by one of the coffee stalls, we stood and we chatted to a variety of people as they came past, as they came to get their coffee and have a chat with an available Minister of Finance who was fronting up to have a conversation with constituents in Whanganui. We spoke to a mum who was pleased to see that we were delivering on our promise of FamilyBoost, and who shared the story of how that would affect her and her family—to get more money in their pockets. We chatted to tradies who are looking forward to the tax relief that they were going to get under this Government. And we spoke to farmers that were thankful that they had a Government that was backing them.

Even with this reduction in inflation that’s been achieved, we did need to support New Zealanders, following six tough years, by delivering things like the tax relief we delivered on 31 July, and FamilyBoost, as I said, to ensure that we could put money into the pockets of families that needed it. Up to $150 a fortnight for households earning up to $140,000 a year. I wrote to all early childhood centres in my electorate to ensure that they knew exactly how them and the families in those centres could apply for that tax relief.

I just want to say to anyone watching today that hasn’t been able to get the answer from their local MP—because they might not have a local MP on this side of the House that’s working hard to ensure these messages about tax relief and FamilyBoost are getting out there—if you aren’t clear on how to apply for your FamilyBoost, give your local MP a call or give one of us a call. I’m sure we’re happy to help—anyone on this side of the House—to ensure that that FamilyBoost relief gets into your pocket, because, from 1 October, you’ve had the opportunity to apply, to put in those receipts, to put in those invoices that you’ve paid for your early childhood care—

SPEAKER: Yeah, I don’t think I’ll be applying, but thank you.

CARL BATES: —and get that relief. Fair enough, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I really appreciate having the call today because I want to point out something that’s really concerning to me about the behaviour of one of the other Ministers in the Government, and that’s Nicole McKee. She has recently—on Sunday, I think it was—made an announcement about the three-strikes legislation and changes that she wants to see to that bill, which is currently before the House and, in fact, currently before the Justice Committee.

In that press release of 22 October, in fact, she gave the reasons for the changes, and she said, “We agree with submitters that the threshold was set too high.” Now, the fact of the matter is that the submissions before the select committee, which have been tabled and released, are overwhelmingly against the bill, so it’s not accurate to say that the Minister agrees with the submitters as if some revelation has come from those submissions.

That’s a real concern, because the Prime Minister went on Radio New Zealand and was asked, in terms of what’s happened here, “Why are you making these changes, Minister?”, and he said, “Parliament and the people are working together, and we’ve got a good outcome.” He was then asked whether, in fact, this was done because of emails that had gone to Nicole McKee’s office—Nicole referred to some emails that were relied on. “Is that what it’s about?”, he was asked. “No,” said the Prime Minister, “we had submitters at the select committee.”

Well, that’s all very odd, because Nicole McKee was pressed on that very matter on Radio New Zealand as well, and she was asked whether it was about the submissions at select committee, which of course she knew were overwhelmingly against this legislation. She said, “We’ve heard from many people, especially through emails to my office.” Now, that’s not a submission.

The members on the other side gasp as if this isn’t important, but I’ll tell you why it’s important. If there’s some back door to the Minister’s office where you can have the Minister’s ear and change legislation as it’s going through the House and totally subvert the select committee process, then there is something wrong here. If the Minister has a different policy view and if she wants a shift in policy, she should be coming to the select committee, she should be proposing an Amendment Paper, and we should be consulting on it. But no, the National Party stooges over there are being totally led by the nose—led by the nose—by the ACT Party, who are making up policy as they go along, and not equipping the Prime Minister to answer questions on Radio New Zealand about it.

The Prime Minister has been made to look, frankly, like a fool because he was not accurately answering questions about what the motive for the change was. The motive for the change appears to have been a flood of emails into the Minister’s office, organised by the Sensible Sentencing Trust, that she then responded to, notwithstanding the fact that every legal organisation that submitted to the select committee was fiercely against these changes. The Law Society, the Law Association, the Bar Association, the Criminal Bar Association, the Children’s Commissioner, and the Human Rights Commissioner all said this was a bad idea. To then issue a press release and put it on the Beehive website and to suggest that this was because of submissions is misleading, at best. The Beehive website and ministerial capacity shouldn’t be used in that underhanded way.

What we need to do is get back to select committee and this needs to go through a thorough process. I see that the chair of the select committee is here, and I’ll be pressing him to make sure that these new amendments get a thorough submissions process and aren’t rushed through, because this is against all advice, including the advice of the Minister’s own officials.

It’s another shonky process where one of the minor parties is making the National Party look like fools. The Prime Minister needs to hold Nicole McKee to account and say, “Why were you not being accurate about the basis of these changes?” They’re bad changes and they need to be examined. Let’s let the select committee do its job.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Maybe we should bring back that disinformation unit that the last lot had and maybe we should send them to the Labour Party offices, because there be treasure—there be a veritable gold mine of disinformation.

I can understand why the previous member, Duncan Webb, is a little confused. He’s a little new to the place, so I can take him through the process. There were submissions made to the Justice Committee, there were people who wanted the law strengthened, there were people who didn’t want the law at all, and, as is a normal response in all of these select committee processes, the officials take on advice and they produce a departmental report. And when we receive that departmental report and consider it in private, we will make considerations about what the committee may wish to support or not to support. So, for Dr Duncan Webb, if he’s considering a new career in a couple of years’ time, I suggest he stay away from constitutional law and advising on how parliamentary process works.

The Opposition do need to read the room. The people have spoken, the Government has changed, the policy direction has changed, and this is a Government that has heard the calls of farmers and rural and regional New Zealand and any anybody who wants to do anything done and get anything done—and we are unapologetic about getting it done.

It appears to the Opposition that if you listen to submitters and change your mind, it’s a bad thing; if you ignore submitters and continue on ahead with what you were going to do, it’s a bad thing; if you hear submitters, it’s a bad thing; if you don’t hear submitters, it’s a bad thing. The only good thing that we’ve heard in this House today are the contributions from this side and the legislation that this Government is passing so that we can build a better economy and get our country back on track.

The members opposite cry foul about localism, but remember this was the party that amalgamated district health boards (DHBs) together into a mega entity, putting high-performing DHBs like mine in South Canterbury under pressure, forcing them to conform and go towards the standard and go towards the mean. That is the party that amalgamated the polytechs, driving those high-performing polytechs to cross-subsidise those who were struggling; the party that implemented restrictive, top-down, heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all national policy statements and national environmental standards that put increasingly restrictive rules on farming and agriculture. And now our country is reaping the rewards for six years of mismanagement by that lot—the party which, at the same time, encouraged land-use policies which drove our country away from agriculture and put pressure on our agricultural sectors.

The Opposition cry foul and they say that the people in the regions and the people of Otago don’t like what we’re doing. Well, I saw what the people of that fine establishment the Otago Daily Times, the readers of the Otago Daily Times, said. I’ll tell you what they said, Mr Speaker, in response to the freshwater changes. John Costin says: “Outstanding news, well done.” Peter Marshall says: “Well done. It’s high time logic and common sense prevails.” Cameron Maxwell: “Why is the ORC surprised? They were told to hold off. Finally, finally, we might have a chance that something more sensible coming from this.” And Ian Sinclair, he simply just says: “Well done, Penny.”, and then he chucks up a thumbs-up emoji. That’s the response from the people in the regions. That’s the response from what we are doing. That is what they are keen on.

The Opposition needs to read the room and councils need to read the room. It’s not just fresh water; it’s consenting, it’s common sense. My regional council needs to read the room, and my local councils have read the room. I’d like to quote from a letter sent from Timaru Mayor Nigel Bowen to Environment Canterbury just last week: “I write to express concern at the continued progression of the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement, with a decision to notify anticipated to be taken next month. It is counterproductive to notify this piece of work when such clear policy shifts have been consistently signalled by Government.” He goes on to say: “If the regional policy statement is progressed to notification, significant costs will be incurred by communities throughout Canterbury in responding to this change.” Finally, he signs off by saying: “The review needs to be delayed, allowing for a level of engagement proportionate to the changes proposed and to ensure alignment with national direction.” That is a letter from the mayor of a district council to the chair of a regional council. The district councils in my area have read the room; so does the Opposition need to read the room.

In fact, it took near-universal outrage for Environment Canterbury to back down from their proposal to remove regional representation from mid- and South Canterbury. It took thinly veiled threats of secession; it took thinly veiled threats of going out and doing their own thing before Environment Canterbury finally decided to read the room. I’d like to thank those councillors in Environment Canterbury who stood up for mid-Canterbury, who stood up for South Canterbury, who stood up for the representation of the people in my region to have a say. It’s not just urban Christchurch which runs our council; it is the entire region. This is a Government that is getting things done and is getting our country back on track.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. He mihi nui tēnei ki a tātou i tēnei wā.

[This is a big greeting to all of us at this time.]

I bring the voice of the tribes of Whangārei into this House, as I want to address fast track and its implications for the tribes, the hapū, and the iwi of Whangārei Harbour, because while we might have 149 projects listed, we have six in Whangārei itself and those projects have been identified as regionally and nationally significant. But this is a struggle without end—a struggle without end for the tribes of Whangārei who have opposed Northport expansion since the 1990s.

As a mokopuna of these tribes, trying to protect Poupouwhenua as one of the last remnant pieces of land in southern Whangārei, I bring their voice to this Whare. In considering the proposal of the 1990s, which would see the expansion of the port, the deep-sea port, our people went to court. Our people went to court and fought against the consent. They stood unanimous in their opposition, and they fought to protect te taiao, they fought to protect the seabed, they fought to protect the little bit of whenua that we had left in southern Whangārei, otherwise known as Poupouwhenua.

He taonga tēnei whenua mō te iwi, mō Patuharakeke, mō Te Parawhau, mō ngā hapū tini o Whangārei-terenga-parāoa.

[This land is a treasure for the people, for Patuharakeke, for Te Parawhau, for the many hapū of Whangārei-terenga-parāoa.]

The sad thing is, when we went to court, we ended up with a little bit of mitigation and a kaitiaki committee that was established, which would receive $50,000 annually to contribute to kaupapa within the harbour. Now, interestingly, with this committee, it’s only recent that the hapū have started to generate any types of projects out of that $50,000.

I want to refer to a quote from Luana Pirihi of Patuharakeke in 1998, where she said that “Through this expansion, it effectively ended our connection to the significant site and the ability to pass down the customs associated with this special place known as Poupouwhenua because the pipi beds were lost in the reclamation, as Northport expanded across the whenua and the papamoana.”

Now, huri ki tēnei wā tonu. [we turn to the current time]. It’s been a couple of years where the tribes, again, whenua trusts, and the community stood in opposition of proposals to expand Northport once again, and our people stood before independent commissioners and presented their evidence, because Northport sought, through their consents, to expand 12 hectares of reclamation. They also sought to establish a 250-metre wharf extension and also 1.72 million cubic metres of dredging of our takutai moana, including the disposal of that takutai moana goodness knows where!

The problem with this was that our people stood united with community, residents, and ratepayers, and we were successful. The commissioners heard the plea of our people. They recognised the cultural significance of Poupouwhenua as a tauranga waka, a traditional landing place, as a mahinga mātaitai, a place of significance where our people would gather and provide kai, harvest kai for their people and community. The hearings were conducted, and the commissioners came back and said, “Kāhore”—kāhore that this could not take place, because it was cutting off public access to the last remaining piece of the takutai moana for the people of southern Whangārei, but, further, the tribes could not execute the kaitiakitanga that we so value. Auntie Luana Pirihi, once again, pointed out that these pipi beds have basically been left remnant. They can’t gather cockles and pipis in their community any more.

Northport appealed, and in August, they came back and they said, “We’re appealing to the Environment Court.” All the while, we had them, alongside this Government, applying for the fast-track process. Now, when the list of the projects came out, we hadn’t had the opportunity for community voice to be heard. The tribes of Whangārei are locked out of the process, and there’s no guarantee, through the fast-track process, that the hapū or the impacted land owners will have any voice in the process moving forward. That’s the problem with this legislation, and that is the localism that this Government purports that they are bringing into this House. I doubt it, because the people of Whangārei will stand, as residents and as hapū, together to oppose this important issue for Poupouwhenua. Kia mau tonu mai. [Keep an eye on that.]

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: I present a legislative statement on the Resource Management (Freshwater 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 PENNY SIMMONDS: I move, That the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It is my pleasure to speak at this third reading of the bill on behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, the Hon Chris Bishop, and I acknowledge and thank him for his hard work. At its introduction, the Hon Chris Bishop outlined where this bill sits in the Government’s phased approach to the resource management reform. As part of phase two of the reform programme, this bill is about making quick and targeted changes to give councils and consent applicants the certainty they need to operate. Its aims are to reduce regulatory burden on resource consent applicants; support development in key sectors, including farming and other primary industries; make targeted changes to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) that can take effect quickly to give certainty to councils and consent applicants while new legislation to replace the RMA is developed; and speed up the process for developing or amending national direction under the RMA.

Throughout the bill’s consideration, these core priorities have been retained, while further changes were introduced to address emerging issues. There were almost 2,000 submissions to the Primary Production Committee, and 137 oral presentations from organisations and individuals were heard. I would like to take this opportunity to again thank the committee, those that put in a submission, and this House for considering the bill.

The bill pauses the implementation of or removes several blunt regulations. We have done this to provide greater certainty to key sectors, councils, and resource users while we put in place alternative rules or approaches. This will lead to better outcomes for a range of sectors for whom uncertainty has real-world implications such as extra cost or time spent meeting a range of complex regulatory requirements.

The three-year suspension of the requirement in the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity to identify new significant natural areas (SNAs) will allow for a review of the operation of SNAs. The Government has heard the concerns of some stakeholders that the identification criteria are too broad. Capturing less significant native biodiversity and the processes can place undue costs on landowners. The changes to intensive winter grazing laws and those for stock exclusion aim to reduce costs and burdens for farmers and provide more options for land management, such as farmer management, regional plan rules, and freshwater farm plans when rolled out in a region. We think it should be for farmers and regional councils to decide where and how stock needs to be excluded based on the risk posed and within catchment-specific context.

The changes in this bill squarely align with the Government’s view that we should work collaboratively with landowners, rather than further restrict what they can do on their land. Other targeted changes to the bill will provide clarity and reduce regulatory burden on resource consent applicants.

We’re making it clear that the hierarchy of obligations in the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPSFM) is excluded from individual resource consent applications. This addresses concerns about its application while we review and replace the NPSFM.

Another targeted change we’re making is to align the consent pathways for the operation and expansion of new and existing coal mines that affect wetlands or SNAs with other extractive activities. This will improve consistency. Applications will still need to meet gateway tests which means significant adverse effects on wetlands and SNAs will be managed.

Changes to national direction: because making and amending national policy statements and national environmental standards under the RMA had become too costly, slow, and onerous. There are a number of situations where amendments to national direction are minor or have already been through robust processes of their own but still have to go through the full national direction process. Providing more clarity about the types of circumstances where minor updates can be made to national direction without going through full consultation and submission processes would promote greater certainty and system efficiency. This bill streamlines these processes and introduces a minimum 20 working days’ time frame for public submissions to align with other RMA submission processes.

A further example of how this bill improves and simplifies processes is the removal of section 32 evaluation reports for national direction, which overlaps significantly with regulatory impact statements. The bill removes the board of inquiry process, which was last used in 2010. National direction since then has been prepared and amended using a more flexible process that involves public notice, opportunities for public input, and allows for independent advice or the appointment of independent advisory committees where needed.

These changes to streamline national direction processes are important. This is because we plan to make greater use of national direction, national policy statements, and national environmental standards as part of phase two of our reform programme.

Since the bill’s introduction, three additional matters have caused us to take urgent action. The Government is pleased to have the opportunity to address them through this legislation. Freshwater farm plans help farmers identify, manage, and reduce the impact of farming on waterways. Pausing the freshwater farm plans’ roll-out will allow time to make the system more cost-effective and practical for farmers and enable more catchment-level solutions to be developed. It was important to make this decision before early 2025 because freshwater farm plans were due to kick off for farmers in areas where the system was already live—for example, the Waikato. If the change wasn’t made now, those farmers would be disadvantaged by needing to comply with the current law which is about to be changed.

A recent court decision about section 107 of the RMA and the granting of discharge consents required an urgent response. This meant discharges with certain effects could not be consented in degraded catchments, creating potential for a large number of consents for agriculture and horticulture to be declined or for applications to be put on hold. This would cost councils, industry, and primary sector producers, and could mean activities such as large-scale irrigation schemes can’t operate. Enabling consents to be granted for some discharges and catchments already subject to significant adverse effects, provided consent conditions contribute to an overall reduction in those adverse effects over time, provides clarity to consent authorities and applicants.

The bill also restricts the notification of freshwater plans until the current NPSFM is replaced. This is needed to avoid duplication of effort and uncertainty for resource users, as councils would need to amend their plans once the new NPSFM plan is gazetted. This is not a blanket measure. The bill provides exemptions from this new restriction where plans are required for specific matters, including plans for flood protection, the provision of infrastructure, and housing or drinking water. The exemptions mean any critical plans can still progress, but most freshwater planning will need to be paused to await the replacement NPSFM in mid-2025. We have already extended the time frame to notify freshwater plans from 31 December 2024 to December 2027 to allow councils time to make their new plans.

In conclusion, this is a timely piece of legislation. It streamlines existing processes and introduces greater efficiency and certainty in consenting processes. It also continues our ongoing commitment to unlocking development and investment in infrastructure, housing, agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, and mining, while ensuring the environment is protected. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it appears that this Government is on a slow track for environmental protection, and all it wants to do is pause things at the moment. We’ve heard the Minister just refer to SNAs—significant natural areas—being paused, but just in the general debate just before, we heard the leader of the ACT Party say, “Oh, they’re gone—SNAs, they’re gone.”, which is a lot more than pausing. We know, of course, that farm plans are being paused. It just goes to show that this Government cannot adequately regulate for the environment and for what is our biggest export market.

Now, we also have the Otago Regional Council being paused—its notification that was supposed to be voted on today. I’ve addressed that in my general debate speech just before, but I want to add that not going ahead with a new plan is exceptionally inefficient. We keep hearing from this Government that they are interested in efficiency, but what happens when a new plan that’s been worked on for five years at a cost of $18 million doesn’t get notified and doesn’t continue on to have the process that happens after notification is that people are left with the old, outdated plan. What this means is that there will be some aspects of that plan that are not clear for people, land users who are going to need consents. It won’t be clear about that, so when consent applications are made, they’ll have to go up the chain to look at national policy direction or the purpose of the Resource Management Act. That seems inefficient.

We’ve had one of the Otago regional councillors saying, “Oh, the other councillors were playing chicken with the Government and the Government has won.” That is such a childish approach to how Parliament should be operating, to say to a council, “Oh, look, you’re following the law—the law that we’ve told you that we’re going to change at some point in the future; who knows when, and we’re not going to tell you what it says—so you should not do anything. We’re going to pause it.” This is a basic rule-of-law issue, that councils should follow the law and Governments with majorities should not be saying to those councils, “Don’t follow the law as it is now—we’re going to pause everything, and we’re going to do it with an amendment that we’re only introducing at the committee of the whole House stage and we’re going to make it retrospective.” It’s appalling.

Then we have Te Mana o te Wai, and, again, in terms of efficiency, you don’t need to say Te Mana o te Wai doesn’t apply to consents if you have plans that have already incorporated it. I can only infer that this Government needs to make that change because there is going to be so much change to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, and their terror of Te Mana o te Wai, that they’re going to allow for a whole lot more pollution. That is the only logical conclusion for wanting to be pausing everything at the moment, that they intend to make changes, and, in fact, those changes—they do know what they’re doing, and it is to allow more pollution. Shameful.

Then we have other changes to regulations relating to stock exclusion and winter grazing, and we’ve heard a lot from the Minister and from Government members that “It’s OK, we don’t need these regulations to incentivise the behaviour that stops animals in mud or stops sedimentation running off into rivers”—so, pollution—“We don’t need that. We accept that behaviour has improved while these regulations have been in place, but now, according to Federated Farmers, the farmer peer pressure, all the good farmers—many good farmers—means that we don’t need these regulations.” That is an interesting argument, but what we haven’t heard from the Minister, despite repeated questioning from me in committee stage, is an undertaking that there will be a review of the environmental effects that happen once these regulations are removed. We haven’t had an undertaking that if in fact Federated Farmers is wrong and the peer pressuring doesn’t work—and I certainly hope that it does work, but if it doesn’t work, we’ve had no undertaking that there’ll be any sort of new incentives for behaviour that stops damaging the environment. That, again, is shameful.

Then we’ve got coal mining. This is unbelievable, in a time when we are in a climate crisis, that this Government wants to treat coal mining just the same way as all the other minerals. We hear over and over from members of the Government, “Oh, you shouldn’t be anti-coal, you shouldn’t be anti-mining”—mining, they say—“if you have a cellphone.” There are some good arguments for why we need a whole lot of minerals for the way that we live today, but there is no coal in my cellphone. Again, I asked Ministers about that yesterday, if they understood that there is a difference between mining coal and other minerals because of the carbon emissions that we get from burning coal and that it is not a critical mineral—no answer to that. It’s just head in the sand stuff.

We have changes about indigenous biodiversity, and we had Ministers in this House yesterday talking about bogs. That is so disrespectful to all of the indigenous biodiversity that might live in what someone else might call a wetland. Now, if there is an area that doesn’t have significant biodiversity, fine, but there’s no need for calling things “bogs” and there is no need for stopping the identification of that significant biodiversity. You can argue about private property rights, and what should happen once that significant biodiversity is identified, but pausing the identification of that significant biodiversity is just a total backward step, and unnecessary if you follow the rhetoric and the logic of the governing parties.

Now, we also have changes to national direction, and, again, we’ve heard from the Minister how this is going to be faster than the current process, how there’s going to be no ability for a board of inquiry, even if there’s a lot more of this national direction coming. There has been no comfort given to this House that that national direction won’t be used to do whatever it is that various industry mates of this Government want it to do. Again, shameful.

Then we have in the Primary Production Committee report a new change to the bill that’s very different from the bill that’s introduced, regarding section 107 of the Resource Management Act. We’ve heard from the Minister how that relates to discharge consents. There was a High Court case that some people think is problematic, and it may be problematic, but the way to deal with a High Court case that may still be going to appeal and that does not deal with every single point in section 107, such as exceptional circumstances, is not to drop it in the select committee report where nobody can submit on it. You can do an Amendment Paper and put it out for consultation, you can do a separate bill, you can wait till after the court process has finished, even. These are all the options, but no, no, this Government has not done that.

What happened is that it allowed some submitters who were concerned about the High Court case to make submissions on 107 but did not let other submitters who think the opposite to make submissions on 107. This is an appalling way to make laws. Whatever the result of the court case and the Court of Appeal or any subsequent decisions, to just go ahead and listen to one side and not the other and not have the analysis is shameful.

There is no certainty provided from this bill and everything else that the Government is doing, except the certainty that they will do whatever it takes to do what their mates want. Shameful.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Government is one of the most regressive, anti-environmental Governments we’ve had in 45 years. I mean, you need to look at the actual legislative frameworks that have been put through here and evaluate them against the previous decades of legislation passed in this House, and it is not easy to conclude anything but that we have a very anti-environmental Government here. Not since Muldoon’s National Development Act in 1979 have we had a year of actions by a Government that has been so anti-environmental, so bad for the planet.

This particular legislation is yet another case in point of an extraordinary kind of omnibus of anti-environmental options that they bill as dealing with regulation that is a barrier to business, basically. And that is shorthand for a perception that the environment is what is getting in the way of, as my colleague puts it, their mates making money.

Now, that is such a deeply regressive view of what the environment is, because the environment is the thing in which we exist. In fact, a healthy ecology is the basis of all life on Earth. Humans can’t thrive and prosper and have a viable existence if we do not have a healthy, functional environment and a stable climate. How do you protect that commons that is the rivers, that is the atmosphere, that is the ocean, that is biodiversity, the wetlands, the forests? They are a commons, and they are subject to the exploitation of private interests in a way that is not in the common interest, not in the interest of all of us, so you put in place regulations and protections that set the boundaries on which exploitation happens.

This legislation is all about getting rid of those protections of the environment, and that is so deeply short-sighted. One of the most inspired and visionary pieces of legislation to be passed in recent years was Te Mana o te Wai. Unlike what my colleague Simon Court says, who likes to characterise it as metaphysical, it was not metaphysical; it was actually about setting some really basic bottom lines in the case of what nutrients could or couldn’t be put into an ecosystem.

Simon Court: That’s science, Steve.

STEVE ABEL: In a way, it’s science—it is science, that’s right—it’s not some sort of arbitrary concept. It set out a hierarchy of obligations.

Andy Foster: That’s the problem.

STEVE ABEL: That’s what the Government perceived was the problem. In fact, when we, at length, prosecuted with regional councils the way that they interpreted Te Mana o te Wai, they saw that it was taken as a whole. But, when you come to the crunch on how you prioritise the issues that you need to protect in fresh water, there was a hierarchy set out. The genius of it was that—it turns out—by looking after the integrity and the wellbeing of freshwater ecosystems, you actually set us up to be able to do all the other things, which is have safe drinking water, and then look to the third priority, which is industrial exploitation, to put it in more accurate language.

This Government has removed, through this legislation, that hierarchy of obligations. That means, in a very practical sense, that protection of safe human drinking water is now not a higher priority than irrigation that will lead to dairy intensification, that will lead to contamination of human drinking water. This Government has explicitly said, “Your safe drinking water is now no longer a priority.” That’s the effect.

It’s interesting—my colleague Catherine Wedd from the Primary Production Committee is from the Hawke’s Bay and she will well remember that it was as a result of the terrible tragedy of what happened in Havelock North that the hierarchy of obligations was put into place. It was because of agricultural contamination of drinking water that people became very ill and people died. The hierarchy established that you cannot sacrifice the health of people’s drinking water with agricultural pollution. This legislation gets rid of that. This legislation does not learn the lessons of Havelock North.

Furthermore, this legislation is an instance where a thing that is a barrier to the exploitation of coal—in this instance, wetlands—is going to have its protected status removed. Wetlands are one of the most extraordinary, ecologically valuable things in our world. They are a provision of ecosystems that are spawning grounds for lots of species that are part of our oceanic ecosystems. They have this incredible ability to filter water. For example, interestingly, one of the best ways to deal with over-nitrification, which is a problem of agricultural intensity, is wetlands, because there are nitrate-scavenging microbes in those wetland ecosystems that actually consume nitrate. You have here a means of dealing with some of the problems of agricultural intensity—and we have only 10 percent of our original wetlands left. This legislation says the protected status of those wetlands that offer so much to the general wellbeing of our society is going to be removed—but get this—not to facilitate housing, not to facilitate, even, food growing—which perhaps you could justify, though in this instance I think it’s questionable—but actually to facilitate coal mining. I kid you not—to facilitate coal mining.

Minister Bishop, who gave an introduction to this at the first reading, I think it was, said “Quick and dirty”. He described this legislation as quick and dirty, and it’s a very accurate description. The Minister Penny Simmons earlier described it as “quick”—getting things done quick. Well, it’s certainly getting things done dirty as well, because coal is the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel we know. We know what Robert Muldoon didn’t know in 1979: if we are to avert the existential threat of climate change, we have to stop burning fossil fuels and we have to stop burning coal. This is the “Coal-ition of Environmental Destruction”—this is the “Coal-ition of Environmental Destruction”—from the ACT Party, to the New Zealand First Party, to the National Party, they have lined up and agreed to trash the planet for profit. That’s what this legislation is all about.

If we are seriously able as a species to recognise the existential threat of climate change and the existential threat of biodiversity decline, if we are truly that brilliant, adaptive, intelligent hominid that is able to see a threat coming and change our way of behaving to avert that threat, then when does it begin? That is my challenge to this Government: when do you start thinking about the future generations? When do you start thinking about the greater good and not doing the bidding of the vested interests who funded your election campaigns? When do you start thinking about how we all get to live on this planet by looking after the commons, a thing that does not belong to anybody but which we all need to exist and to thrive? It is in that context that we actually have to set the limits on what we do in the environment.

This legislation is a terrible example of a Government that is cutting away those protections, that is sacrificing the environment for short-term profit; for short-term gain; for some Aussie coal miner; for some Aussie gold miner; for some intensive winter-grazing farmer whose cows are living in miserable conditions, that is polluting the water, that is polluting the climate. That is not the way forward. We need to find a way to get over this sort of attitude, this regressive attitude, and I think the way is to vote these buggers out in two years. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill. I’ve been in this House for a little over a year, and in this time I’ve heard the members opposite talk quite a bit on how we should spend money, costs we can add, regulations we can put in, and also lots of things that we could ban, but I’ve heard very little on how we can actually grow this country’s economic pie, as it were, aside from, of course, some strange belief in being able to tax our way to prosperity.

One of the ways our country has historically grown its economic pie and what also continues to be the backbone of our economy is, of course, farming and growing. It’s through the hard work of people who spend their days in tractors, woolsheds, and cowsheds up down this country that we can afford cancer drugs, police on the front lines, and all the other things that we want our Government to provide—the list goes on—yet for the previous six years, these people have felt like they’re under constant attack. Their confidence in their future went absolutely downhill, and without confidence, who is buying that new, more fuel-efficient tractor? Who is investing in solar panels for the cowshed roof, the new eco-pond addition to the effluent pond, or irrigation-efficiency technology?

The measures contained in this bill are all about restoring confidence to farmers for what the future can hold for them in terms of not only improving further productivity on their farms, which will help this country, but also lowering their environmental footprint on farm. These things don’t come cheap; they cost a lot of money, and you have to have confidence that your investment will pay off, whether it’s for farm profitability or environmental sustainability.

For many farmers, gaining that confidence comes from getting the consent in the first place. For many of us, there are activities on our farm that require monitoring, that require a consent. Now, Te Mana o te Wai—the hierarchy of obligations—has been a barrier for getting consents. There has been confusion in councils. I have seen the papers written by Environment Canterbury where they said, “We are uncertain about all of this. Our interpretation is that we can’t grant consents or renew consents because of these provisions. We don’t know what to do.”, and there was a massive backlog in consents. You don’t believe me? Well, some of you have already sent Official Information Act requests to my office and you’ll already have that document from Environment Canterbury, so merry Christmas.

It’s not just the hierarchy of obligations around confidence for a consent. We recently had two High Court cases and they mentioned section 70 and section 107. Now, take those two together—and, obviously, we’re only dealing with one in this bill—effectively, what they are saying is that all farmers, and not just those dirty dairy farmers everyone likes to go on about—so that’s including me and Mark Cameron—but all farmers—

Hon Nicola Grigg: We still love you!

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: —er, cheers—are, basically, going to require a consent to farm; we have to have paperwork to produce food for everyone to eat. What it means is that if you have that consent, or if you’re trying to get that consent and you happen to farm in an area that’s over-allocated, the council, through the other ruling, isn’t allowed to grant that consent. You end up in this circle: must have a consent; not allowed to have a consent. How do we go forward with this?

This is what we are trying to solve with this amendment; to make sure there is certainty because we cannot have a situation where we just say to thousands of farmers across the country, “You’re no longer allowed to farm. You must leave your farms”. The intent from even the previous Government was that this water-quality improvement had to happen over generations, not overnight. We need to make this decision to give farmers confidence in their futures. You know, confidence—it’s many things. It’s for a farmer in the deep South to know that they can grow feed that will be able to feed their animals the calories that they need over that winter to be healthy and to be able to produce in the coming season. Having confidence that they are able to grow those crops and that the rules around them are sensible—that’s the sort of confidence you need to keep going with farming.

It’s also around stock exclusion rules—having confidence that you’re not going to have a draconian, one-size-fits-all national policy placed on your farm that requires you to fence, effectively, what turns out to be hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of fencing for what may be little or small environmental gain, or no environmental gain when you look at some of these very extensive sheep and beef farms. Now, the dairy farms, the intensive farms—they’ve already done this work. It makes sense and it’s cost-effective to do it, but for these extensive farms, all you’re going to see there is a drive to forestry. I saw that firsthand in Taranaki. This was a farm that had a whole series of supposed waterways on it where no water was actually flowing. The council had said, “You’ve got to fence all this off. It’s going to cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars”, and the farmer said, “Plant the lot in pines.” That’s not the answer we want for this country.

The way to address these issues, obviously, is much more targeted actions. Through the Farm Plans—now you’ll say, “Oh, but you’re pausing them.” Of course we’re pausing them. Again, that’s to give confidence that we’ll get these things right, that we’re not duplicating so farmers have confidence that the actions they are going to take are going to be real, and that they’ve got proper tools that they can actually use, and not tick-box exercises. Confidence also comes from knowing that you’re not going to have your property rights taken away from you by someone mapping what may not be that significant a natural area, and having that overlay put over your farm as to what your rights are going forward on your own land. This is challenging.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Imagine having your land mapped like that.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Oh, I know iwi are very concerned about significant natural areas, as well.

Just responding to a couple of the comments I heard, it was an interesting comment from Rachel Brooking around “Councils should follow the law.” I recall an interesting conversation I had 2½ years ago with the then Government around the Nitrogen 190 reporting. Now, they hadn’t quite got everything right and ready in time, and the rule was farmers had to report it by such and such a date but the system wasn’t ready. They told councils, “Ignore the law. Don’t worry about the law.” How things have changed. We argued, “Why can’t you just pause these regulations? Why can’t you just change the time line so that our farmers don’t become criminals?” But, no, we just had to ignore the law; so I find that rather rich.

We keep hearing about pollution. Like I said, this is about confidence. It’s about giving farmers confidence that they can make the investments in their farms so that they can move forward.

You talk about it being generational—that we want generational actions. That is what farmers do. You know, everything my dad has worked for in his life benefited me. Everything I am doing on my farm now benefits my daughters. That’s what every farmer is focused on: how can we make it better for the next generation? That is the stuff we do.

I look at the indigenous biodiversity on my farm and I take pride in it. I look at the water quality on our farm and I take pride in it. These are the actions farmers are doing, and the public at large can have confidence. It’s not only farmers needing confidence; the public need confidence that farmers up and down this country are doing the work. We have 180,000 hectares in the QEII National Trust. We have catchment care groups up and down this country. Farmers are doing the work, and not just ticking admin boxes.

In conclusion, I feel a lot of pride, quite frankly, in the fact that I’ve been part of this bill and in a number of the actions—I’ve done the work here. To me, this is what I came into Parliament for: to bring confidence back to farmers and to show them that there was a way forward and that there was a future farming in New Zealand. Not only do I commend this bill to the House, I also commend our country’s farmers and growers for all the hard work they do. Thank you.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister of Agriculture): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This is what delivering on your election promises looks like. All three of the coalition parties recognise the dog’s breakfast that the freshwater regulations were—those regulations that had seen, actually, towns closed down by tractors in the streets on more than one occasion. Farmers are not unreasonable people, and as Minister Hoggard has just outlined, they do care deeply about the environment, but when they saw really impractical, unworkable, and bureaucratic rules, they rose up, and that just can’t happen without there being some real reasons for that to happen. They’ve got more to do on their farms than be driving around the local town.

The farming sector was genuinely affronted, and I’ve heard some of the commentary from the other side of the House already in this debate and earlier in this bill, with some apocryphal stories about farming conditions in this country. Here’s an anecdote: one of the professors at Lincoln University, an international professor who trains our Master’s degree students there, he said to me that he has trouble placing the Master’s students on the international part of their courses. He said, “There’s nowhere I can send them that they could learn anything about pastoral farming. New Zealand pastoral farming is akin to magic, by international standards. We do it very well.”

We were affronted by some of the commentary that went round this and went into some of the original 2020 measures—the one-size-fits-all nature, particularly—the stock exclusion rules and the low-slope maps. As Minister Hoggard outlined earlier, what we were capturing, in many cases, was small tributaries and low-intensive areas that were going to cost, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars and make farming, essentially, uneconomic. We note the Beef + Lamb New Zealand economic service forecast for this year showing the average sheep and beef farm making about $60,000 before interest, tax, and drawings. You can see why that would be a problem. Every cost is going to affect farming sustainability, really, in an economic sense, and that would be for no real environmental benefit, in the grand scheme of things, so we are being much more practical about it.

You only have to look at technology. Technology has come along. Since this 2020 legislation came through, the collars, the halters, the Gallagher’s—it’s like magic. Simeon Brown, actually, was showing some interest in this yesterday. He thought he could become a farmer, because you can actually farm from your couch. You get on your app and draw a line on the map there and you can shift stock around without even having to leave the front door. There’s all sorts of innovation and different ways we can go about getting the same outcomes without having to be heavily bureaucratic and expensive in the way that we as a central government are imposing on our rural sector.

The significant natural areas—now, that is a property rights issue, pure and simple. We have got to get back in this country to where if you own a block of land, you have certain rights, and you can’t have other people coming on and dictating to you what you’re doing on your own land without a very high bar. That is exactly what we’re looking to do in terms of pausing what had been overreach and having a really good look at this. Where there are ecologically significant areas, we do want to see that protected, but for many of the examples we were seeing, they certainly didn’t reach that threshold.

I’ve heard so much about wetlands, and there’s some sort of faux indignation about someone calling them a “bog”. Well, I can assure you, Steve Abel—and I know that you know this, but one of the main things we are doing in terms of the catchment groups and the like is that we’re going back to wetlands. We’re creating wetlands. We’re doing it at a catchment level for exactly the reasons you mentioned, because they are good at catching nitrates and sediments. We’re actually reinstating a lot of these wetlands.

The intensive winter grazing regulations had unintended consequences, actually, in terms of some of the tightness around the rules. Farmers trying to get around those rules had gone to bale grazing and trying to winter on grass in wet conditions in Southland, which has caused much more damage than a well-constructed winter grazing programme would have done on traditional cropping.

The other thing around this, too—you know, our markets are demanding this. We’re not oblivious to the need to look after our environment, our animals, and we have that pressure from our markets. We are accountable to our processing companies and the like to qualify to supply and to get into the premium end of that market.

Also, many people wouldn’t know—I haven’t heard it in this debate—that we are monitored from the air by helicopters or planes by a regional council. They do flyovers—random flyovers. We don’t know it’s happening. They’ll come over three or four times a winter to monitor the winter grazing practices. They do it in Southland, Otago, and Canterbury, and possibly in other areas too—I think the Waikato. The regional council actually can interfere. What we’re seeing now is the practices have got so much better that we’re getting 95 percent, 97 percent that are compliant in terms of good management practice. The outliers, those that aren’t following good management practices, are then managed intensively by the council, by the Ministry for Primary Industries and their farm support team. They’ll go in there to make sure there are no animal welfare issues. There are pragmatic things that we’re doing—actual things that we’re doing that don’t necessarily sit in a piece of paper in a drawer; they’re actually actions on the ground.

Now, I need to address the issue of the Otago Regional Council (ORC) and the measures we took with the amendment. The Government has been very clear that we are amending the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020. Most councils—almost all councils apart from one—have respected that position. They do know that we have serious concerns around Te Mana o te Wai provisions and the hierarchy that will be such lethal planning. It’s so vague, to have that as your basis for your planning. We’re having a completely new look at that and how that fits into a planning process.

The ORC, by moving to notify their plan today, if it had gone through, would have been working with a moving feast. They would have been, essentially, setting off a chain of actions that would have ended up in the Environment Court by default, because that would have been the process that would have been set off. There would have been no way of stopping that. The farmers would have fought it. We would have been absolutely torching ratepayers’ money for no reason, because the macro rules that we are going to change and have clearly signalled that we’re going to change would, at the end of that, mean that they would have to start again. All the other councils had respected that. The Otago Regional Council had not, for ideological reasons, I believe, amongst some of the councillors.

I object to the apocalyptic representation of Otago’s environment and waterways. They are some of the best in the country. There is no danger at all if we have a pause. They absolutely are. You look at the statistics—you look at the statistics. Go and look at the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report and you can see Otago is a shining example of water quality. We are bringing in sensible, pragmatic solutions. We’re going to do it in a timely manner. This bill buys us some time, really, to do the stuff that we really want to do so we can get some proper regulations for our farming sector. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pika. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to speak in opposition to this bill for a few reasons: the removal of Mana o te Wai, the diluting of mana whenua, making it easy to mine and destroy indigenous taonga, the impact on significant natural areas—for example, wāhi tapu—and making it easier for bad farmers. That, really, is what is at discussion here, and as the original rural farmers here—as tangata whenua—what we’re really doing is talking about those who don’t meet and/or don’t want to meet any thresholds.

I heard, here, and I want to sort of capture the whole aspect about this mana o te wai, and you can’t regulate mauri. Actually, Māori have regulated mauri for thousands of years through something called “tikanga”, and if you don’t know it, go and find out for yourself. It is not my role here to make the allies’ jobs easier. Māori farms and Māori approach to farming, despite our natural development being interfered with, is extremely values-based—indigenous - values-based.

Lake Taupō, Miraka, Wakatū, Ātihau-Whanganui, Ngāi Tahu have all adopted kaupapa-based ways of how they look after te mana o te wai, of how they put the taiao first, of how they are also contributing to the economy for the whole of Aotearoa. What we have here is lazy, lazy politicians who don’t want to sit there and understand what is required for te ao Māori, mana o te wai—[Interruption] And they’re all speaking at the moment. There you go.

What I want to do is talk about the fact that what we have here is a whole bunch of people who are making it easier for the bad farmers, because good farmers have pride in looking after their wai, they understand mana, they understand the mana of their whenua, they understand the mana of their wai, they understand the mana of their mokopuna. And that is what this is about. Those who don’t understand the mana of their mokopuna aren’t future focused. In Te Tai Hauāuru, we had multiple submissions. We had Ngā Iwi o Taranaki who strongly oppose this. They said there was a lack of ministerial transparency. There was poor due diligence. They said that there was absolutely no compliance of the principles of Te Tiriti—surprise, surprise. They talked about the health and wellbeing of water bodies. They talked about the fact that there was absolutely no respect for the rangatiratanga, kaitiakitanga, and community interests.

South Waikato, Maniapoto, Te Nehenehenui, and Raukawa talked about the fact that this cannot succeed at the expense of restoring the health and wellbeing of waterways, as provided under the Waikato River arrangements. They talked about how the politicians here are frightened of te ao Māori and its source of matauranga and the kaupapa of mana o te wai. They talked about how the Crown is failing to meet its Te Tiriti duties of participation, it was unacceptable in the purpose of Waikato River arrangements, and how we must protect the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River. was South Waikato who have huge experience in the awa.

Ruapehu, Whanganui, and Ngāti Rangi oppose this. They talk about the violation of Rukutia Te Mana settlement provisions and the undermining of Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika. They talked about, under the provisions of this, how it has been granted protection in its own legal entity and the tangata tiaki of Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika comprising the Whangaehu River and the rivers and streams that flow into it. They talked about, on behalf of these awa, how they are extremely distressed by what has been happening to them because of these changes. They talked about how this is an extension of the fast-track bill and the undermining of the principles of the partnership. Now, these are—let’s go back to it—all iwi who contribute to the economy of Aotearoa. The proposed changes in Ngāti Rangi’s settlement view is that it violates their living entity, Te Waiū-o-Te-Ika, and breaches their international obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Now, let’s go back to visiting who is putting these submissions in. They are innovative, they are contributing to the employment and the productivity, indeed, of the primary sector of this nation. They are investing in world record taiao kaupapa. They have a world record in what they do in the research and science sense. They are not bad farmers; they are progressive not only in how they invest but how they think. They have extensive international relationships, and these entities take exception to what this Government is forcing on them.

Te Mana o te Wai is something that the iwi have fought for for a very long time, to have regulated and accepted, and it is disgusting to be here with this Government, but not surprising, with what’s going on. Kia ora rā.

LAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. This is a sad day for fresh water and biodiversity in Aotearoa, and it’s, therefore, a really sad day for all of us, because so much of what makes living in Aotearoa incredible is the one foundational thing that is so foundational, so core to our health and wellbeing. That is Te Mana o te Wai, ki uta ki tai [from inland to the sea]—it’s water—and yet here we are, this Government is doing an absolute disservice to wai Māori and, therefore, a disservice to ourselves.

This piece of “quick and dirty legislation”, just to quote the Minister’s own description, is just one part of this Government’s comprehensive dismantling of not only the capacity and capability of our environmental agencies and our science institutes, with these crippling funding cuts that we’ve seen, but to add to that, the systematic override and weakening of our environmental legislation. The bare minimum of laws that formed what we understood in this country to constitute an environmental protection. This bill is yet another abomination of democratic override, with the truncated time frame for public submissions and the last-minute additions of Government bowing to the whim of industry demands to actually override local democracy and allow this continued pollution and environmental damage for the private profit of a few.

Who gets left to pick up the tab of the legacy pollution of all of this, the contaminated streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches? It’s the public. It’s iwi Māori, it’s our kids and our grandkids. Quite frankly, the inaction—I agree with my colleague—it’s lazy, it’s cancelling, it’s delaying, it’s removing protections that are ultimately insulting. They’re insulting to New Zealanders because thousands of them have worked in good faith alongside councils, alongside mana whenua, community industry, NGOs, and they’ve actually agreed on ways to improve fresh water, and they’ve agreed on ways for their own local environment. I’m really sick of hearing this one-size-fits-all description of Te Mana o te Wai and the hierarchy, which simply it was not and is not and needs to be ended.

Now, we’re left with nothing but delay and decline. I just want to point out just one example among the litany of mistakes that this Government is making with this bill, and that is around the removal and weakening of the intensive winter grazing regulations. I want to quote, within this, the Public Health Communication Centre and their submission, because they’ve actually looked at the evidence and made it crystal clear that intensive winter grazing “is a highly polluting activity”. It results in frequent “high nutrient, sediment, and faecal matter pollution of [nearby] waterways”, with four to five higher nitrate losses and 12 times higher sediment losses than those from pasture grazing. It “Impacts on waterbodies” and the impacts of intensive winter grazing “can last for many decades as they are cumulative.” It’s those cumulative impacts that this Government is also removing the ability of councils to actually address. This change to section 107 actually allows higher levels of pollution in some of our most degraded waterways. It’s a fundamental baseline of protection for freshwater ecosystems that is now unable to be upheld.

The changes to it in this bill will not only shut out iwi Māori and public voice in having a say on this, but everyone in Aotearoa who cares about fresh water and deserves the right to actually have a say about our protections, about those things that ultimately impact the health and wellbeing of them, their whānau, and all the native critters and fish who once thrived in our freshwater ecosystems and who will no longer. It’s a real shame and it’s a sad day and Te Pāti Kākāriki do not support this bill.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): The Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is a great piece of legislation and I welcome it. This bill removes the hierarchy of obligations, amends certain provisions of the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity, amends national environmental standards for fresh water to align the consenting pathways for new and existing coalmines with other mineral extraction activities, suspends councils’ requirements to identify and include new significant natural areas in district plans for three years, removes the map of low-slope land and associated requirements, and removes the intensive winter grazing regulations. These changes are designed to remove excessive red tape and the costs associated with regulation that ratepayers and businesses have to endure.

The problem that exists with the hierarchy of obligations, as set out by Te Mana o te Wai, is that interpretation varies wildly from council to council and from planner to planner. This inconsistency has made life difficult for councils and those applying for consents.

The provisions of the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity that are being amended have caused enormous stress on large numbers of people due to the arbitrary way in which these areas have been identified. In most cases, landowners’ first knowledge of such areas are when draft plans have been published. These landowners have had no interactions with council staff or any ecological reports performed on identified areas in draft plans. The councils have the attitude that these can be ironed out during the hearing phase or when the subsequent Environment Court hearings take place. This is not only incredibly slack but it’s also costly. Councils are committing their ratepayers to costs that they can ill afford, and individuals and groups to expensive court proceedings, all while knowing that in less than two years, the regulations will change and the planning processes will need to start again.

Interestingly, Torlesse Environmental Ltd performed an independent review of the development of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and found significant issues in the way that sediment and E.coli attribute frameworks are being set up. Key flaws in this framework include that it’s based on model data and not on measured data; 38 percent of rivers would not meet national bottom lines, even if developed catchments were reverted back to their natural state; data collected during heavy rainfall and floods has to be included and all waterways have to be included, even those that have never been suitable for swimming.

To achieve the national bottom lines, it’s estimated that 44 percent of sheep and beef farm land would need to be retired and pole planting would be required on 8 percent of the remaining farm land. This is a major concern for the rural sector that is already under enormous pressure, both financially and mentally.

Councils around the country, councils who are dominated by city representatives, are imposing their ideology on the rural sector, directly conflicting with the rural representation on these councils. In the case of the Otago Regional Council, they have consistently opposed the way the council has progressed its land and water plan. These local representatives have despaired at the lack of engagement of council with local communities.

Communities throughout the Waitaki have echoed this complaint about their councils, the lack of engagement with communities, and the dismissal of the science presented by these communities. This is why a catchment-by-catchment approach is supported by the National Party. So I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I’d like to speak about this Government’s kamikaze lawmaking, to get its own way, that will result in Otago’s rivers being less swimmable, if swimmable at all, over the next 30 years, through a kamikaze amendment and a process that is worrying and that in some ways feels sinister and Machiavellian. I want to preface my comments with the context, then talk about the build-up that’s been occurring all year. Then the final piece, the kamikaze landing, last night, with a really anti-democratic amendment that was dropped on this House and the resulting confusion it caused to the people of Otago and the impacts it will have on us.

The context is as we’ve heard. There has been a five-year process on consultation for the plan that was to have been notified. This involved thousands of people, many hundreds of hours of submissions, and $18 million—not of taxpayer money but of ratepayer money. That’s a significant amount of money for the local community to invest, and it came on the back of an Environment Court decision 10 years ago that said that Otago’s plans didn’t comply with the Resource Management Act. All of that was happening, and we had a council that was taking the process seriously and was going to act in the best interests of the groups, having taken into account all the stakeholders and all the submissions and all the science.

Then, this year, we started to see a series of meetings being called—special and extraordinary meetings—by a small faction of the Otago Regional Council, who were putting up urgent motions to try to stop the notification, knowing that they were going to lose the vote. This made me think that there was a bigger plan here. There were tactics being used to try to create perceptions of chaos, which is what I said in the Otago Daily Times last Monday, a manufactured crisis if you like, to try to involve Government intervention. We’ve seen the playbook this week in other councils, and these were the types of tactics, in my view, that were being used in Otago. They were trying to create the perceptions of a shambles.

Then on 1 March, Minister Shane Jones took a helicopter ride to the river that is central in this particular stash, and that was a helicopter ride that was funded by lobbyists. He went over the Falls Dam, he was invited by the National Party MP Miles Anderson, and he travelled to the dam via Bendigo Station. At the dam, there was Councillor Gary Kelliher from the Otago Regional Council, Murray Heckler, the chair of the dam group, somebody called Roger Williams, Miles Anderson the MP, and a Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment official. Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. That is ministerial work. However, the trip was sponsored by the Manuherekia Catchment Group, and my understanding, from a journalist who asked questions on the back of my Official Information Act and Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act requests, is that the gift register of Minister Jones has now been updated to reflect who paid for that trip.

Holding that thought to one side, we then had a letter from Councillor Kate Wilson, which came out in the media on Tuesday, the day after she became aware of—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Can we just calm down? I can’t hear. That’s too loud.

INGRID LEARY: Then we had a letter that was unilaterally published and released by Kate Wilson in the Otago Daily Times on Tuesday, after it became apparent that I was asking hard questions about what the connections were between the council and lobbyists and the Government. She released a letter that she’d written to Minister Simmonds in August, asking her, asking the Minister, to get the Otago Regional Council to reconsider the vote. Again, there is nothing particularly sinister in that, but it did take an Official Information Act request for that to come out.

Then, yesterday, an amendment was dropped in this House at 1 p.m. with no select committee process, with a retrospective provision to make the law apply from yesterday. It was done very deliberately and it was designed to put pressure on the council to not proceed with the vote or to cause considerable confusion, which is exactly what happened.

What makes me say it was pressure from the Minister is she admitted to my question in the House, last night, that she had made a phone call to the chair of the Otago Regional Council at 1 p.m. yesterday to advise that this amendment was being dropped and that the law would change.

The result of that is that the Otago Regional Council put out a press release yesterday to show that the law was potentially going to change. There was confusion. The item on the agenda was removed by the chief executive, who has stated in the media today he took legal advice. The meeting went ahead. There was a big hall that was booked because there was considerable public interest in this matter, and councillors asked why the item had been removed from the agenda. Very sadly, the chief executive removed it because they did not have time to get the official legal advice that they needed in order to provide the councillors with the information to make the right call on the process. The Minister’s plot to cause chaos and confusion at the council and to make sure that the vote didn’t happen worked based on a technicality.

Today, my good friend and colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking sought a special debate on this because of the issues at play here. Penny Simmonds had said on Radio New Zealand this morning that this matter had not come out of the blue. In fact, the amendment was dropped yesterday at 1 p.m. The vote was due today, and it was pretty close—7 to 5—but there was every chance it was going to go in favour of those who were going to notify the plan. It caused confusion, and, as I say, it ultimately didn’t happen.

Here we are in the third reading. Here we are in the third reading with an absolute travesty of democracy in my view. The will of the democratically elected Otago Regional Council has been overturned, been usurped, by central government with its kamikaze lawmaking and its Machiavellian approach to democracy. We see $18 million of ratepayer money down the drain. Years of consultation, significant public input, and, in my view, real democracy in action would have happened today, had that vote taken place.

What would have happened, had that been allowed to happen, is that the plan, in all likelihood, would have been notified. Now, yes, there is no alternative plan, which makes this even more ridiculous, the fact that they didn’t want the vote to proceed, but what it did mean is that when decisions were ultimately taken, those who supported environmental protection would have been able to argue more fulsomely and with more certainty in the Environment Court that the law was on their side, because that was the law. Whereas, now, there is a huge gap which is going to allow the status quo.

The upshot, really, is that the Ministers have got their way and the minority group on the Otago Regional Council who have had direct lines of communication into the Ministers have got their way against the greater will of the people of Otago. The rivers in Otago—about 85 percent, I think, are swimmable. That’s going to decline very quickly over the next 30 years, and once they’re not swimmable, it’s really hard to get them back.

We have now got a precedent for a Government working out that its kamikaze-style lawmaking has had the impact it wanted. Why wouldn’t it do it again? Why won’t it pull this playbook out in future cases where it just doesn’t agree with the local councils making their local decisions on behalf of the local people? That is my real concern about what’s happened. It is the riding roughshod over democracy. It is the attitude of a Government that continually thinks it knows best to the point where it has no regard for due process and for any of the promises that it made pre-election to support local decision-making. It worries me that if it is doing this overreach in this context and with councils, where else is it going to think it knows best on behalf of the people of New Zealand?

I leave you with these thoughts, today, as a really concerned local member of Parliament for Taieri, as a buddy MP for Invercargill. For the greater region in the south that is impacted by this decision, it will have far reaching implications.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to speak to the third reading of the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I am a proud farmer from Turakina. Farming and agribusiness is what we do in the mighty Rangitīkei—it’s who we are. It drives our region’s economy. So many of the businesses in Rangitīkei, large and small, depend on a buoyant agriculture sector.

James Meager: Literally puts bread on the table.

SUZE REDMAYNE: You are absolutely right—it puts food on the table. Farming has been the backbone of this country for the last 100-plus years. It got us through the global financial crisis; it got us through COVID. Sustainable farming is not an oxymoron, despite what our colleagues across the House will tell you; it’s what we do. We are guardians of the land.

The values of our nation’s farmers are very much reflected in the values of the National Party: manaakitanga, caring communities; mana motuhake, personal responsibility; haua te mahi, hard work; and, most of all, kaitiakitanga, guardianship of the land. It’s what we do; it’s who we are, yet farmers have been vilified and drowned in green and red tape. The last Government has created a bureaucratic nightmare. They’ve created a framework that’s regulatory and predatory. Regional councils have been holding our productive sector to ransom.

I find that really sad, because, once upon a time, the relationship between our councils and our farmers was constructive and productive. I can speak from experience. I’ve been around long enough for when we were friends, and Tunnel Hill, our farm—we were the proud farmers. We were the first people that the Manawatū District Council did an environmental plan for. They soil-mapped the farm. It was a massive piece of work, and a shout-out to Dave Harrison, who stuck with us for many years. That first plan mapped the farm. We talked about erosion, we talked about flood protection, we talked about weed and pest control. We fenced off wetlands and we created new wetlands. We planted the fragile sand dunes in pine trees so we could create shelter and shade and protect the fragile soils. It was a plan that was 30 years in the making and I yearn for those days, and I do think they are possible again.

This bill is about common-sense, practical-approach, and simple rules. It’s about working together, a regulatory framework that works, communities that thrive, and catchment groups—a fantastic initiative and a fantastic addition to our communities and protection for our waterways. This bill’s a significant step on the way to achieving these goals. We’re giving farmers clarity and we’re giving them purpose. We’re minimising inefficiencies and duplication and preventing unnecessary costs for ratepayers.

I want to thank Ministers McClay, Simmonds, Hoggard, Grigg, and Patterson, and also my fantastic Primary Production Committee. I’m incredibly proud of this bill. It will allow farmers to get back to doing what they do best: farm. It will help us achieve our goals to double exports in the next 10 years. It will sort out the regulatory framework and it will get New Zealand back on track. It’s a privilege to commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This is a five-minute split call.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): In 1992, there were two piece of legislation: one was the Resource Management Act (RMA), the other was the Health and Safety in Employment Act. The Health and Safety in Employment Act said wherever you identify risk, you must do everything to minimise or remove that risk. The RMA said the same thing, and it said wherever you see degradation to the environment, we should do something about it—identify significant natural areas, etc., etc.

What happened? We saw rapid growth in agriculture through the 1990s and through the 2000s, but, during that time, we started to identify some risks. Around water, there were over-allocated catchment areas, and the outputs from some of those farming systems were polluting the waterways and the aquifers. We saw soil loss from some of the farming practices. We saw biodiversity loss that had been occurring for quite some time, but we identified that as a risk. We had animal welfare issues that we also identified—needed and required change in some farming practices in some locations.

The vast majority of farmers in this country do the right thing with the guidance that they’re given. The guidance has shifted. If farmers are to farm, then leaders should lead—if farmers are to farm, leaders should lead. If this was the 1980s, the group over there would be the group voting to continue with subsidies. The Labour Government made the hard calls for the long-term benefit of agriculture. The leaders over there don’t have the guts to make the right calls for the long-term sustainability of agriculture. If we are to claim to be the best farmers in the world—indeed, most are—we have to prove it. We have seen images go around the world of very poor farming practices. We’ve started to see increase in nitrate in some of the aquifers. There are many, many examples of very poor—in fact, outrageous—farming practice.

We are all governed by the lowest common denominator whether we like it or not. If we’re to sell our products—and it’s not just good enough to farm them and sell them at the gate, because we need customers and we need consumers for just about everything that we do. Those customers and consumers are scrutinising every part of our farming system, believe it or not. What leaders should do is show some leadership—that is, give clear standards for fresh water, for animal welfare, and for other areas of farm practice.

Nick Smith will probably say that I don’t acknowledge much of what he did, but at least Nick Smith had the guts to create Te Mana o te Wai to acknowledge our indigenous values in our freshwater systems, and at least he had the guts to put in place the National Environment Standards for Freshwater. This Government, this coalition Government, doesn’t even want to do that. Nick Smith’s standards had “wadeable”, but the public licence for agriculture was starting to run pretty thin.

Most people would expect, in our country, to have swimmable rivers, and indeed that’s what we in Government, in partnership with New Zealand First at that time, tried to put in place. It wasn’t perfect, we made some mistakes, but we were giving a clear signal to farmers, now and in the future, that “swimmable” will maintain our social licence to operate. Because, if it goes back to “wadeable”, and if the degradation continues—what we said is we want no further degradation, and, over a generation, we want to see the restoration of those waterways that have been degraded; a perfectly reasonable and achievable goal. But, if they degrade and we lose our social licence, farmers will face uncertainty from councils who will have to implement what their public demands. The public will demand waterways that are swimmable, demand farming systems that don’t see cows in mud up to their guts and that don’t see soil continually washed down into the estuaries. These are basic requirements.

Labour, in coalition Government, and in Government, gave a clear signal, and the time lines, through our legislation for the farming sector. This Government has come in and offered confusing signals to farmers now and in the future. They will rue the day that this confusion was allowed through the passage of this legislation.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. These reforms signal welcome relief for my community, mid- and South Canterbury—the farming community of mid- and South Canterbury. These changes offer much-needed certainty and a more practical approach to water management, and this is a significant shift from the previous operation, especially the previous Government’s contentious 2020 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, which many of my local farmers found overly complex and financially burdensome.

Can I take the opportunity, as it’s my first contribution to the debate, to acknowledge those who submitted to the Primary Production Committee from my area, in particular the irrigation companies, who raised a number of pertinent issues which have been reflected in the changes in this bill. Can I just point out the fact that as members opposite sit down to have their toast in the morning, their soy and linseed toast, bear in mind where that toast comes from. Toast doesn’t grow on trees, but the grain does grow in the fields and so does the soy and so does the linseed, and all of that is powered in mid-Canterbury by irrigation. Members opposite should remind themselves, when they’re sitting down and buttering their toast in the morning, that that is where it comes from. It is the farming sector and the farming communities that feed them, that feed their families, and they need to bear that in mind when they are considering previous Draconian legislation that they’ve put through.

Secondly, can I also just raise a point around the Te Mana o te Wai hierarchy. Now, I was fortunate to sit in on some of the submissions, and I raised a number of questions to submitters who were commenting on the hierarchy. If you think about the concept of Te Mana o te Wai, it is an admirable and valuable concept: consider the life force, consider the health of the water, when making decisions around resource management.

The issue is, however, the hierarchy, and it’s a hierarchy for a reason. A hierarchy sets an order of values: one, two, and three. I know members opposite don’t quite believe that to be the case, but if you go to the Ministry for the Environment website, it says—and I quote—“The first priority is the health and well-being of the water body, ahead of any human uses of that water.”—and that includes drinking water. Priority number two: the health needs of the people. Under Te Mana o te Wai, essentially, you cannot do anything to affect the mauri or the spirit of the waterway which benefits any sort of human health benefit. That, to me, is an inhuman application of a hierarchy. The more appropriate way of doing this is to have the balance in place where we consider the social, the cultural, the economic, and the environmental values of the waterways when we are making decisions around resource management.

For our diverse agricultural sector in mid- and South Canterbury, which stretches, of course, from the plains to the foothills, oceans to the alps, these changes could not have come at a better time. The region’s farmers, who have already invested very heavily in irrigation infrastructure and water-quality improvements, will benefit from these changes. The practical implications for my local farmers are substantial. Under the previous framework, farmers were facing the prospect of multiple consent applications for normal farming activities—those farming activities that put the toast on the breakfast table of the members opposite every single morning. This intervention means that those operations can continue without disruption while still working towards improved environmental outcomes. This is a good day for practical, common-sense changes to our resource management laws. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Just because you say something 10 times in a row doesn’t make it true. We’ve heard repeated claims by the members of the Government that Te Mana o te Wai—[Interruption] I have to shout because the boneheads on the other side of the House will not listen. We’ve heard repeated claims from the other side that Te Mana o te Wai created an absolute hierarchy. The select committee was told by the ministry that that wasn’t true.

Hon Member: No, not so.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I was there. In respect of process issues, Mark Cameron—

Mark Cameron: Oh, here we go.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yeah, Mark Cameron—I would have thought you would like to be a man of your word. Mark Cameron gave, as the chair of the Primary Production Committee, an undertaking to Sally Gepp, King’s Counsel—appointed by Judith Collins to be a King’s Counsel—that the bill would not override the existing section 107 of the Resource Management Act (RMA), and, therefore, he did not want to hear her submission in respect of those issues. Then, the bill was changed at select committee to do exactly that with no submissions from any submitter, including Sally Gepp.

We raised this with the Minister in the committee of whole House stage. The Minister did not once respond. We raised it with Mark Cameron. He didn’t defend himself once. That is a disgraceful episode in the history of this Parliament—that submitters were told that section 107 wouldn’t be overridden. Now, there may be a case for overriding section 107, or limiting the effect of those judgments that the Government complains about, but they should do that in separate legislation. They shouldn’t add it on to this, because it’s an appalling process to do it this way.

In respect of the issues, look, I can accept some of the criticisms or concerns that are in respect of significant natural areas (SNAs). There are different ways of doing that. I accept that there is a limit to, and there is an intersection between, SNAs and property rights. I don’t accept how far the National Party take it. The National Party would have you believe, or the ACT Party would have you believe, that if you had the last habitat of something, your private property right includes the ability to change the habitat of that species—that’s, effectively, the argument that they make. Now, my property rights in a city are limited. I can’t change the use of my land from residential to industrial. The extension of a property right in respect of an area of rural land that has some important residual biodiversity is similar. You can’t change the land use of that and knock it all over and turn it into a pastoral farm.

That said, I can accept that there are broader issues in respect of that for SNAs, and I can also accept that fencing regulations can be changed. What I can’t accept in respect of the fencing regulation changes is the example that I gave in an earlier part of this debate, about a farm that I was shown with the Prime Minister—from a dairy farm looking over the back fence of an area. Mark Cameron shakes his head. I saw other members of the National Party—

Mark Cameron: One farmer—big deal.

Hon DAVID PARKER: “One farmer”, he says, “big deal”—OK. So we’ve got metres of deep sediment getting into the Kaipara, one of the biggest harbours in the world. We’ve put hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer and council money into cleaning it up, and there are some farmers who are recalcitrant and will not fence their waterways from heavy cattle, notwithstanding that it’s so obvious, and has been for decades, that they’re trampling the banks into the river and that’s a big cause of sediment pollution of the Kaipara. Now, I can accept that those regulations need to be changed, and I can even accept some of the regulation changes that are being made here, but the idea that you go so far as to not fix the problem that was identified as one of the reasons for those regulations in the first place is overreach.

Now, in respect of the intensive winter grazing thing, I heard Andrew Hoggard deny that we had a problem with intensive winter grazing. The whole of New Zealand knows that we’ve had a problem with intensive winter grazing in some parts. The ACT Party went around saying the rules that we had to control the adverse effects of that, by having a permitted activity pathway that was practical, was going to cause 10,000 resource consents to be needed in the country. They took that from a report—that was a ridiculous report—where someone had said, “Look, the range of consent applications needed will be something between 300 to 10,000.” Do you know the actual number of resource consents that have been required? It’s about 100. It hasn’t been 10,000; it’s been 100 because the rule has worked.

The rule has worked to improve the practice by setting out some rules as to how you could do it as of right, if you were doing it responsibly. The main rule for that has actually been slope. If you go from 10 degrees to 20 degrees, as the Hon Damien O’Connor said in an earlier contribution, the amount of sediment getting into the rivers and clogging up the estuaries and killing the kelp beds out to sea—and this is true—doesn’t go up just by a small percentage; it goes up by factors. Many, many more tonnes per hectare of sediment are lost per annum.

There are streams in Southland where we’ve got good data on macroinvertebrate health. These are the little critters that live under rocks. I think just about everyone in the House recognises that a healthy stream needs to have those critters alive. There is the Otapiri Stream—there are peer reviewed scientific studies going back to the 1950s and 1960s, to the current day. In the fast-flowing water, more than 90 percent of the macroinvertebrates are dead, and in the pools that don’t move as fast, more than 99 percent of the macroinvertebrates have gone. This river used to be a special fishery where people went fishing. There are not many fish in it now because there are no macroinvertebrates for the fish to eat. There are problems that have been caused by the increasing intensity of land use in some parts of our country.

Simon Court: I mean, don’t blame the farmers.

Hon DAVID PARKER: It’s so obvious—it’s so obvious. There has been a 600 percent increase in nitrogenous fertiliser use over a period of decades in New Zealand, with a comparative increase in land-use intensity. Now, that’s not saying all farmers are bad. You know, we, on this side of the House, really go to the trouble to compliment all of the farmers, to thank them for their efforts—

Mark Cameron: That’s why they booted you lot out.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —to thank them for their—we do. We do it time and again; hundreds of times—hundreds of times. But, whenever we criticise the recalcitrants, the other side of the House hear us as criticising all farmers. It seems to be that this view, and we heard it—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Comments, not commentary.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —from Ms Redmayne saying that pioneer conservators really is how farmers see themselves. I think that’s part of the problem here, because, although that’s true for nine out of 10 farmers, there’s one out of 10 farmers that’s not of that mindset. It might be because there’s a share milker who’s pressured or willing to drive the land a bit harder. But the farming sector club together and will not criticise the people who are ruining their own reputations.

James Meager: Not true.

Hon Nicola Grigg: Not true.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Now, it’s all—well, it is true. I’m now going to move to the Otago Regional Council because I’ve only got two minutes left. Until now, there has been respect across the House for gradual changes in national policy statements. If a Government wants to change a national policy statement or an environmental standard imposed by a prior Government, they go through a process to do it. That’s been thrown out of the window by what this Government has done, and that is a breach of convention. That is a very, very serious change in convention.

What does the next Government do? The Greens have long called for input controls. We have resisted, in the Labour administration, input controls because they are less economically efficient, even though they’re simpler. What are we to do next?

James Meager: Retire.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Oh, he says “Retire.” No, I’m not ready to give up, because I know that the vast majority of New Zealanders do actually want their rivers to be swimmable. They want to be able to put their head under without the risk of getting crook.

Now, that’s what makes it so appalling that they’ve stopped the regional council who’ve got a 20-year-old plan which has been criticised in the Environment Court for long being in breach of the RMA, which has no minimum flows on a lot of rivers and inadequate controls on increases in intensity. They’re responsible for all the rivers in Otago, and they’ve been through a process that’s cost $18 million. They say on that side of the House, “An incredible waste of money”—the equivalent of $70 per resident in Otago, in respect of what is their most precious resource: their water. They’re cutting across that—so hypocritical compared with what they said about three waters and their hatred of centralisation. They’re centralising, they’re over-riding the will of local government, and it’s a sad day for New Zealand.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I rise with great pleasure as the last speaker on the third reading of the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, because our Government is delivering on our election promise to replace the Resource Management Act in three phases. Phase one was repealing the Natural and Built Environment Act and Spatial Planning Act, which was designed by the member who just sat down. Phase two work has begun with the Fast-track Approvals Bill, because, on this side of the House, we are about getting things built and delivery. Part of that phase two is this bill, to make targeted changes to the resource management system.

Growing exports and building infrastructure—that’s what this bill is all about, and it is very welcome news for the people of my electorate, Tukituki, Hawke’s Bay, a rural electorate. Actually, speaking of infrastructure and the Resource Management Act, I’d just like to take this moment to acknowledge the work that has already started on building the four-lane expressway in the Hawke’s Bay. This is the first road of national significance to start work, and this work is happening at the moment, which involves removing vegetation and removing the silt. It means that the four-lane expressway is actually going to happen 12 to 15 months faster than scheduled.

The reason I’m talking about this is because this is amazing news for the people of Hawke’s Bay—

Ingrid Leary: Point of order, Mr Chair—point of order. This is a third reading, and I don’t believe the member is speaking to the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Just allow the Speaker to judge that, thank you. But, Ms Wedd, you will be warned that you are now straying a long way away from the topic of the third reading, and I’ll expect you to be back on it.

CATHERINE WEDD: OK, no, thank you, Mr Speaker, but the reason I did speak about that was because we are obviously committed to reframing the resource management in this country, and part of that, in terms of phase two, was the Fast-track Approvals Bill. You will have seen the list that came out recently, and, of course, the four-lane expressway in Hawke’s Bay was on that. That was just showing us to be a Government committed to building infrastructure, and that includes the Fast-track Approvals Bill. It was very much part of this third reading.

Coming back to this particular bill, in phase two, it’s part of our Government’s plan to take Wellington out of farming. We have heard that a lot tonight, being aspirational for our farmers and making practical decisions and stopping that avalanche of red tape and regulation which has been holding us back. I think a good example of this was the move that we made with the amendment that has been also discussed tonight. This amendment restricted councils’ ability to notify freshwater plans before the replacement of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. These steps were taken to reduce cost, reduce duplication, and to provide farmers with the clarity they need around freshwater management.

Labour’s National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management is extremely complex and expensive for farmers and councils to implement, and despite that, it doesn’t deliver the outcomes for fresh water that New Zealanders would expect. That’s why, late last year, we legislated so that councils would have an additional three years to notify their freshwater plans. Our Government is committed to reviewing and replacing the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management. This is about protecting the interests of the primary sector, resource users, and ratepayers.

Ratepayers and farmers, they need certainty, and that’s been spoken about quite a lot tonight as well. They don’t deserve to have money wasted. Ratepayers and farmers, they need that certainty, and by delaying plan notifications, we’re providing certainty to farmers. That’s what they need right now in terms of their planning. Our farmers are doing the farming, they’re doing the fencing, and they’re planting their waterways. As we’ve heard from Andrew Hoggard—he spoke about the catchment groups, and we have many, many catchment groups across the country, because, you know, farmers are committed to protecting the waterways. They don’t need to be told by bureaucrats in Wellington what to do. They don’t need a piece of paper, a strategy with tick boxes. It doesn’t need to be that exercise. They need a Government that’s backing them and backing our farmers and growers. We need a balanced approach.

We’ve spoken about protecting waterways for future generations, and I just thought it was worth noting, when we’re talking about future generations, that I was actually at a Fonterra meeting this morning and I was with a wonderful dairy farmer from Te Awamutu. He spoke about himself being a fourth-generation farmer, and next week his son was coming back to the farm and he was going to be a fifth-generation farmer. He spoke about how important it was with farming and being responsible so that we can protect our waterways and land for the seventh- and eighth- and ninth-generation farmers that are coming back to the farm.

The only way that we’re going to create the best environment for our future generations is if we make sensible, practical decisions now which ensure that there is aspiration and confidence once again for our primary industries. We want to attract our younger generations back to the land and back to our place so that they can work and live and have their families here. That’s what farming is all about in New Zealand, and we want to see those next generations of farmers coming through. Our farmers have a real commitment to the waterways, and to planting and fencing, of course.

This bill targets changes that can take effect quickly and give certainty to councils and consent applicants while our Government develops new legislation to replace the Resource Management Act, as we’ve heard. The bill will also speed up the process for preparing or amending national direction.

During the select committee process, we heard from a lot of councils who were very, very committed to localism, and they believe that they can do it better in terms of the winter grazing regulations and, of course, the stock exclusions, which have been also widely spoken about tonight. Our Government, on this side of the House, is very, very committed to localism, to ensuring that we are trusting our farmers and we are backing our primary industries.

This is what this legislation is about. It is about making practical solutions for provincial, regional New Zealand, which is obviously where I’m from, Tukituki—the mighty fruit bowl of New Zealand, but also we have a very large red meat sector and, of course, a very large horticulture sector but also dairy sector as well. Of course, many of our farmers in my electorate are very, very supportive of the direction that our Government is taking, where we are putting aspiration and confidence back into our primary industries. Of course, you know, with reducing the red tape and regulation, we are starting to see some green shoots in the economy again where we’ve seen inflation come down to 2.2 percent and, of course, interest rates coming back, which is good for our primary industries.

Along with this great, practical legislation and this bill going through the House today, along with stopping the wasteful spending and ensuring we are getting Wellington out of farming and backing our farmers—it’s these types of things that are going to really make a difference and support the mighty rural areas of the Rangitīkei, which we’ve already heard about tonight; the mighty Hawke’s Bay, and, of course, South Canterbury, Rangitata. This is the backbone of New Zealand. This is where the work really, really happens, in regional, rural New Zealand, and this bill tonight, the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, is going to go a long way to supporting our agriculture sector. So, without any further ado, I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The time has come to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House is adjourned until 7.30 p.m.

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

Bills

Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity) on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs: I present a legislative statement on the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: I move, That the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

On behalf of the Minister, I am pleased to be leading this bill through its final stage in the House. This is a short but important bill that will benefit fund-raising efforts across the country. Passing this bill means charitable organisations will be able to continue to operate and self-fund in an increasingly digital world.

This bill amends the Gambling Act 2003 to make permanent the existing temporary exclusion of class 3 lotteries from the definition of “remote interactive gambling”. Under current laws, class 3 lotteries can only operate online until the end of October this year. This legislation will permanently enable class 3 operators to continue selling lottery tickets online or over the phone.

This legislation reflects consumer preferences today, with the majority of people preferring to buy these lottery tickets online rather than in person or by post. One class 3 operator reported that, last year, 85 percent of their ticket sales were done online, which was only possible under the temporary exemption. If this bill were not to pass and the temporary exemption were to expire at the end of this month, I am concerned about what this would mean for non-profit organisations who use these lotteries to self-fundraise. It would require charities to remove payment platforms from their websites, take down any digital advertising, and return to seeking ticket sales in person. This would increase the cost of fund-raising and likely result in a loss of customers, therefore reducing revenue.

I have heard from many well-loved Kiwi charities about the difference this bill will mean for them by allowing them to continue fund-raising in an efficient and effective way. From the Coastguard and the Auckland rescue helicopter through local sports clubs in Dunedin and Whangārei, these non-profit organisations serve our communities and often make a life-changing difference to Kiwis and their families.

I’m honoured to lead this bill through the House to ensure that the charities who fund-raise through these lotteries can continue their vital work in our communities. I would also like to acknowledge the House for its debate in the committee of the whole House and the Governance and Administration Committee for their careful consideration of this bill. I give my thanks, again, to all who submitted on the bill. We heard of the significant community benefits this amendment will have. And this Government is taking action to provide certainty to charities and community organisations today.

I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the many community organisations in New Zealand for their service to local communities. I look forward to seeing the positive impact made by this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am happy to take a call on behalf of Labour to say that we also support this bill. I was Minister of Internal Affairs when we brought in the temporary aspect of this bill so that charities over COVID could take on their fund-raising and not have to worry about going out in person or accessing the post, which was difficult over those times. We extended that by a short while so that we could assess whether this bill was making a difference without any unintended consequences. We’re at this case today that we’re able to put this bill through the House to make this a permanent change.

We think that it is really important that these charities are able to access this, but I do have a couple of concerns that I do need to signal here and that is around the fact of harm minimisation. We don’t have robust data in the class 3 area; we don’t have that intersectional data in the class 3 area. If we find that someone is at risk of harm in class 4, for example, or in casino gambling, we also don’t have the intersectional data to know whether there’s class 3. I do signal that I think that is further work that is needed.

Also the interaction and intersection with online gambling—and I know that the Minister is doing some work around this. I do want to signal, as that work is progressing, to keep in mind what is happening now that we’re putting this through to make this more accessible for people or continue to make it more accessible for people. The Minister talks about 15 licences in the online space that have come through in the media, and that is just far too many in a country like New Zealand. Where does that intersect with class 3?

Those are questions that I have going forward, but I also want to just signal that we do need to have a really big conversation as a country; that we have critical organisations such as Coastguard and the Heart Foundation who rely upon the proceeds of gambling for their fund-raising. These are organisations that do need to exist and thrive within our country. I can’t imagine what it would be like without the likes of our Coastguard, being a boatie myself. Not having the Coastguard is just unimaginable. Knowing that this is one way of their fund-raising—just on the proceeds of gambling—is something that doesn’t quite sit well with me. Maybe it’s time as a country that we actually have that conversation. As we move forward in the online space, I hope we do have that opportunity to have that conversation. I do think, though, today, this is a good move. I think that it is important that we give surety for these organisations, and we are happy to support it. Thank you.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I stand to provide a comment and support from Te Rōpū Kākāriki towards this legislation. Like my colleague Jan Tinetti from the Labour Party, I’d like to really explore some of the dependence that our charities do have on gambling. We know that they offer important services to our communities. We know that our clubs also rely on proceeds of gambling. Unfortunately, because of the way that our system is set up, some of us do rely on it, whether it be pokie machine money or lotteries such as this, to keep the lights on, and that’s not OK. So, ultimately, what can we do as a House to look at the system to support these important charities to do good within our community?

On top of that, let’s look at the process. It was a short, truncated time frame. We had a very limited window for submissions, but we received a diverse view of groups, from both those that received the funds as well as those who provide problem gambling services.

There were gaps identified within some of what we considered during deliberations, including the data—we did not have sufficient information or evidence to really show what the effects or the outcomes were since the temporary provision was in place since 2020. That was shared by the officials. What were the amounts, the frequency of gambling, and also maybe potential harm, and referral into problem gambling services?

Now, ultimately, we do support this. We do see the value of those groups that are in communities being able to execute their lotteries in this manner, but also remembering that we have the wider system strategy being developed right now and we are consulting on preventing and minimising problem-gambling harm. What does that look like in terms of an ecosystem of both management of potential harm and services that deliver, importantly, to those who are impacted, but then charities such as this?

Let’s be cautious around online gaming generally. That is something that we need to watch out for as a House and continue to look at what the trends are moving forward. But, ultimately, we do support the bill, and we tautoko good examination, evaluation, and robust monitoring moving forward, so we can understand better what systems and mechanisms we need to put in place to tautoko those who are impacted by problem gambling but also these important community organisations to ensure we’re all compliant but also the services are available to support those who need help. Kia ora.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I rise in support of the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill and remind the House that the Governance and Administration Committee examined this bill and recommended that it be passed without amendment.

Some concern has been raised by the Opposition that there seems to be an over-reliance from some of our charities, such as Coastguard, on gambling, but I’d like to take this opportunity to bring some good news, Dan Bidois. That good news is, in Budget 2024, Coastguard and Surf Life Saving received a funding boost from this Government of $63.6 million in May for the next four years. Both parties were really happy. This Government is addressing some of those funding shortfalls. I commend the bill.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thanks, Madam Speaker. This is a common-sense bill; I don’t think it’s controversial at all. As we’ve just heard, the Governance and Administration Committee recommended the bill without amendment. It’s simply making permanent what’s already been there for three or four years post-COVID. It allows class 3 licence holders to raise money remotely, as opposed to the old-school way of door-to-door selling and all that sort of thing. It’s more effective, it’s more efficient, it’s more modern, and it’s the kind of thing which we would expect in our society.

We just heard a couple of things about dependence on gambling money for community organisations, but that’s really not what tonight is about. This is simply about the way in which these particular organisations raise money at the moment.

I’d just like to remind the House that class 3 are low-risk operators. There’s none of that rush of immediate return that you get from a class 4 machine, because no machines are allowed. The prizes have to be over $5,000, so they are reasonably sizable. It’s got to be for community purposes, and it’s nothing like the class 4, 5, and 6, which is your casinos, your machines, your Lotto, etc.

It’s got to be for fund-raising for good purposes, the kind of purposes that we heard about: sports clubs, hospices, rescue helicopters, the Heart Foundation, Coastguard. This is money being raised for very, very good purposes. This is about making sure that it is able to be done efficiently and effectively. I’d also like to remind the House that only 1 percent of all gambling money invested—if you like—is invested through class 3.

Labour has asked about data on harm caused by this class of gambling. I think the reality is that we heard none of that because the submitters who we asked about that who were concerned about gaming harm weren’t able to provide any, and they are organisations that you might expect to be able to do that. They would have had plenty of time. If they had any evidence, they would know that—they would know that—and the Department of Internal Affairs said this is low risk. We had no evidence that there is any harm, and I think that is simply tilting at windmills.

We had 15 submissions: 13 in favour, two against, and no evidence of problems caused by gambling. It’s a low-risk, sensible bill. It helps those charities to get on with their good work, and I commend this bill to the House.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā tātou, e te Speaker. Kia ora tātou. The psychology of gambling is deeply set in our minds—you know, dollar signs flashing, lots of noise, lots of lights—

Andy Foster: Not with class 3.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —and the temptation of winning, right? I mean, we’re probably all subject to it one way or another—so just settle—but then it becomes a necessary evil. So there it is. I just wanted to open my great kōrero with that kind of opening statement.

Today, I stand for Te Pāti Māori, and on behalf of the party, to support the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill, you’ll be pleased to know. It is a significant and forward-thinking step—who wrote this?—in ensuring our charities can continue to do their work, because, again, there it is, isn’t it? It’s another necessary evil. It’s like, yes, all those lights are flashing, the same as we’re all tempted, actually, when we’re actually in there—not that I go there, of course. Then, of course, it goes to all of those providers that are out there and do have to depend seriously and properly, I guess, on the money that’s sought from gambling to undo the harm of gambling. But there we go.

This bill will make permanent the exemption for class 3 lotteries from the prohibition on remote interactive gambling, allowing our charitable organisations to thrive in an increasingly digital world, and removing barriers—and this is from a digital immigrant here, interestingly enough. This legislation will directly benefit many community organisations, especially in Tāmaki Makaurau. Take, for instance, the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust, which provides life-saving services to our whānau, and, similarly, the Coastguard Aotearoa, another organisation that plays a critical role in keeping our communities safe and well. Additionally, there are key organisations that are available to support whānau, like those in health. They are the ones that some on the other side of the aisle are getting rid of, but, anyway, that’s another conversation. There are the Heart Foundation and the Kidney Society.

This bill is crucial for Māori communities in the likes of Manurewa and Māngere, and those communities are doing their best to support each other to thrive. Many Māori-led organisations and initiatives rely on lotteries to support their community-driven projects, ranging from healthcare to education, and to preserve tikanga. Enabling these groups to fund-raise online opens up new avenues of support, making it easier for whānau and iwi across the motu to contribute to causes that uplift and empower families.

As the world shifts increasingly to online, we must ensure our legislation reflects these changes. The temporary exemption introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that online lotteries can operate effectively and it is fundamentally important to the ongoing operation and feasibility of those that support us. By passing this bill, we are embracing the future and enabling our charities to continue the incredible mahi in the environment and in the modern world that we live in today. Nō reira, e te Pīka, tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. I rise to also, on behalf of the Green Party, support this bill. However, there are definitely, from a process perspective, a couple of points that I would like to raise. Firstly, we heard about the fact that this bill will be taking effect, whichever one is earlier, on 1 November this year. This is on the basis that the existing extension was only going to be till the 31st. However, since that is already a known factor, we have had the truncated select committee process, and when we did ask the Minister of Internal Affairs this during the committee of the whole House stage, there wasn’t a clear explanation from the Minister on some of the detail of this bill, which actually is quite concerning.

Just speaking very briefly on the committee stage, I raised the point that there are a number of concerns in this bill from the primary legislation perspective and whether the Minister has considered a lot of these factors. I think the Minister’s response, which is comparable to some of the governing party’s responses so far, is this is something that’s in place for three years already, there’s only 1 percent of this, it’s class 3, and there’s not a lot of harm caused by this because of delayed gratification. However, we simply do not have enough data on this, because there isn’t any data on this, particularly when we’re looking at some of the class 3 gambling that we mentioned. We did not have sufficient time to hear from the communities who could potentially be harmed as a result—"potentially” being the keyword—by this. We have heard some of the other groups, which others have mentioned, particularly around the Heart Foundation.

For us, although we support this bill, we do find the process of how this bill was introduced lacking, and from an issues perspective, there is the fact that there isn’t enough data. There is the fact that we simply do not know what the harm is when it comes to delayed gratification. Some people have mentioned that this is a low number. If this is a low number or a low percentage, there was no convincing argument being put forward so far on why, then, it is absolutely crucial for us to push this through a truncated process and undermine the legislative process that we have in this House. Surely, in that case, it wouldn’t have been that big a deal, if it’s quite a small percentage of it, as other people have mentioned in this very House. Indeed, I have again asked the Minister if she would consider delaying this by three months or putting in something that’s interim for three months so that we’re able to hear more from the communities themselves on how they feel about the permanence of this particular legislation or this particular method of remote, interactive gambling.

Finally, let us actually be very clear about this: people and charities and all of these organisations in Aotearoa should have the sufficient level of funding that is needed for all of us to be able to thrive. The fact that the Heart Foundation and all of these other organisations have to use this method in order to have sufficient funding to operate or to keep their lights on is simply not good enough. We shouldn’t be using gambling as an excuse or as a reason for us to undertake these worthwhile endeavours that the communities are doing.

Again, these foundations are doing a fantastic job, and I think one of the speakers mentioned before that there seems to be an increase in funding to support some of these areas. However, clearly, that is not enough. For us, we would like to see that when we are looking at these sorts of charities and this sort of funding in the future, there is enough for them to go on, that maybe some of this funding should be available and should be part of the Budget to begin with. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The purpose of this bill—which I support—is to allow lotteries that raise funds for charities or non-commercial purposes under class 3 to continue to do so. We’ve heard a number of examples already. They talk about how coastguards and surf life-saving clubs and the Heart Foundation use this mechanism to raise funds. There was a group here where 85 percent of the gambling that they do is online to raise funds, and it’s their second-biggest source of funding. That’s Coastguard New Zealand. There is an exemption that was due to expire at the end of this month, so asking for it to be delayed by a few months, like the previous speaker, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, did, through committee, obviously would have a very detrimental impact. We are a hard-working Government that is getting on with getting this third reading through today, and I support this bill.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker, it’s a pleasure to take a call on the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill. As chair of the Governance and Administration Committee that considered the bill, can I again thank all those who contributed to the process: the officials who provided us with advice, submitters who engaged in that process, and of course the select committee for the work that they did on the bill.

There have been a good number of contributions already this evening that have talked about the purpose of the bill. This comes about following what was a temporary solution that emerged through COVID, where we had a number of charities that were unable to perform their fundraising activity. Moving their activity online to ensure that they were able to continue with their raffles—it’s usually a raffle type of process that they follow—meant that those charities weren’t going to forego some of the critical funds that they receive in order to run charities that provide services that are essential to New Zealanders.

As the previous speaker, Sam Uffindell, noted, that exemption is due to expire very soon, which is why the Government brought this to the House. I would note, just following the prior speaker Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s comments, that I do agree with him. It was a very truncated process and there were other options that could have been looked at to ensure that those charities didn’t end up in that situation. None of us would want that situation where they weren’t able to continue that activity. I don’t think that’s what speakers tonight are suggesting. There could have been another temporary exemption, or, actually, the Government could have brought this bill to the House earlier. We did, unfortunately, hear from at least one submitter who wasn’t able to submit, and this is a submitter who works in the area of harm minimisation. As the chair of that committee, as a member of that committee, I want to put on record my concern that, if you have a truncated process, it can sometimes mean people with valid information and views aren’t able to give their contribution.

Having said that, I do take the point that Andy Foster has made tonight in his contribution—that even though we have concerns about harm minimisation, I do accept the views of officials, which is that the risk in this case is very, very low. These are the types of activities where the organisations that undertake that fund-raising activity keep a name and a record and contact details of the person who has purchased a raffle ticket. It’s not like the pokies where you have bright lights and noise and flashes and where they’re designed psychologically to actually create an addictive process—very, very different type of activity. The harm minimisation is low, but I also don’t think it’s onerous to require those agencies to have a harm minimisation approach in place.

One of the agencies gave us a good example—that was the Heart Foundation. I would encourage other agencies undertaking these activities to look at what the Heart Foundation do and to, perhaps, make sure they’re doing the same thing themselves. They spotted someone who was purchasing multiple tickets. That caused them some concern. They contacted that person. It turns out the person was a previous winner of the raffle and wanted to support the Heart Foundation—you know, was very grateful for that. The Heart Foundation worked with them to provide another method for them to provide an ongoing contribution. Now, I don’t think it’s onerous for these large charities to have a small harm minimisation process in place.

My colleague Jan Tinetti has noted already that the Minister of Internal Affairs—there’s been commentary in the media about the Minister’s plans around online gambling. It’s certainly something that I have an interest in, both as an MP and an electorate MP but also as the chair of this committee. It is an area where we always have to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to limit that harm that can occur to people, because that harm is devastating. It can destroy lives, it can destroy marriages, it can destroy people’s ability to go to work. I don’t think we can underestimate, actually, that gambling can cause people to go through very, very devastating situations where they end up doing things like committing fraud against their employer. We as parliamentarians do need to take that seriously.

I will repeat again, just echoing the comments from Andy Foster, that the risk in this situation is very, very low. So, on that basis, Labour is really pleased to support this bill. We did actually have a member’s bill in the ballot that would have done the same thing. I want to acknowledge our former Ministers—Jan Tinetti, in particular—who put this exemption in place during COVID to ensure that these charities could continue receiving the revenue that they need so they can deliver very, very crucial services to New Zealanders. Thanks to everyone who has been involved and I commend this bill to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Coming from the Bay of Plenty, I think of our Pāpāmoa Surf Life Saving Club. I think of, in Sam Uffindell’s electorate, the Mount Maunganui surf life-saving club, and the Omanu Beach Surf Life Saving Club, which sits on the electoral boundary of the Tauranga and Bay of Plenty electorates, which, under this legislation, will be able to fund-raise to support the incredible work they do to support and keep our communities safe. For us, we are so grateful to them for their ongoing support in protecting our communities, and by enabling this legislation, we are providing them with more opportunities to bring in funds to support the work they do and making it permanent from the end of this month. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I too want to rise and take a short contribution on this third reading and say, once again, that Labour supports this bill. I’ve listened to a few contributions in this debate, and one thing I just wanted to note is that, even though these are very worthy charities and we do want to see them be able to fund-raise and do the wonderful work that they do, I have heard some important points raised about harm minimisation and ensuring that we are also turning our minds to that, because we have a duty, as members of Parliament, to ensure that we are looking at any of the adverse or potential unintended consequences of changes that we make.

I am a bit disappointed that the select committee did not support the Labour members who asked for a clause in the legislation to directly address harm minimisation. I think that was a missed opportunity and, from listening to the debate tonight, potentially because it was such a rushed process as well. That wasn’t able to be further explored and debated, and evidence and submissions received on that. But I do come back to the point that Labour does support this legislation. It was a modification that was put in place in 2020, during the COVID pandemic. It has proven to have worked and had some positive benefits to it. Many in the House tonight see the merit in continuing that through this bill, so I commend the bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s great to see the House break out in unison this evening to support—

Hon Member: “Kumbaya”.

DAN BIDOIS: —such a great bill. This bill is about empowering strong communities. It presents the House with a bill that gives a permanent change to class 3 lotteries. It’s going to help some fantastic charities that have been mentioned here this evening.

I don’t think there’s anything else that I can contribute, other than a quote from a Filipino proverb which says, “A man that talks too much accomplishes little”. I commend this bill to the House.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill, and I think—

Hon Matt Doocey: Build the bridge.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: It’s OK, I can talk about more than one thing—that’s why I’m in this party.

The purpose of this bill is to support those New Zealanders when they need help. It is to support our fellow New Zealanders by supporting these charities. I think, when we look at this bill, it’s a good opportunity for us to look at one of the charities that relies on the activity that this bill allows, and that’s the New Zealand Heart Foundation. It’s a fact that every 90 minutes a New Zealander dies from heart disease. That’s a statistic that I don’t think anyone in this House could or should be happy with, and it’s a statistic that we should make sure that we support organisations like the Heart Foundation to reverse.

A large part of the fund-raising that the Heart Foundation do through the lotteries that they’re able to run thanks to this amended bill is research and specialist training for cardiologists, for support people, and for whānau. This year alone, they are investing $4.2 million into fellowships, scholarships, and project grants across Aotearoa, so it’s less about all singing “Kumbaya” together and more about making sure that at a time when charities and organisations find it harder and harder to find the fiscal support that they need and may be able to expect from central government, there are, luckily, other avenues available to them.

In 2024, the Heart Foundation has funded people like Vaea Ulima Tofi, who is looking at integrative Māori and Pacific culture values in heart health; it’s funded and supported people like Dr Laura Joyce, who’s working on remote monitoring for atrial fibrillation; and it’s funding and supporting people like Dr Nikki Earle to understand the differences by sex of heart attacks—how different the heart attack experience is for men versus women. I think this kind of research is crucial and critical and immensely valuable for all New Zealanders.

What this bill allows is the continuation of the class 3 gambling online to raise money for these authorised purposes, with prizes that are valued at over $5,000. This could be a house, a bach, a car, a holiday, and, coincidentally, all those prizes are part of the Heart Foundation’s current raffle, which you can find online—very, very tempting and a very, very good cause, I think we would all agree, especially given those frightening statistics that every 90 minutes we do lose a New Zealander to heart disease.

However, it is also worth us noting that, because of the speed we have had to move this bill through, there are missed opportunities in the select committee process and in the select committee consideration of this bill, and it would be remiss, as it moves through the House, for us to rely on a Filipino saying and use that as an excuse to not fully take stock of the opportunities that we’ve missed through the expedition of this process. The first of those is literally that—that the time-sensitive nature of the bill limited the time to receive submissions. Previously, a member has mentioned that they had time, but the feedback is that, in fact, they did not. The process was rushed and there was not time to receive full and fulsome submissions. Some of the submissions that were received by the Governance and Administration Committee said just that. They also indicated some of the risks that, potentially, have not been fully explored, and the implications of this bill mean that those risks remain.

One of the others was that, with online platforms, there’s really a need to protect anonymous gambling and engagement with activities like this, and there are currently not sufficient tools to reduce that harm because there was not time to explore that. The Labour members who were on the select committee did call for a clause directly addressing the need for harm minimisation to be included in the bill. It is disappointing to see that because of a lack of will and, potentially, because of a need for speed, that wasn’t able to happen, and I think that needs to be noted, even as we pass this through.

I am standing to speak, ultimately, in support of the organisations who support so many New Zealanders who need that crucial support—organisations like the Heart Foundation—but I do think we need to urge greater caution with process and remember the ramifications of our actions when we move things through this House at such speed. Thank you.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): It was my honour to rise and speak in support of the Gambling (Definition of Remote Interactive Gambling) Amendment Bill in this third reading.

Before coming to this House, I was a scientist and I worked for 15 years for different charities, and I have benefited from the proceeds of gambling to actually carry out some very worthwhile medical research. I am very grateful for this bill, which, of course, is going to raise funds for charitable and non-commercial purposes.

We’ve heard a lot in this debate about risks, but I do just want to point out this form of gambling is non-continuous. We’ve heard about flashing lights and noises. This does not count for these class 3 lotteries. During the exemption period where this has been in place, there has not been a notable increase in gambling harm related to these class 3 activities. We do have data, we do know a lot about this, and these class 3 lotteries play a really important part in our charitable sectors. Therefore, I support this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Mental Health Bill

First Reading

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): I present a legislative statement on the Mental Health Bill.

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

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I move, That the Mental Health Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill.

It is a serious step when the State intervenes and takes control of your life. The current Mental Health Act has been criticised for not being aligned with the dominant models of mental health care in New Zealand. This bill is needed to ensure we have modern compulsory mental health care legislation. People who are subject to the legislation come from all walks of life. They could be a family member, a friend, a neighbour, or a professional or leader in our communities. These are everyday New Zealanders experiencing mental distress at a level requiring State intervention to support their recovery.

It is important that the bill comes in today with full support across all political parties in Parliament. As New Zealand’s first mental health Minister, it is important to me that Parliament takes a bipartisan approach to addressing mental health in New Zealand. This builds on the kaupapa started with Chlöe Swarbrick, Louisa Wall, and myself five years ago when we first met to set up New Zealand Parliament’s first cross-party mental health group to develop long-term policy solutions irrespective of three-year parliamentary cycles. It is important to see this bipartisan approach to mental health continue to thrive here tonight.

Can I start by acknowledging those with lived experience, specifically those who have lived experience with compulsory mental health care in New Zealand. I do hope that you will see your voices, your stories in this bill. We need to do better. I want to thank you for sharing your experiences to date and I’d like to encourage those who are still to share their story to make a submission in the select committee process so we can ensure those with lived experience are heard.

I’d also like to acknowledge those who bravely came forward to share their stories in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions. For some, talking about compulsory mental health care will be difficult. It is important to state that this bill will contribute to at least 10 of the Abuse in Care recommendations, relating primarily to care safety and monitoring.

My vision is an effective and comprehensive mental health and addiction continuum that puts people at the centre of their care. Making sure we have legislation that can support people who are experiencing the most acute mental distress is a key part of that continuum. That is what we are here for today.

Back in 2018, there was a Government inquiry into mental health and addiction. The resulting report, He Ara Oranga, recognised that the Mental Health Act was out of date. The report recommended new legislation that reflects a human rights - based approach, promotes supported decision-making, aligns with the recovery and wellbeing model of mental health, and provides measures to minimise compulsory or coercive treatment.

In 2021, the current Act was amended, which, as I said at the time, was an important step in addressing the He Ara Oranga recommendations, but ultimately a small step. I’m very pleased to be taking the next major step by introducing this bill to the House. This bill will modernise compulsory mental health care in New Zealand. The current Act has received substantial criticism and challenges both domestically and internationally. That includes what we heard through the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions. Many of those 2,400 survivors who courageously shared their stories and their experiences with the Government and the public spent time in mental health facilities. This bill forms part of the Government’s response to the recommendations of the inquiry’s final report, particularly those recommendations relating to care safety.

This bill supports a future focus on safe and effective mental health care for people that require State intervention. This bill will be a critical safety net for those experiencing severe mental distress who are unable to engage in decision making about their own mental health care. It is intended to be used as a last resort only.

When this happens, a person is required to receive care either in the community or, if that is not appropriate, in an inpatient setting such as a hospital. This does not cover all specialist mental health service users. In fact, only around 6.4 percent of service users are subject to the Mental Health Act at any given time, but that is still over 11,000 Kiwis—people receiving compulsory care, either in the community or in a hospital setting.

I know that for those experiencing the most severe mental distress, compulsory care can have a significant impact on their lives and their loved ones. It can be a lifelong influence on people’s ability to live independently and engage productively in their communities. I want to highlight the three big shifts I expect to see under this bill.

Firstly, this bill is about providing more effective care. Compulsory mental health care is not a new concept, but how it is delivered is out of date and no longer represents current best practice. The legislation will support care being delivered in a way that minimises coercion and is responsive to individual needs. This will bring compulsory care in line with modern clinical practice in New Zealand. Placing a person at the centre of their care will also support safer ways of working, which will improve outcomes for people under the legislation, their families, and communities.

Secondly, the bill will recognise people’s decision-making capacity. This is why one of the most significant aspects of the bill is its approach to embedding supported decision-making. At its core, this is about putting measures in place so that people can be actively involved and assisted to make decisions about their own mental health care. You will see that the bill has measures in place to support people before they become unwell, such as through compulsory care directives. It also includes key protections when people are under the legislation, such as duties to ensure participation. Empowering individuals is fundamental to this bill.

Thirdly, the bill introduces far greater protections and safeguards. The bill will ensure people understand what is happening to them, why they’re entitled, and what they’re entitled to when they are under the legislation. One of the aspects I’m particularly pleased to be speaking to is the new independent support and advocacy roles under this bill. These roles will be critical to ensuring people have the support they need to be heard, as well as to understand and exercise their rights. People will also have more opportunities to have the decisions about them reviewed and more opportunities to exit the legislation if it is no longer needed.

We also take a hard look at restricted practices, specifically the use of seclusion. This bill ensures there will be far greater monitoring and oversight. I recognise that there are a number of practices like these, marred in history, of inappropriate use, abuse, and overuse. I am committed to seeing the reduction and elimination of seclusion over time. The bill has mechanisms to support far stricter use, with the ability to prohibit seclusion once the system is ready. I’m sure restricted practices will be a critical topic of discussion and of high importance to submitters and the select committee.

This bill has been driven by the voice of New Zealanders, and I will take some time to thank all the individuals, the families, the organisations, and others in the mental health sector who have shared their time and experiences through the public consultation process on the policy underpinning the bill back in 2021. I acknowledge there are diverse views on this piece of legislation and that people have engaged in this work in good faith. Developing this bill has involved carefully balancing all of those views. I have had people who took part in the consultation look at the bill and see how all the different views have been considered. I hope this good-faith engagement can continue across the House as the bill proceeds to the Health Committee and beyond. I commend this bill to the House.

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

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Anybody who has interfaced with the mental health Act 1992 will know the trauma and the difficulty in grappling with really big issues around human rights, dealing with loved ones, dealing with crisis, dealing with safety. As somebody who has used section 12 of that Act twice on family members and had extensive experience with family members who’ve experienced mental health, I want to acknowledge that this is a very big and serious and important piece of legislation, and it is complex. It is always going to be contentious in some elements.

I want to congratulate the Minister, the Hon Matt Doocey, for bringing it to the House, for building on the work that the Labour Government did in getting it here, and I also want to thank him for his collaborative approach for reaching out and providing us with a pre-reading briefing. We take on board his invitation to suggest at the select committee that we go around the regions and seek input from New Zealanders. It’s certainly something I would support, and I also heard, in his briefing, the flexibility of the Minister to consider some of the more contentious elements.

The bill does go a long way in terms of moving the 1992 current law from a very sort of brightline situation, where people are either deemed requiring compulsory care or not, into a much more nuanced approach. I’m not going to go into the differences. I think others can speak to them, but I’d like to just lay out some of the things that we would be very interested in, as the Opposition, to hear from submitters.

We are cautious about certain areas of it. There is a change to the threshold that requires people to be kept under compulsory care. In some ways, it looks to have been broadened, which could be concerning, but we also see that it is proportionate. There is a proportionality test, and so I’d be really keen to hear from people, especially those with lived experience and those working in the sector, as to what they see the impact of that would be.

We are very concerned about electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), and for this reason, we will support the bill to the first reading in its current form. I have heard the Minister say in the briefing and tonight in the House that he is flexible about this, and our concerns come about because of our sensitivity to the evidence and the recommendations from the royal commission into abuse in care. We need to now temper that with the pre-consultation that happened before this bill came up, and I’m hearing that the Minister may be flexible, but we do also have real concerns around the use of ECT that is still allowed under the Act for under-18-year-olds in certain situations, and we want to hear more about what the appropriate consenting process should be and what the safeguards are.

The Minister has mentioned seclusion. Our concern here is we understand there are workforce pressures, but we also feel that to use a pragmatic reason to override human rights as the sole reason is problematic. We want to see what can be done around seclusion to strengthen the human rights element and ensure that it is used only in the rarest of circumstances. The same probably applies to the other treatments that the Minister referred to.

In general, I think the bill will be much stronger if we can just ensure that there is greater compliance, and that is because the policy statement refers to a level of compliance needed to achieve its objectives as being very high and also specifically in the need to secure efforts to secure compliance. Now, those are things that I’m sure can be done through some panel beating of the legislation. And, again, Labour will be really listening hard to see where we can strengthen that. It will be around the reporting requirements afterwards, I imagine, after certain powers have been used under the Act but also in the processes that are used to evaluate people, so that we can be sure that we are really fine-tuning the balance of making sure we take the best care of people when they’re in crisis and need to be kept in a safe environment, not necessarily with their consent, and that they get the care and support afterwards that they need. So with those caveats, we do support this to first reading, and I look forward to the many submissions that we will get.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. All of us deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, no matter where our mental health is at, and I think this is really significant because, for quite some time, in our communities and through our systems built by political decisions, that hasn’t been the case. I want to mihi to the 11,000 people who are subjected to compulsory care every year, their whānau, and their communities, and everybody who has contributed to the political process that has led us to this day where we are debating the Mental Health Bill, which will seek to overhaul the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

Even though that bill is quite old and would have been seen as progressive at the time, it has now been really well documented about how it is actually quite out of date and it doesn’t reflect the rights that we aim to uphold for disabled people. Most recently, we had He Ara Oranga, the report on the Government inquiry into mental health and addiction, that called for our mental health Act to be overhauled and with a human rights - centred approach. I want to acknowledge the Minister for Mental Health’s intent in here to do that and to actually uphold the voices of people who have contributed to this process to this day.

Aso, if we look at this same report, the findings of the report also identify that in order for this bill to be successful, the Minister, and the Government more broadly, will need to take an all-systems approach to improving the wellbeing of our communities. It will rely on addressing workforce issues and it will rely on addressing the social and economic determinants of health. That very same report talks about how poverty is a huge contributor to people’s mental health. Therefore, I think, in order to address some of those rights-based approaches, we’ll need to also look outside the scope of this bill, and that will be key for it to be a success.

I also want to acknowledge the abuse in State care inquiry, which shed another light on practices such as compulsory care and how they have often been used under the guise of care by the State. I think this is another reflection that we need to take into account as we honour the voices of survivors and people with State care experience.

The Green Party, though, notes that this legislation will deserve really, really strong scrutiny from us and our broader communities. I also want to echo how we welcome the invitation from the Minister to get the select committee in charge of this bill to travel across the motu to adequately hear and take into account the voices of our communities who need to be at the centre of this bill.

Again, we do aim to eliminate these restrictive practices, which have been well documented, and we call on the Minister to be a strong champion to address everything else that will need to be done to ensure that our people are safe, because at the end of the day, for example, if we’re going to acknowledge in this legislation the particular need to address Māori mental health and take a Te Tiriti approach to mental health, that cannot be done if, at the same time, land continues to be dispossessed, people continue to be stripped of their culture, and if access to te reo Māori continues to be deprived.

Those things are actually all connected. We have a bill that acknowledges the importance of Māori mental health and Te Tiriti o Waitangi and, therefore, I call on the Minister that, alongside this bill—and I really commend his good-faith approach—he also becomes a champion to address the critical feedback we have received across so many reports, across so many events, and from so many community members on the need to address all the other parts of the mental health system that go beyond this bill.

We look forward to participating in the select committee process, to adequately looking at whether any amendments need to be made to strengthen this legislation, and to encouraging members of our communities to submit. I also want to acknowledge that, when people have lived experience in the mental health system, particularly when it comes to issues around compulsory care, there are barriers to participating in processes like the select committee. I hope that we take an accessible approach to ensure that we take care on what could be re-traumatising experiences that are yet to be shared. I look forward to working constructively, and I know that Hūhana Lyndon, who will be representing us on that select committee, will be a strong champion to ensure that we take really good care in upholding those voices in a way that doesn’t retraumatise people.

LAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to represent the ACT Party in support of this bill at the first reading. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the work of the Minister, Matt Doocey, and congratulate him on bringing this bill to this House. I also want to acknowledge the collaborative approach that we have, because I think there are some things like this that kind of go beyond the political back and forward, to-ing and fro-ing. It is such a serious piece of legislation, and I think it is really important that we all collaborate and get together and make sure we’re on the same page with this. I’d like to congratulate you on that. Also, a bit of a shout-out to the other people that are on the cross-party mental health group that we’re working together with, and to the likes of those that will be on the Health Committee that will champion this bill through.

The old legislation is from 1992, more than 30 years old, and is no longer fit for purpose. I think that is more than obvious. This bill provides the guidelines for when a person can be subjected to compulsory mental health care without their consent. It provides a safety net for those who need urgent intervention as a last resort. It also defines legal protections and process from the justice system for those individuals requiring mental health care, ensuring a secure environment for treatment. This bill is about providing more effective care, supporting compulsory mental health care to be delivered in a way that minimises coercion and is responsive to individual needs. It sets out important guidelines to improve the effectiveness of the mental health and addiction support services in New Zealand, protecting patients and staff.

The major areas of change: this bill aims to modernise the mental health care system while also driving a human rights - based framework for compulsory mental health care. Some of these main changes I note are that there’s going to be a foundation for personal centred care, including the ability for patients to make statements in regard to their future care, and it allows patients to specify the care that they consent to and do not consent to. I think this is really important, and having this plan in place before we head down those steps to needing that State intervention, I think, would have a major difference in people’s lives. I really find that part to be one of the biggest features here that I’d really like to get behind.

The aim is to minimise compulsory treatment. I do feel like that is quite an ambitious goal, and I see where the framework is heading with it, but, at the same time, I think that we do need to realise that there is a fine balance between the safety of the individual and the safety of staff and everybody that is involved in that care. I do think it is ambitious and I think it is something that can be worked towards. The legislation sets a new standard for when compulsory treatment can be used. The use of compulsory treatment can be only permitted when someone has seriously impaired mental health that causes severe adverse effects and they lack that decision-making capacity.

Focusing on recovery and supported decision-making: Part 2 of the bill provides guidelines for supported decision-making to ensure individuals can make their own decisions regarding compulsory mental health where possible, which I think I talked about before, and this is a really, really important part to the bill. I also note that He Ara Oranga, a Government inquiry into mental health and addiction, identified various issues, and a lot of these seem to be addressed from that report: enhanced protections for children, specific provisions for forensic patients, cultural considerations, and a focus on reducing mental health disparities.

There are some potential unintended impacts, and I think I potentially spoke about that before. The goal of this bill is to support and protect patients’ rights in improving mental health outcomes. However, this bill could create a complex web of new processes, meetings, and administrative requirements that could actually delay the treatment for those that are in crisis, and that is something that I do actually worry about. I think that during the whole select committee process, we would like to see how these processes will be carried out, and we want to hear from the voices of those with that lived experience. Like the speakers before me, I do urge anybody that has that lived experience to please come forward to the select committee, those that work in this area and those that feel like they have something to contribute. It is extremely important. This is a very important bill, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Mental Health Bill. It is very much a welcome piece of legislation. As I was reading through it, it really did take me back to many individuals—in fact, I didn’t realise how many—I have walked through this compulsory care journey with. It’s not only, obviously, incredibly traumatic for them but also for their family. I really thought about the systemic family effects that happen when this process is happening. I just want to acknowledge everyone out there who is struggling at the moment, and their families; it is a very difficult road. We really do welcome this legislation.

Now, one of the things that I was very happy to see was the theme of our human rights being acknowledged so much in the process, through the Act—it was mentioned quite a lot. I’m just going to touch on a couple of areas because I know we’ll be able to speak a bit longer in the second and third readings. I was really happy to see that and that there is a focus on recovery—therapeutic support; not just a band-aid but a long-term plan—in order to help people transition from care to go back out into the community from compulsory care to voluntary care. It was really welcome to see this approach of wanting to see a long-term solution for an individual—a holistic approach, one might say.

The other thing that I was also very happy to see was that everyone has a care plan. It is recorded and there is a review process, so there will be some accountability in this. Processes—yes, hopefully they won’t delay, but to have secure processes in place, anything to help save a life is worth it. The more that we can do to do that, then the better.

Now, minimising coercion: I was really happy to see that, because of just witnessing some of the things that I have witnessed, and to encourage that this will not be something that will affect people’s basic human rights—there will be some leeway here—and to really ensure that things such as seclusion, as the Minister mentioned, are not going to be used as much, if possible. That was a welcome thing.

Safety—there was a mention, and I’ll speak a little bit more in detail in the later readings on children and young people. There is a real look into that side of things as well.

Now, I won’t be on that select committee, it would be great to be on it, but I will follow it very closely. I do welcome everyone especially those with lived experience, because that is how we will learn. I would welcome everyone to participate as much as they can in this select committee process. I think that’s all I want to say at the moment. I commend this bill to the House.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. First of all, I’d like to mihi to our Minister for Mental Health, Matt Doocey. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe. Kei te tino Whakanui tēnei pire. [Huge salutations to you. I am in full support of this bill.]

I want to, first of all, acknowledge this bill. It’s the first, under this new Government, to promote Te Tiriti o Waitangi—and the ceiling hasn’t fallen in. It recognises and protects our tino rangatiratanga. This bill also seeks to promote the decision-making capacity of our people in care, supporting their mana motuhake. Ka nui te mihi, ka nui te mihi, ka nui te mihi ki a koe. [Huge compliments to you, huge compliments to you, huge compliments to you.]

What it also does is accept the recommendations from He Ara Oranga—the report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction. I want to mihi to many of the esteemed members: Professor Ron Paterson, who is the chair; Tā Mason Durie, founder of Te Pāti Māori; Dr Barbara Disley; Dean Rangihuna; Dr Jemaima Tiatia-Seath; and Joisiah Tualamali’i—aroha too. There were 5,200 submissions made; 400 meetings were held with tāngata whaiora and their families, members of the public, health and other service providers, iwi and kaupapa Māori providers, and many community experts.

I guess what we are seeing is, most significantly, the shift away from a system that has harmed many in our community. Our current mental health framework has completely failed our communities, and many communities. I think that going towards acknowledging Te Tiriti will benefit all of our mokopuna. The status quo system, as you know, has required a real shift from anything that has been done before, and we respect that this is the intent.

One of the things that also is emphasised is the wellbeing of the communities and the people-first approach. It is so humbling to be able to be in the House to mihi to you for that. This is what Māori input looks like—and no one has had their skin ripped off their bones. The input on what is required to radically shift from what has been failing our whole communities has been informed by experts, well-versed experts; it’s been informed by whānau who are living with and challenged by the revolting aspect of how the mental health system has let us down; and it’s been afforded, as included in Te Tiriti, to ensure that we are all able to thrive.

I guess it’s difficult not to reflect on the anti-Māori agenda and to ignore things that have been effected in the last 10, 11 months. I’m sad to see that it’s taken nearly a year for us to get to a bill that is acknowledging the deprivation—most significantly, the depth of change that’s required—so I do mihi to He Ara Oranga and the boldness of the Minister for taking this onceinageneration opportunity for change. Our own Tā Mason Durie pioneered Māori health, citing in his Māori model of health, Te Whare Tapa Whā, that our mental health is equally important as our physical health, our spiritual health, and the wider health of our whānau and our whole community.

One of the aspects also that I’d like to mihi to in this particular bill is that what we have is—I guess, sadly, when we see Māori are disproportionately represented—the boldness within us, across all parties, to be able to look at repealing and putting in place something that, as we’ve heard before, reflects our human-rights - based approach, that is promoting and supporting decision making that aligns with a whole wellbeing model of mental health, and is providing measures to minimise compulsory or coercive treatments. It’s been a long time coming, and we look forward to hearing the submissions and following this through to the third reading. Kia ora rā.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I rise to speak in favour of the first reading of the Mental Health Bill and I want to congratulate our mental health Minister, Matt Doocey, for all of the very hard work—and incredibly important work—that he is doing in this space to improve mental health outcomes across New Zealand. There’s a lot of work to do, but I know this Minister is going to work hard to make sure that we improve the situation. This bill does aim to replace outdated legislation, and it’s been commented on how the Mental Health Act doesn’t necessarily align with current mental health models across New Zealand.

The Mental Health Bill, as it comes in, somewhat intends to do several things, and one of them is to be people-centred and another one is to enable supportive decision-making. It establishes a framework for compulsory mental health care without that consent, and outlines processes for forensic patients—and many of those who are in very challenging circumstances—to get the mental health provisions that they need. It modernises the regulations for people with severe mental distress and it sets out a number of principles to promote a human rights - based, recovery-focused approach to mental health in New Zealand. It encourages supportive decision-making—as I’ve touched upon before—because we do want people to make their own mental health decisions. We want them to be at the centre of this and we also want that to be enabled, even if they lack capacity, ideally before they become unwell.

We have noted there were a number of recommendations by the royal commission of inquiry into historical abuse to promote a safer, more effective care model to minimise the need for compulsory care and instead focus on individual needs and recovery. I’m sure all members of the Health Committee who are here tonight look forward to working on this when it comes to the committee and hearing those submitters and those submissions. I’m sure some of those submissions will be quite challenging, but we will do our best to make sure that this legislation reflects the needs and where we need to go on this as best we can. I support this bill; commend it to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill. I want to acknowledge the comments made by the chair of the Health Committee. I too am looking forward to the hearings on this important bill. I want to, like others have done, acknowledge the long gestation and two parents this bill has had. I was lucky to be the Minister responsible for it for the short period of time I was Minister of Health and found it well under way due to the work done by my predecessor, Andrew Little, on this bill. I’m aware that it had its genesis in the He Ara Oranga report commissioned by David Clark, so it is good to see that its new parent has continued its gestation and brought it to this important phase, its birth into our Parliament. Congratulations, Minister Doocey.

This bill has a lot to commend it, including taking a more patient-centred and modern approach that values the human rights of people suffering mental distress. I do want to just draw out some of the ways in which it does that. It is more recovery based, it does recognise Te Tiriti, it is more whānau orientated, it moves us closer to meeting some of our international obligations, and it pays more attention to human rights, including allowing advanced directives in some situations. Those are all very positive developments—developments that we should support.

I also think the inclusion of the tests that exist and review periods are important protections that have been carried over from the previous Act. One thing that is different is that the compulsory care criteria and the words “serious harm to themselves or others” that was in the old Act are no longer in this Act, though the concept is similar: the person must be suffering “impaired mental health [that] causes the person to lack capacity to make decisions about their own mental health care.” and “is likely to cause in the near future, in the absence of care, serious adverse effects”. That is different from the “serious harm to themselves or others”, and I think that sounds like a more appropriate test, but, of course, I’m sure, in select committee, we’ll hear about many different situations in which this compulsory care test is applied and be able to flesh out the meaning of that change in more detail.

I want to echo some of the comments of my colleague Ingrid Leary and note the areas where we have questions that we want to explore more in select committee. The first relates to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). As a Minister, I was aware that electroconvulsive therapy was part of this Act, and in the course of being part of the development of this Act, sought additional information on that. I am aware that that official information says that ECT is effective. However, I still have questions to ask, and I hope that that is something we can put the select committee’s time towards. As I’ve gotten to know my select committee colleagues better, I have understood that we are very well qualified to undertake that work together. It is an important element of human rights. We are all painfully aware of the misuse of ECT at times in our country, in our health system in the past, and the bill includes provision for ECT without consent. It is upon us all to make sure that we scrutinise that particular treatment, and I hope that those who have experience of ECT or of using it in a therapeutic setting come and speak to the select committee.

I want to use my remaining moments to reflect on a meeting I had with a member of the public recently who had an experience of seclusion in compulsory mental health care that was extremely distressing. Her experience of seclusion was one in which she felt abandoned. She felt it was at odds with the very notion of being in therapeutic treatment. She felt that it isolated her from the care system. I really want to make sure we understand that it is being used in the right circumstances in this law. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): It is great to rise to speak about this Mental Health Bill, and it’s great to see support right across the House for this piece of legislation. I have to admit that it’s quite some legislation, with 221 clauses in this bill. I do just want to acknowledge some of the officials up in the gallery that are watching on. I do look forward to working with them on the Health Committee as we work our way through this.

It’s clearly time that we updated the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 to bring it in line with best practice—not just best practice here in New Zealand, but to bring us in line with some best practice internationally as well. It is a very important bill, as we’ve heard, because it does deal with the serious occasion when compulsory mental health treatment is used. It does mean that we need to make sure we get this legislation right, and, as I say, I look forward to the Health Committee working through this legislation.

This repeal and replacement of the mental health Act of 1992 means that we can have a bill that better reflects a human rights - based approach that we’d expect to have in a modern society. It promotes supported decision-making and, of course, it aligns with the recovery and wellbeing model of mental health. It also allows that in times of maybe not so acute mental health distress, people can make their own mental health care decisions. I think this is a very important part of this bill, and I look forward to making sure that we can get this legislation right because it does touch on a very serious aspect of mental health. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to stand and speak on the Mental Health Bill. Can I acknowledge the Minister. We all know that prevention is better than cure. And the Minister, in the good work that he’s doing, has continued to support Access and Choice for communities right up and down the country, which is the best way to stop whānau and individuals having to walk down the pathway that we’re debating in the Mental Health Bill this evening. So I want to acknowledge the Minister for continuing the support of that work.

In my time as an associate health Minister, I travelled the country, in particular to meet with the Māori providers who provided the Access and Choice care in communities from the top of the North to the bottom of the South. I was impressed by the work that they did and want to acknowledge the Minister for bringing this bill to the House. Because as my colleague Debbie Ngarewa-Packer has mentioned, on this side of the House we acknowledge that this bill does look towards the kind of equitable healthcare that we expect for our communities and our people and looks towards models that will support that equitable healthcare.

Whenever we speak of health models, I can’t help but think of Sir Mason Durie, Member of the Order of New Zealand, one of the greatest living New Zealanders, who continues to talk about Te Whare Tapa Whā and the need to consider all aspects of the person’s wellbeing in order to help them and support them to achieve the kind of life that we all aspire to. It’s those kinds of models of care that I think about when we look towards how we can get equitable care and how we can make sure that those who do require such mental health services can continue to get that support on their journey.

The other part of that support that’s mentioned in the bill here talks about the kind of representatives for those who do find themselves in care. I note that the bill the Minister brings to the House tonight talks about the kinds of representatives for those people. They can be whānau members, iwi members, iwi leaders, hapū leaders, people who are well known to the family or to the individual, and people who will be able to advocate on behalf of those people who find themselves needing this kind of healthcare.

This is a good step forward. As my colleague Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said, the sky hasn’t fallen in. We want to acknowledge that we can still continue to serve Māori communities and we can continue to actually acknowledge Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the work that we do. That will help all of the communities across Aotearoa New Zealand. I want to acknowledge the Minister for bringing this bill.

The next part is to acknowledge that there will be a lot of submissions. I expect those submissions to come forward to the Health Committee when this bill is up for consideration. That’s going to be important because the devil is always in the detail. The ability to look towards the bill, to pick it apart with a fine-tooth comb, to actually come forward and express what it means to give equitable healthcare to Māori whānau and Māori communities—it’s easy to say those things and it’s even harder to actually do it. To hear it firsthand through the select committee, I think, is going to be important, and I’ll encourage those in the Māori health sector and in the mental health sector in general to make sure that their voice is heard on such an important bill.

Every one of us in this House have had family members, community members, close and dear loved ones who have come across mental health challenges and have needed to access care. While He Ara Oranga looked towards the system and how we might be able to fix it, what we knew was it was going to take time to get there. Access and Choice, which is what I’ve already mentioned this evening, is one part of that. This bill is another part of that journey on he ara oranga. I look forward to the Minister driving through the recommendations and the changes that are required to achieve he ara oranga. For those that don’t know, “he ara oranga” means a pathway to wellbeing—he ara oranga. I think that’s something that we’ll all aspire to for our communities and our constituents right around the country.

I commend this bill to the House, but, as my colleague Ingrid Leary has already said, we will continue to look towards a few aspects of the bill that we have a very clear view on and a strong view on to make sure that those are heard in the select committee. I acknowledge the Minister and his bipartisan approach to such an important matter to our community. Well done, Minister. I’m looking forward for this bill continuing through its processes, and hopefully being supported right to its conclusion.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I rise in this House tonight to support the Mental Health Bill in the name of New Zealand’s first Minister of Mental Health, the Hon Matt Doocey.

This bill will replace the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, which is more than 30 years old and is no longer fit for purpose. Currently, according to Health New Zealand, Te Whatu Ora, possibly 10,000 people in New Zealand are subject to treatment or assessment under the current Act per year. These are some of the most vulnerable members of our communities who need world-leading care, not a 30-year-old Act which was never designed for many of the challenges we face as a society today, both in my electorate and across New Zealand.

This bill introduces a purpose and set of principles to promote a human rights - based recovery-focused approach that addresses the uniqueness of individuals under compulsory care. This is a critical safety net when a person needs urgent intervention as a last resort, which, in many cases, has the potential to be lifesaving. This bill also encourages supported decision-making, to help people make their own mental health care decision, even if they lack full capacity or before they become unwell. This bill also introduces far greater protection and safeguards than the current Acts in place, ensuring people understand what is happening to them and what they are entitled to when treated, according to this bill once it become law.

If there’s one thing—one thing in this House—that we can unify on, it’s about improving the mental health system to ensure those who need help get it. Therefore, I’m looking forward to this bill progressing to the select committee, where New Zealanders will have the opportunity to provide feedback to ensure this bill best achieves this objective. I commend this bill to the House and I’m looking forward to it progressing further.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Mental Health Bill be considered by the Health Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Contracts of Insurance Bill.

Bills

Contracts of Insurance Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 22 October

Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Contracts of Insurance Bill. When we were last debating this bill, we were debating Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 9, “Preliminary provisions” and Schedule 1. Once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s really good to be here, working late again. It’s really good to be here doing the mahi well into the night on this important bill.

I realise we’ve talked a little bit about Part 1 as well, but we’ve got a few more things to tidy up. One is just around the interpretation clause. One is, really, a drafting question, because it really frustrates me—and I will come to some other drafting points, particularly in respect of average later on, where nobody knows what the words mean. Why we still use words that really have their foundation in the 1700s, I don’t know. If you look at the word “avoid”—which in itself is kind of not a natural English way to say that a contract is terminated from the beginning—that definition says, “in relation to a contract of insurance, means to avoid from its inception”. We had parliamentary counsel in the Justice Committee recently and we talked about the use of plain language, and I’d imagine counsel’s not far away. Why would we need to use the words “from its inception” instead of “from the beginning”? That’s just a plain English question. My suggestion is that we get rid of these arcane and archaic terms and just use genuine everyday English language. That’s the first thing. That’s drafting. I mean, if we don’t get that one right, it’s not the end of the world; we’ve still got a meaning.

The second point, though, is around health insurance. “Health insurance” is defined quite unusually because it’s defined as meaning “insurance against a liability to pay fees or charges relating to the provision of a health service (within the meaning of section 5(1) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003)”, but that’s not how health insurance works. Whilst liability insurance works that way—if you get sued, your insurer pays your liability—health insurance is, in fact, forward-looking. If we think of some of the funding promises this Government has made but not kept around—for example, cancer treatments—people aren’t liable for their cancer treatment. They want to get cancer treatment; they want to purchase the drugs and be reimbursed for them. They’re not liable to anyone. It’s not a liability policy; it’s an insurance for a future event. I’m actually quite concerned that that’s a real dog’s breakfast in the definition, because there is no health liability. When you are looking to get your hip replaced, or drugs for cancer treatment, you’re not incurring a liability at all, and it’s totally got the thing on its head; when, in fact, what you’re wanting is a promise to pay for a debt that’s incurred in the future. I think that one really needs to be tidied up.

There’s another one. This one’s actually quite important because it pervades the entire bill, and that’s “policyholder”. This one crops up time and again, where the bill uses the term “policyholder”. What it doesn’t recognise is that any particular policy can have more than one policyholder. Not only can it have more than one policyholder, they can hold it in different capacities. They could hold it severally. They could, for example, have a life policy over a partner in their law firm but hold it in different shares. One person might have a tenth of it; someone else might have two-tenths of it, and so on. That would be a policy held in common but severally. The ones that create real problems are joint policies where there are, perhaps, a husband and wife, or domestic partners, who insure a house, and their rights are joint in the sense that they’re identical and as if they were one. The real question here—and it crops up and it is really important—is that if one of the parties tells a fib, how does it affect the rights of the other party? In respect of “policyholder”, the definition just blindly sails past this really important distinction.

If we look at “policyholder”, it means “the person who has entered into a contract of insurance with”; it doesn’t say “the people who have entered into a contract of insurance”. It doesn’t even recognise the fact that there might be one policy—[Bell rung]

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Dr Duncan Webb.

Hon Andrew Bayly: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’ll let him finish.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I’ll accept that indulgence, Mr Chair, and I’ll just finish off. My point was simply to conclude that, for the person who has entered into the contract of insurance, we need to make sure that the definition effectively captures different kinds of policies held by multiple policyholders. When we get to the rest of the bill, we can address how things, like the misrepresentation section, are going to manage it when there’s a joint policy where one party has misrepresented. I’m interested to hear from the Minister.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Mr Chair. I think the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, doctor of law, is at risk of becoming a serial litigant, but, unfortunately, what he’s trying to litigate is unusual. My first question is: why the heck didn’t he raise this during select committee? Why is it so pressingly important now?

Even if you accepted that he chose not to raise it through a long session of select committee, to now raise issues such as “avoid from its inception” in these clauses—when in reality you will know as a lawyer, Dr Webb, that the questions you are raising are minutiae. No one raised any issues, either on behalf of the committee or as submitters to the bill, on any of these three issues. The member will know that the definition of “policy holder” does include a reference, and by implication in common law, it includes multiple policyholders. The argument he’s putting forward is spurious and is wasting the time of the committee, and I note he took the opportunity to talk for a full five minutes to raise three rather ridiculous questions.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’ll just remind the Minister in the chair that these are matters for the Chair to consider.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, the other thing I wanted to raise—and I see my friend and colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell is keen to have a question or two as well—is in relation to the Schedule to the bill, because that’s part of this, and, in particular, clause 3A of Schedule 1. I’m still perplexed as to why this is even in the bill, because clause 3A is a transitional provision around contracts between the insurer and broker about premiums.

I was criticised by the Minister—and pretty fearsomely, actually, and so I will respond; I think I should—because I was getting into the minutiae of the bill. Now, maybe the Minister was too busy socialising with members of the media, but that is the job of this part of the debate—to go through it on a clause by clause basis—and if the Minister doesn’t like it, well, you know, it’s actually his job. Thanks for coming along to the Chamber to answer questions on the clause, and you can see from what’s on the Table that we have got a lot of suggestions. This will be very important, because this bill actually affects a lot of commercial arrangements, and the discussions we have, whether or not you agree to any of the Amendment Papers, will actually inform how this bill is applied in practice in terms of the arrangement between insurer and brokers about premiums.

My question is about why we need a transitional provision in respect of contracts. I mean, if you look at clause 3A(3), it says, “This clause does not prevent the termination or variation of the contract or arrangement.”, so, in fact, we’ve got a totally redundant provision, because private arrangements fall outside of the bill—full stop. The bill makes it clear in its body that arrangements as to when premiums have to be paid by the broker to the insurer are subject to private arrangements, and then we’ve got this redundant provision which says transitional provisions don’t apply to private arrangements, so that’s entirely unnecessary.

I’d be interested to hear why these kind of unnecessary—and I see that that was put in at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, a select committee which, incidentally, Minister, I don’t sit on. I found it perplexing that you would criticise me for not raising things in a select committee that, whilst I did attend on a couple of occasions, I don’t actually sit on, and this, of course, is an opportunity for any member of the committee of the whole House to go through the bill. Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I wasn’t intending to take a call, but I do want to take one now, and the reason is I do want to take up the cudgels on behalf of my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I suppose I’m a bit perplexed as to why the Minister would choose to attack a member of this House for going into the minutiae—which is how it’s normally pronounced—of a bill. It’s exactly what is supposed to be done during the committee stage of a bill, especially for a member who, as he’s pointed out himself, doesn’t sit on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, but is also someone who has a deep interest in this area of law and quite a bit of expertise on it. I’m going to suggest to the Minister that any objections or questions that my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb is raising are really worth listening to.

Now, having said all that, there is a particular thing that has been puzzling me, I suppose, since I looked at the detail of the drafting overnight. I want to look at clause 6(1) of the bill, on page 13. It says, “For the purposes of this Act,” and then what a “contract of insurance” means—it says, “For the purposes of this Act, … ‘contract of insurance’ means [yada, yada, yada] unless the context otherwise requires,” which just strikes me as pretty, well, loose, really. I mean, it means a contract of insurance unless we think it doesn’t mean a contract of insurance because of what’s around it. I’d just like a little bit of indication of elsewhere in the bill where the context might otherwise require. If the Minister could give me some examples within the bill of when a contract of insurance doesn’t mean a contract of insurance, I’d appreciate getting some explanation as to what that context might actually be.

I guess, you know, I could probably talk to my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, who kind of knows some stuff about insurance and the like, but, actually, I’d like to hear it from the Minister.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 125 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

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

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment inserting new paragraph (c) in clause 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment inserting new subclause (4) in clause 6 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7(1)(b) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

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

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Disclosure duties

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 10 to 69, “Disclosure duties”, and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, I know that there’s some material here relating to dishonesty, which other members will speak to, probably more articulately than I can because I wasn’t at the Finance and Expenditure Committee deliberations, but I do want to latch on to one quite important thing and that is the division between consumers and non-consumers. I guess there’s two aspects to this that I think are really critical. One is that the way the bill is currently framed, the insurer can, essentially, strong arm the insured into saying they’re a business when in fact they’re a consumer. That’s a problem.

The second is the kind of fictitious distinction—the idea that there’s this distinction of knowledge, skill, and ability if you’re a business, as opposed to if you’re a consumer. There are some consumers—look, let’s be honest, when I go and insure my house, I’m not getting the wool pulled over my eyes in terms of terms and conditions and what have you. Whereas someone who might be buying a small business—English might not be their first language; they’re in a much more vulnerable position. This immediate assumption that small businesses in particular don’t need protection or need different protection or are less deserving of protection doesn’t really work.

Having said that, it’s a rough proxy, but I think if you’re going to use consumer arrangements as a rough proxy for duties and remedies, then you’ve got to be really cautious about that. That’s why I’ve proposed reinserting clause 11. I think clause 11 is actually a really important one because it’s a default rule. It’s no more than a default rule where, if it can’t be shown to the contrary, the starting place is that the contract is a consumer contract.

Now, given what is at the disposal of insurers in terms of the dominance they have in the contracting arrangements—you know, a lot of contracts of insurance are done online or through brokers, both of which can manage the information and the certifications and things like that. “This is a commercial policy. Click here if you are a business.”—and if you don’t click yes, you can’t proceed. Very simple kinds of procedures that can exist, but a presumption that there’s a consumer contract gets around the situations where people get a contract for their dwelling which they might have a home office in.

I mean, this is the kind of thing that happens. A lot of people run a small business from their garage, and all of a sudden there’s a real risk that the insurer will go, “Uh-uh, you’re running a business. You’re running your candle-making business from your garage, therefore it’s not a consumer contract; it’s a commercial contract. I have an entirely different set of remedies.” And when you make a mistake around, you know, the age of your house or whether it’s been rewired—boom, you’re substantially worse off than you would be if you’re a consumer. That’s a really, really important point. I’m sorry to say that I don’t trust insurers not to use those kinds of advantages.

This is why in a lot of legislation—the Fair Trading Act, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, and so on—there’s a little bit of a thumb on the scales for the consumer. There’s very good reason for that: because there is a massive imbalance of power in these arrangements. These are formal contracts. You don’t get to choose the terms. If there is a way in which insurers can make these—

Ryan Hamilton: What’s your question?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, my question is if—well, if you want to go down to the Table, go and get the Amendment Paper; you’ll have heard my question is: will he adopt my Amendment Paper related to clause 11? It’s the first thing I said. Don’t just kind of wake up: “Sorry.” You know—hello? Yep, perhaps you too were socialising a bit too long with the media.

The point is this: the consumer contract issue is an important one. A presumption should exist so that, where there is any doubt whatsoever, it falls in favour of the consumer, and the greater remedies or the greater protections exist in respect, particularly in respect, of those misrepresentations that we will talk about a bit later.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to talk a little bit about how we want to proceed on this side of the Chamber with discussing this bill. This bill started its journey through the House being drafted under the former Government and under the former Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, and between the former Minister and the current Minister, it changed its character a little. I think my colleague Dr Duncan Webb referred to it as—that one of the things this side of the House had in mind when we were in Government, in terms of drafting this, was being on the side of the little person. On this side of the House, we’re the party of workers, we’re the party of the small guys, we’re the party who try to ensure—

Dana Kirkpatrick: What?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: The party of small business. We’re the party who try to ensure that workers are treated respectfully in the workplace.

Simon Court: You vaccine-mandated them out. You mandated them out of work.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: We actually try to have the law set up in such a way that we look after the little person. I notice that my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber are eager to participate in this debate; if they’d like to take a call, they’re very welcome to.

We had been in a position where we had wanted to support this bill, but then, as it finally made its way through the Finance and Expenditure Committee, some of the changes that were brought in place, to our mind, have taken away some of the protections for the little guy. As my colleague Dr Webb said, they really tilted the balance in favour of the insurance companies. For that reason, on this side of the Chamber, the Labour Party feels it can no longer support this bill.

Now, a lot of those clauses that have made us change our mind are sitting in this part of the bill. What we intend to do, though, is to try to discuss in a reasonably orderly fashion and go subpart by subpart by subpart. Just for the time being, we’re confining our discussion to the very first few clauses in Part 2 of this bill and looking at those issues around the definition of a consumer insurance contract and a non-consumer insurance contract.

It’s interesting: my colleague Dr Webb points out that, as someone who knows a little bit about insurance, he is not likely to be bamboozled by an insurance contract, but most of us in this House aren’t insurance specialists. Most of us in this House end up signing insurance contracts which have got lots and lots and lots of detail in them that most of us probably—we might read them through but not really understand what’s going on. We are the sorts of people, in our non-expert capacity, who this bill should seek to protect.

I want to look again at this consumer insurance contract versus a non-consumer insurance contract. It, basically, says a consumer insurance contract is the pretty ordinary sort of stuff that you and I sign up to in our domestic capacities on, hopefully, an annual basis, and a non-consumer insurance contract is everything else. That, as my colleague Dr Webb pointed out, might work OK for a larger business, or perhaps an employer who’s an insurance broker, it might work OK for a larger business that has access to good legal services, but it’s not so good for the mum and dad business, for the small business, and so on.

I guess I’d like the Minister to put his mind to whether that line has been drawn in the right place, perhaps that some of those protections should be afforded to small-business people as well, some of the protections in this bill, so that small-business people, you know, mum and dad operation—mum and mum operation, for that matter, or dad and dad; however it’s constructed—the family farm, whatever, that kind of small, local business, corner dairy, whether those sorts of businesses ought to be afforded the same type of protection as the consumer insurance contracts. After all, as Dr Webb pointed out, people running those businesses are no more likely to be expert in insurance than the rest of us who are just signing up to the ordinary old domestic contracts.

So, as a party that cares about workers, cares about small people, cares about small business, it’d be quite good to get some insight from the Minister into his thinking around that consumer insurance contract versus non-consumer insurance contract.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just to be clear, the member wants to reinstate clause 11—just for my colleagues—which was unanimously agreed by the Finance and Expenditure Committee should be removed. That’s the proposition we’re talking about. But it is a substantive point, so I do acknowledge that, Dr Webb.

I’d just draw your attention—I know your conversation was in relation to clause 11, but, actually, the reference to “consumer” or “non-consumer” is actually in clause 10. Clause 10(1) defines what a “consumer insurance contract” is, and it says that it is “predominantly for personal, domestic, or household purposes;”, whereas in clause 10(2) it says that a non-consumer insurance contract is, basically, anything else which is not a consumer insurance contract. Obviously, for people who have had much to do with businesses—as the member has claimed to have done—normal business-type insurance covers business continuity insurance, specialist machinery insurance that might be bespoke to their machinery, or it might be to do with certain aspects of the business which are all quite sophisticated and tailored to that product.

The reason why this presumption was removed is quite simply that a presumption is not needed or appropriate for a definition that assesses the purpose of a contract on an objective basis. I think it’s really important to understand that compared to consumers, small businesses tend to have more complex insurance needs and policies, as I referenced before. That’s why the demarcation has been made, and, no doubt, that is why the committee unanimously agreed to delete this clause.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. We too, on behalf of the Green Party, when it comes to this substantial section with Part 2, will be going subpart by subpart. In the beginning, we would like to focus on clauses 10 and 12. And, again, Mr Chair, based on the conversations we had yesterday, when relevant we might also draw in elements of clause 1 that are referred to in Part 2 here.

First of all, thank you, Minister, for your explanation around this, but I think one of the things is that the interaction between clauses 10 and 11 is quite important here. Now, the explanation that was given for the removal of section 11 is not because of its need to be redundant but because of the fact there are no comparable sections in either the Fair Trading Act or the Consumer Guarantees Act.

I would like to ask the Minister whether, through consultation, maybe through conversations with the Finance and Expenditure Committee chair—I too was not part of this particular select committee—whether in those other relevant Acts that were referred to, there is a distinction under those Acts between what is considered a “consumer” and what is considered a “non-consumer”. If those distinctions aren’t available in those relevant Acts, then the fact that there is a basic or default aspect, as the Hon Dr Duncan Webb mentioned before, is quite important.

Going back to clause 10, now one of the things when it comes to the separating of consumer and non-consumer contracts—I think it is a good move because that actually clarifies certain needs and actually clarifies some of the things that are, hopefully, for the benefit of consumers. However, I think one of the things that is important to address is when we’re looking at the size and scale of what is considered the consumer and non-consumer contract.

Now, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb mentioned, in the context of non-consumer contracts, small family businesses, but I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the size and scale of, potentially, consumer insurance contracts. In this particular case, I would like to ask the Minister: for landlords who own, like, 10, 20, 50 properties who genuinely conduct it as a business but without having to register as a business, would the insurance for their property—I mean both for the property and potentially even for their content—be considered a consumer insurance contract or non-consumer insurance contract? Granted, those particular personnel, the scale that they’re able to conduct under a consumer insurance contract, might be much broader than family sized businesses under a non-consumer contract. I wondered if the Minister has considered possibly putting a limitation or precautions around this.

I draw the Minister’s attention to a much later section, which I’m sure will be discussed later, but the limit that is being placed on something has been done in this very Act in clause 175, when additional sections were added in terms of contract insurance with a particular monetary amount to it. For example, clause 175(i) gives a threshold of $20,000. I wondered, in this case, has it been considered by the Minister to put a certain level of threshold on determining what is not necessarily the total sum of a consumer contract, but in terms of the maximum threshold that individual consumer contracts may be reached, and beyond that limit, it can no longer be considered a consumer insurance contract?

Those are the two sort of questions I mentioned; it’s whether section 11, when referring to, I think, the Consumers Guaranteed Act or the Fair Trading Act—in those Acts there is a distinction. I’m not an expert when it comes to consumer law. Those two Acts also contain a distinction; if it doesn’t, then section 11 is important. Secondly, it is whether the Minister considered having a threshold on the scale of consumer insurance contract akin to what is late in clause 175.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have got the portfolio of small business, so I am interested in this line of inquiry about those small businesses. I was reading an article which said that the Minister has visited thousands of those little businesses, and some of the ones I’ve visited blend the home and the business very significantly. I suppose that it’s very likely that the experience of the Minister is the same. Not only are they blending those things but they are some of our most vulnerable people. A lot of migrants are coming in, and they’re running those businesses. It seems to me that—I drew on this a little bit in the earlier part about the choice of law provisions—they are particularly inappropriate to a group of people who already find it hard to get a debt resolved and to navigate a system that is already foreign to them, and to actually push any further is hard.

I wondered about that aspect and whether—because I wasn’t on the select committee—there had been submissions in support of drawing a line which was more financial rather than one that drew the line, and what the discussion was about—for example, on the home/business distinction. There are so many people now who will be living above the shop and they’ll be working in the shop. It will be a natural blend of the two going on, and I wondered what we’d do in that situation.

I was also interested when I read clause 12, because it says, basically, that if you don’t have these things, you’re a domestic contract, or it seems to default to one, and that’s a genuine question. Is that the intention? If you don’t get this certificate, does that mean, even if you are a business—so if you were a big business, if you’re quite a big enterprise and you didn’t have those things, would that mean you default straight into being a consumer contract? It says in that part that you aren’t a consumer insurance contract if you’ve got these things. What if you don’t have them but we wouldn’t think of you as being a business? That’s a very genuine question: is it the intention that it falls back to a default of it being a consumer contract of insurance, or not? It’s a genuine question.

I would love to know the answer, but I’d really, really like to know what the Minister thinks about the validity of the argument that small businesses are really much more vulnerable. They’re a very different kind of thing from the large businesses in the country, and it’s very dangerous to put them all in the same basket in this situation. Has there been greater consideration of a more subtle approach, and would he be open to an amendment now which suggests that we could draw a line there which says that the small businesses were actually covered by this in the same way? I am concerned that we have not been nuanced enough.

The other thing I had asked about was whether there were any submissions on that basis—whether people had brought evidence to the select committee. I’m sorry that I just wasn’t present on it, and it’s something I genuinely think we need to look at. It’s much, much greater protection for our small businesses in areas like this and beyond. I think we’ve, basically, left them to the wolves a bit, and it’s not OK. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Can I just say that, at this stage, I’m aware there’s a large number of amendments here. If members indicated as they stood up at the start that they had a number of amendments they wanted to speak to, the Chair will indulge that, and with question and answer—again, relying on both parties to be part of that. Just as a suggestion.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): No, that’s very useful. Thank you, Mr Chair—and you’re right. Certainly in respect of the amendments that I’ve tabled, I’ve got a table of them all here so I can go through them in an orderly fashion.

The next amendment I want to talk about is an amendment to clause 12. Clause 12 is actually quite unusual because it talks about a certificate under which, essentially, the policyholder certifies that this contract is not a consumer contract. I’m always troubled when you’re doing some consumer law—because this is consumer law in many ways—and then you have a cross reference. Once again, it’s a little bit critical of the Parliamentary Counsel Office because, if you read the framing of the certificate, “(a) the policyholder (P) has given a certificate for the contract under section 446T(1) of the FMCA”. I mean, this is clause 12. And then it goes on to talk about sections 446T(2), (4), and (5) of that Act. Now, that’s actually the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013, I understand. To save ink, presumably, they’ve called it FMCA. But the section itself tells you very little about the certification process.

It may be that, you know—because I’m not an expert in the Financial Markets Conduct Act, although I know a little bit about it. My real concern, though, and what my Amendment Paper goes to—

Hon Andrew Bayly: This is your amendment to clause 12?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: This is my amendment to clause 12. My point is that—Minister, thank you for seeking that clarification—an insurer would be almost silly not to seek certifications even where the contract is not really a business contract; where it’s a consumer contract.

My first question—for which I imagine you need advice; I certainly do—is, can the insurer simply say, “Please sign this certificate”, even if the contract is clearly one for domestic purposes, and would that then turn it into a non-consumer contract? And, if that’s the case, then surely we need to adopt my proposed amendments, which is, firstly, and I think this is important, that the policyholder understands the nature of the certificate. If we’re getting a dairy/house contract—one building—and the distinctions are significant, has the policyholder not just been given a document but do they actually understand it? Is it conveyed to them in words that are appropriate to them, which is part of the theme of this Act?

The second point, and this is the really important one, is that the certificate is not manifestly false. Now, if the arrangement is clearly a domestic one, surely it would be wrong to be able to turn it into a non-domestic one—a non-consumer—simply by a certification. And, for the life of me, I can’t navigate and find something that assures me that that kind of skullduggery can’t occur. If you think of it, we’ve talked about superyachts before when we were talking about gang patches. If I go and insure my superyacht, it’s actually domestic because it’s a pleasure craft—I don’t have a superyacht—but the insurer might say, “Well, that’s a $1 million boat. I want that to be a commercial contract, for my own commercial reasons. Please sign on the dotted line.”, and it might be the only marine insurance I can get, given my sailing record. Now, is that permissible or is it prohibited? If it’s permissible, we need my amendment. I’d appreciate an answer to that. I see you’ve got one.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I am distressed to think that the member might be having deep concerns over this clause 12, so I want to put his mind at rest. His proposal to clause 12 is, essentially—the answer is it’s already addressed, Dr Webb. “Section 446T(2), (4), and (5) of [the of the Financial Markets (Conduct of Financial Institutions) Amendment Act (CoFI Act)] applies for the purposes of [clause 12].”—these provisions already cover requirements to direct an insurance certificate is not false or misleading in a material particular, and that the policyholder understands it. There is an absolute obligation that the insurer must make sure the policyholder understands it and it can’t be false under the CoFI regulations, which I know the member was deeply involved in when he was Minister.

I just want to turn to Dr Xu-Nan’s comments. He raised the issue of someone owning multiple properties—it took 20, 30, whatever. Now, on classification, I would have thought that was quite a substantial business, but you talked about contents and I think this is where we need to understand the difference between business and a householder, or a consumer and a non-consumer or a commercial operation. Obviously if, as an individual, you’re wanting to get household insurance on your house, you will have contents insurance that will cover what you were talking about—couches, all that sort of stuff. If you’re a business and you own multiple—20, 30, 40—properties, you’re more than likely to have insurance over your furniture and fittings, which is the technical term that would be used in a business-type contract.

There are different ways to look at it. As I said much earlier, clause 10 is quite clear what a consumer contractor is, and then by definition everything outside that is non-consumer—i.e., it’s commercial. We did consider an approach around looking at small businesses as a separate sort of aspect to it, and I know the member Helen White talked about this too. The feedback we got was that the types of policies that businesses—albeit small, and some, we are talking a very grey area, are very small. Where their policies are, essentially, of a commercial nature, and it’s pretty easy to understand those, then they’re naturally more complex and they’re subject to a different rule. That’s the definition we took.

You also asked: do other Acts have an equivalent to section 11? Just answering your question directly, Dr Xu-Nan: yes, but this is because definitions are subjective and it turns on the intent of the consumer. We think that using a definition—I’m talking about intent of people—is a very poor way to approach providing legislative certainty. That’s why we have adopted a very objective measure. Then there is certainty if there is a dispute and it goes through the court or wherever it might be. So it’s been quite deliberate and, basically, the feedback was in line with what we’ve suggested and put in this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I call the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, but can I just say that—sometimes I feel like a little forlorn hope here—if we’re going to get these conversations going that we attempt to make the committee stage do, can we just try not to make the five minutes a target, because that way we can indulge all members. If we’re going to do five-minute calls each time, it makes it quite difficult. Just as guidance to the members, I say.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I cannot imagine this particular Chair ever being forlorn, but I will therefore—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Keep going, Dr Duncan Webb!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —do my best to avoid it. No, that’s a fair point. I’ll have a quick statement. Just moving on to kind of Subpart 1 proper now, which is where it starts talking about the duties themselves.

Hon Andrew Bayly: Which amendment?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I’m moving on to clause 14.

Hon Andrew Bayly: 14?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah. I’ve got a number of amendments, but talking first about proposed new clause 14(4), it’s actually around the onus. This is always, when you are making allegations of dishonesty or fraud—whatever we’re going to land on at the end of the day when we talk about this—it’s clear that it’s a civil case. Therefore, the burden of proof is the balance of probabilities. My amendment, which I’m sure you’ve read, recognises that. But, at the same time, you’re making a very serious allegation. The insurance cases have always had a much more nuanced approach and take the view that, yes, it’s balance of probabilities, but that balance takes into—so this proposed clause 14(4) takes into account the seriousness of the allegation.

We shouldn’t lightly assume that people, for example, burn down their own house for the insurance proceeds. That’s a very serious allegation to be made, and you would need compelling evidence to discharge the onus of it, even on a balance of probabilities, given the seriousness of that allegation. Now, that kind of theme doesn’t appear anywhere around the discussion around fraud and dishonesty and what have you. My proposal—and I’m just going to finish real soon—is that we add a clause 14(4): “Where there is an allegation of dishonesty”—using your language—“the onus of proof is on the insurer”—I think that’s clear—“and the burden of proof is that the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, taking into account the seriousness of the allegation and the gravity of the consequences.”

Just really restating what is a common law position, but with a bill like this, which is, essentially, intended to be a code, my suggestion is we need it there and there is a real danger that the courts will lose sight of that. Thank you.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Bring on to the other bits—you’ve got three in clause 14.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: No, no—I was told not—

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: All right, the answer—I’m surprised the member doesn’t want to talk; he’s got three changes to clause 14. I think he could have covered all three of them. Maybe I’ll just help him.

I’m surprised that you picked up subclause (4) as the one to debate, which is about this issue of onus of proof and what would happen in the court. As the member knows as a Doctor of Laws—of anyone in this House who would understand these concepts—if there is a matter taken to court, the normal civil burden of proof would apply and the court procedure would apply. There’s no need to make this change. It’s a redundant clause. He, of all people, should know that.

Now, I want to pick up on his other two amendments in the same clause, subclause (5). He suggests a new insertion about failure to answer a question or giving an obviously incomplete answer. Again, the bill addresses this in cause 15 in a manner that reflects the intent to place the onus on the insurer. This is a key part of the bill. I don’t think Dr Deborah Russell appreciated this earlier in her questions—there is an obligation on the insurer to make sure they ask the right question. In respect of this, the onus is on the insurer to take additional steps if a non-answer or obviously incomplete or irrelevant answer is given. Our bill is therefore more user-friendly.

This is a key tenet of the bill—one of the three crucial things about this bill. First thing: policies have to be presented in easy-to-understand language, and we’re getting rid of all the requirements of difficult terms and conditions that are stuck at the back that no one reads, which is the issue we’re trying to protect consumers from. Secondly, we want to make sure that it is the obligation and requirement of the insurer to ask the right questions of the potential policyholder, not for the policyholder to try and to understand what the intent of the question was—i.e., do I have to record that I had my tonsils out when I was five, when I’m filling out a general health application? And the third major component of this bill is that we want to make sure that if there is a dispute, there is a proportionate, recognised approach to dealing with it. The issue that the member has raised in subclause (5) is much more consumer-friendly.

The third submission, or Amendment Paper, that the member has provided, subclause (6), raises the issue about if a statement—where it’s not a representation, where the insurer was not misled, etc. It is not clear why this change is necessary or how it’s intended to change the operation of the duty, given an insurer would not have the remedy anyway, unless they could prove that they would have not entered into the contract at all or would have only done so on different terms—a crucial part of that third element I’ve just talked about. Thank you. Hopefully that’s helpful for members.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Contracts of Insurance Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is suspended and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting to consider private, local, and members’ orders of the day.

Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday).

Wednesday, 23 OCTOBER 2024

(continued on Thursday, 24 October 2024)

Bills

Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill

Second Reading

SPEAKER: Members, in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, I call on members’ order of the day No. 1.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): I move, That the Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill be now read a second time.

I want to begin by paying my respects to elders both past and present, and to those who are with us in this House this morning. I acknowledge the reverend ministers, their families, and community leaders that are present, and I note the presence of Falema‘i Lesa, who took the original case to the 1982 Privy Council. I acknowledge you all today. Talofa lava. Welcome to your place.

Fa‘afetai tele lava, meitaki ranuinui to the communities across the country that hosted me and other MPs to talanoa about this bill. I visited Dunedin twice, spent some time in Christchurch, in the Wellington region, and, of course, in Auckland, some of whom are here today. This bill is part of a longer journey of which my part and the part of the Green Party is just a small part that many people here today have walked for many years. I acknowledge their continued advocacy. These communities asked important and often detailed questions, some of which I’ll admit I didn’t have the answers to. In Christchurch, for example, I met with the Pacific Youth Leadership and Transformation Council— PYLAT—who hosted a talanoa fono, which included elders and youth, to discuss the bill, and I note that I just got a message from Josiah Tualamali‘i this morning—not too sure if he made it into the gallery. At that fono, they came prepared and with lawyers! I had some of the answers, but not all of them, but I suspect I had more answers than Hamish Campbell, who joined me that night.

Having this bill go to the select committee to give us time to work through those questions is really important. I want to thank the members of the Governance and Administration Committee. I think we worked together collegially, and what I meant by that is when I tended to show up there, someone was shouting cheese scones and coffee, and I might actually owe them one. I won’t subject them to my culinary skills, or lack thereof, but I think I do owe them one.

When I put this bill into the biscuit tin, I thought it was going to be easy; it wasn’t. I appreciate the skills and acknowledge the skill set of Rachel Boyack, who helped to navigate the committee to a deliberation. I note that although not all parties supported the first reading, I did appreciate the Government members on the select committee who engaged with the community and worked with their caucus to strategise a way forward that worked for them. Of course, the real heroes, as many members will know, of any select committee, are the clerks and the officials, noting that this was led by the Department of Internal Affairs; Parliamentary Counsel Office, with their very articulate drafting; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; the Ministry for Pacific Peoples; and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

There were around 24,581 individuals and groups that submitted on the bill, including many from Samoa and across the world. One submission represented the views of 5,951 other people. The involvement of young people, I think, is something that is important to note. It made me hopeful and confident about the future of our Pasifika communities, knowing that our future is in strong and capable hands.

To our Samoan communities, I want to say they represented you well; they represented us well. I note that when you speak to the heart and it connects and people are open to receiving that communication, as our young people demonstrated at the select committee process, then the mind can follow. This is what our young people did. I’m not too sure whether that was the experience for the other members of the select committee, but that was certainly how it was for me.

For example, we had Fili Fepulea‘i-Tapua‘i, who shared that “I want to emphasise that although this is an issue for elders, it is very much an intergenerational issue. For context, it can be said my whole life has been shaped by trying to get this citizenship restored for our elders and Samoan community. When I was five months old … my father marched down the streets of Wellington … [with] the march … Mau a Sitiseni 2003.” I also remember remarking to the Hon Jenny Salesa that when her daughter Esmae Salesa addressed the select committee, there might have been a bit of dust flying around and getting into the eyes of some of the select committee members. It was amazing and awesome to have many of our elders join with their mokopuna in that process.

The submissions presented several reasons for supporting the bill. Among them was reparation for historical injustices such as the Dawn Raids, also around fairness and upholding human rights. At the heart of this bill, it is about fairness, upholding human rights and equality. Noting also many submissions talked about the significant contributions that Samoans make to New Zealand, and I quote this from Losi Aniseko: “The Samoan community in New Zealand has played a vital role in enriching the country’s multicultural landscape. From arts and culture to sports and business, Samoans have made significant contributions that enhance the fabric of New Zealand society.” Other submissions talked about the important role of approving international relations, noting that we are part of a family of Pacific nations, and making sure that we treat that relationship with respect; we treat that relationship with alofa and aroha is so important.

One of the non-Samoan groups that reached out to me, quite a lot were Māori. They reached out to me in support of this bill. I remember stopping and talking to a Māori man who said, “I support this bill. My mokopuna is Samoan and that is why I support this bill.” That came through in some of the submissions at the select committee as well. I note a quote here from Dr Will Flavell, who noted the links to the Treaty of Waitangi: “This bill is more than a correction of a past policy; it reaffirms our commitment to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. … By supporting this bill, we are restoring citizenship and honouring the spirit of kotahitanga and whanaungatanga that defines us as New Zealanders.”

Many submissions also said that the passing of the bill honours the Treaty of Friendship between Samoa and New Zealand. The Vinepa Trust put it this way: “At the heart of this bill is about doing the right thing. … It’s about honouring Article 1 of the Treaty of Friendship, signed in 1962, which reads ‘Relations between New Zealand and Western Samoa shall continue to be governed by a spirit of close friendship.’”

There are other submissions that talked about the need to improve the Treaty of Friendship, and I have this quote from Tailo Duffy: “the bill acknowledges the need for the New Zealand Government to consult with the Samoan Government to amend the Treaty of Friendship between the two nations. This amendment is necessary to reflect the restored citizenship rights and ensure continued strong relations between New Zealand and Samoa.”

In the select committee, we all agreed that the bill should move forward and that it should be supported, and I am grateful for that, but we did have some differences of opinions, particularly around who this would apply to. Many submissions came forward about trying to widen the scope of the bill; in particular, widening the bill to include descendants born before 1962, and we noted that that could be about 19,000 people. This points, to me, the importance of the select committee process, because that was new information for me. The widening of the scope was supported by ourselves, in the Greens, and also the Labour Party.

We also proposed to amend, rather than repeal, the bill, and this includes having a name change of the bill from the original name to the Citizenship (Western Samoa Restoration) Amendment Bill. Another area that we didn’t agree on was around the application of fees. Here I want to note the contribution, the significant contribution, of Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who has been a strong advocate in this process. I’m sure that select committee members and all members around the House would wish her all the best on her journey to recovery. I wouldn’t be able to do it as articulately as her, but she did point to the fact that if citizenship was taken away, then people should not have to pay for it. That, of course, needs to be balanced out by the work that Government departments need to do as well. We have come this far, and I know that the community wants us to go further, and, of course, we in the Greens are open to that because there are a few more stages to traverse.

I want to mihi to the community and to acknowledge their contributions, but also to note that the Greens remain committed to equality, committed to Pasifika justice, and we will continue to uphold that.

I want to close with the words of my friend Faʻanānā Efeso Collins, who I spoke about in the first reading, when he said: “E le tu faʻamauga se tagata—no one stands alone, no one succeeds alone, and no one suffers alone.” I added to that, “we succeed best when we succeed together”. Faʻafetai tele lava. Meitaki ranuinui.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Immigration): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member who has just resumed his seat, Mr Tuiono, has graciously acknowledged many others in relation to this, and it’s appropriate that he do so. I would like to start my contribution by acknowledging the member himself. For those who are less familiar with this place—which, as Mr Tuiono points out, this is your House and it does belong to you—you may not be aware but our colleague is ordinarily in the position of presiding officer, so technically we often address many of our contributions to him in that way while speaking more generally about a bit of legislation or other matter before the House. On this occasion, it is you specifically, sir, who I wish to acknowledge for your leadership in guiding a conversation and taking this House, this nation, and indeed many in Samoa on a journey.

You are right to have acknowledged that the journey does not end here in terms of the parliamentary process apart from anything else, but it is an important step along the journey—and we thank you for walking alongside all members of this House, particularly through that select committee process, which you’ve acknowledged. I would be remiss if I didn’t also acknowledge and endorse and echo your welcome to those who are gathered here today. Elsewhere in this building, there are many activities. One, not very far from here, is a meeting of construction lawyers and we were treated to the beautiful sounds of a song, perhaps a hymn, being sung, no doubt by you fine people, and there was surprise on the attendees’ faces that Parliament always has a choir at 9 o’clock in the morning to serenade us—if only that were so. I do want to acknowledge the colour and the energy and the passion that you have brought to this process, including by your presence today.

I also want to acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee members and, obviously, the select committee process is the particular aspect of the law that we are acknowledging today as the bill is passing its second reading. We will talk—no doubt, all of us—about the mechanics of that process, and about some of the debate we had, the discussions, and the agreements that were reached by majority or consensus. I think it’s important to acknowledge, as much as the substance of what has been arrived at, the process and the method of that engagement. It seems to me, from the outside, not having been a member of that committee, that the select committee has engaged internally but also externally in good faith to try and understand the issues at play and to arrive at the most sensible way forward.

On that note, I should note before my time elapses any further, that the National Party has agreed to support the bill. We think that the changes that were able to be made during the select committee process in the name of introducing certainty where there had been a couple of areas of uncertainty, both as the substance and also in the method of engaging with the Government of Samoa, has been really helpful conversation and we think we are now in a good place, and we’re grateful to the select committee.

Its chair, Rachel Boyack, has been acknowledged, and rightly so. I’ve had good experiences with that member on that committee previously on other matters that are also, as Mr Tuiono has rightly said, a matter of speaking to the heart so that the mind will follow. “Governance and Administration” sounds very technocratic in its nature of its consideration but no less a matter than the human significance of membership of a community, membership of a nation, expressed through citizenship, can be discussed in that body, and it seems to me they have exercised the care and diligence that is appropriate for this bill, not only in terms of the importance of the work but also in a way that reflects its seriousness and its significance to all involved.

From a National Party point of view, we have reached a point where we can agree to the provisions of this bill and be very pleased to be able to do so. My colleague Cameron Brewer deserves acknowledgment. He has engaged with National Party colleagues very diligently, and I know that he, and also Tim Costley and Tom Rutherford, have entered into the spirit of that discussion with a mind to arriving at the right place in a very creditable manner.

The three themes that I wish to focus on in my remaining time go to consultation, certainty, and comity. Each of these is important in its own right, and I think that coming together and taking it as a whole represents the process by which we have wished to arrive at in being able to support this bill.

The first is consultation. Members will be aware—and those present and those watching as well will probably be aware—that there is Treaty of Friendship between the Governments of New Zealand and Samoa that imposes an obligation of consultation and discussion. I think it’s been helpful, through the select committee engagement, through various channels, to be able to interact with the Governments of Samoa and other key figures in that proud nation to understand the effect of the bill, both in its original form and as now amended, on that nation. Of course, it’s right that we acknowledge the people-to-people links, the community links between New Zealand and Samoa and within New Zealand, acknowledging, of course, the special role that the Samoan community has played in New Zealand over many years in many different spheres.

Of course, it’s also the case that the Government of the nation must engage in good faith with that other nation, and New Zealand hasn’t always been a good partner, a good neighbour, and a good friend, including the Pacific, and we’re mindful of the need not to do a thing that we would consider maybe in some ways very helpful to the people of a nation, in a way that would perhaps cause consternation with the Government of that nation.

In the spirit and indeed the requirement of the Treaty of Friendship with the Samoan Government, from a New Zealand perspective, we can say that we have engaged with them to understand a level of comfort, from their point of view, in terms of what it might mean if more Samoan citizens were to become New Zealand citizens, and not wishing to take from them in a way that reflects an addition to this country but to reach a compromise in terms of the eligibility but also that understanding of what it might mean for both nations.

I think that consultation has taken place now in a way that’s appropriate. It’s unusual for a member’s bill to amend the external relations of a nation, and that was a point of nervousness from the National Party’s point of view. Through that select committee deliberation, including the good-faith engagement with the member himself, I think we can feel satisfied that we’ve made a good-faith effort as the Government of New Zealand and as the Parliament of New Zealand, more generally, to reach that place.

The second point is certainty, and certainty obviously reflects the fact that we want the law to be as clear as possible. We would not be doing the nation of New Zealand or indeed the citizens of Samoa and would-be citizens of New Zealand from Samoa a service—we would be doing them a disservice, in fact—if we were to have a law that was uncertain as to the eligibility and application of the law. Of course, in citizenship, there are complex rules around succession, for want of a better phrase, and eligibility questions aren’t always clear. Sometimes they do end up in the court, and, of course, the slightly unfortunate history of this legislation is that it responds to a court ruling that had been made in a way that was surprising and that many have said was, frankly, unfair. We don’t wish to compound the error by having a piece of legislation that’s unclear as to its effect going through further generations, and I think that point’s been reasonably well made. As I say, I think the point the select committee arrived at and that this House appears ready to arrive at reflects the desire for that certainty.

Finally, on a similar note, another item I promised to mention is comity, which is the relationship between the Parliament and the courts. It’s sometimes the case that Parliament needs to change a law to clarify its original intent or, of course, has the ability as being the democratic arm of Government to make laws that are different from the way that courts have interpreted or applied previous other laws of this place. Certainly, in this case, it was helpful, I think, for us to look at the proposition of the member’s bill before us as an exercise in restoring the original intent of the legislation proper, this being an amendment bill, as the member’s referred to. We respect the fact that courts always have the right to make decisions on matters before them. Nevertheless, Parliament is sovereign and it’s right that we should have the ability to come together and make a law that we think reflects the right and true nature of what the people of New Zealand intend in this matter.

I have little time left, so I really just want to emphasise, again, that from a National Party point of view, we’re pleased to be able to support the bill. Others will speak, probably more helpfully than I would be able to, in terms of the detail about how those decisions were arrived at in the select committee process, but I do wish to acknowledge the efforts of all those involved, including in particular the member himself, but also all those who have engaged in good faith through a process that can be opaque and intimidating but nevertheless is capable at arriving at a good place, and I think we have. We commend this bill to the House.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Mili mili mili mili mili mili mili, pati a, pati a, lua pati, lua pati, tolu tolu fa. Hey! Hey! [Response from public gallery] Thank you, Mr Speaker, for indulging me; I just wanted to make sure we had some Samoans in the House today! Ou te faatalofa atu ma le faaaloalo, malo le soifua maua ma le lagi e mama. You don’t know where you are going unless you know where you have come from—I repeat: you don’t know where you are going unless you know where you have come from.

I am proud to be able to stand in the second reading of this member’s bill to lend our support to the member Teanau Tuiono for this bill. I want to acknowledge you, my 682 brother, again, for bringing this to the House.

I’m going to use my contribution to take us through the past, and my fellow members will take us through to the future. As many members know, Samoa is an archipelago of islands covering just under 3,000 square kilometres of land in the South Pacific. The population in Samoa, as at 2023, was 218,019 people. The population in New Zealand, as part of the 2023 census, is 213,069, over half of the Pacific population in New Zealand. Gagana Samoa is the third most spoken language here in Aotearoa New Zealand, behind English and te reo Māori. We Samoans are very, very proud people. We’re also humble, but we’re very proud—whether that be in our homeland of Samoa or here in our new home of Aotearoa New Zealand.

We do have a close connection to New Zealand, to Aotearoa, both through our whakawhanaungatanga, with our tuakana-teina relationship with tangata whenua—I will let Adrian Rurawhe argue whether he is tuakana or teina; I still believe we are tuakana, but we can leave that for another day—and also with the Treaty of Friendship. However, there have been many times in the history of New Zealand and in that relationship with Samoa where that friendship has been trampled on. The Talune that landed in Apia Harbour in 1918 led to the deaths of thousands of Samoans—22 percent of the population was wiped out through the flu. The Mau movement, Mau a Pule, where, on Black Saturday, on 28 December 1929, a movement was brought together to protest and to organise around some of the atrocities that were happening with the New Zealand administration of Samoa. That movement was pushing for independence. Tupua Tamasese Lealofi III—this man here in white [Holds up photograph]—was assassinated on Black Saturday, 28 December. This man is the former MP Anae Neru Leavasa’s great-grandfather, and next to him is my great-grandfather Timu Laufa. That is the connection to New Zealand and the Parliament and the history.

In the Dawn Raids in the 1970s, Pacific people, Samoan, Tongan, and Māori—basically, if you were brown—were targeted, questioned, arrested, and deported, despite the fact there was a concerted effort by the New Zealand Government calling our Pacific people to New Zealand to help with manufacturing, to help fill the labour force gaps.

The Privy Council case of Lesa v Attorney General—that is why we need to know our past in order to go to the future. I looked to the Privy Council case of Lesa v Attorney-General, which led to the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Bill, and in the third reading of that bill, moved by the Hon Jim McLay, who was the Attorney-General at the time, he said, “Equally important is the fact that for 60 years, no one believed that Western Samoans were British subjects owing allegiance to the British Crown.”—no one believed that Western Samoans were British subjects owing allegiance to the British Crown. But he was wrong: Falema‘i Lesa believed she had that citizenship. As many people in the House know, that went straight through to the Privy Council, and at the very first reading of that Citizenship (Western Samoa) Bill, the Hon Jim McLay, the Attorney-General, said, “The Privy Council’s interpretation of the 1928 Act remains as the law of New Zealand unless and until legislation reverses it.”—remains as the law of New Zealand unless and until legislation reverses it.

That legislation, the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Bill—and now Act—reversed it, and that’s how we come to today. The amendments that will be put forward from the Governance and Administration Committee right that wrong—right that wrong—that no one believed that there was allegiance to the British Crown; right that wrong that Samoans born during that period of 1924 to 1928 were not New Zealand citizens. Falema‘i Lesa proved that wrong.

Today, the lesson, really, for our New Zealand Government and for this Parliament, is that there is a crisis already happening in Samoa today. Yes, we have the Commonwealth Heads of Government there today, but we also have one of our own navy ships that has sunk in the reef off the coast of Safata and Si’umu. We need to ensure that we do not trample on the friendship again, and that we right that wrong. I acknowledge that there is work being done, but please listen to the Samoan people on the ground—please listen to those villagers who cannot fish; please listen to those villagers who cannot put food on their families’ tables. Let’s ensure that we don’t continue to trample on this friendship.

I really wanted to ensure that this House knew the history, that we knew where we had come from so that we know where we are going to. Our members will talk to the bill in more detail. They’ll talk to the amendments which the Labour Party will, hopefully with some support—which we hope to get in the committee of the whole House process—continue to advocate for.

I wanted to ensure that we put on the record today that Samoa is a proud people. We organised when our families were dying as a result of the influenza pandemic. Our families came together, took the dead, put them on the road, buried them—we organised then in order to save the rest of our population. Our Samoan people organised—when we were not happy with the atrocities by the New Zealand administration, we organised with the Mau movement, we organised so that we could get our independence. We organised during the Dawn Raids, through the Polynesian Panthers, here in New Zealand, with the people in the communities and the churches that met in order to protest what was happening to our people here in New Zealand, as their homes were getting raided in the early hours of the morning and as the dogs barked at their door. We organised when the Manawanui was sunk, in order to support our villagers who are currently experiencing this issue right now.

In the same way, we organised for this bill, with over 24,000 submissions. We organised in New Zealand. We organised in Australia. We organised in Samoa. We organised in the United States. Let that be a lesson to our Parliament today. Yes, I am a proud parliamentarian who represents the electorate of Mana, but I am Samoan first, and, today, we will continue to organise. The Labour Party will continue to support our Samoan community as they organise around the issues that matter to them. For the 24,000 submitters who organised to ensure that their voice was heard in this bill: we hear you, and that is why we should never underestimate a Samoan. We’re very nice, we’re very smiley, but we’re very smart, and we forgive. We are humble in our forgiveness, but we do not forget. To all of our community members: fa‘afetai tele lava; thank you for your organisation. It is my privilege to be able to stand in support of this bill and to carry your voice in this House, the New Zealand Parliament.

Debate interrupted.

Shakeout 2024

Shakeout 2024

SPEAKER: The House is going to suspend to take part in ShakeOut 2024, which is a national earthquake preparedness drill. Members will either get underneath their benches or underneath the galleries on the end; they could move now. Could everyone in the gallery please just pretend you’re on an airplane and you’ve got to do that drill and move forward and hold your knees or something like that, just while we do this.

Sitting suspended from 9.32 a.m. to 9.33 a.m.

SPEAKER: The House is resumed. Members might like to take their seat—crisis averted. I’ll just apologise to those in the gallery; we didn’t want to interrupt this important debate, but that exercise was carried out right across the country and it would have been a bit odd if Parliament had decided it didn’t need to be doing what we’re asking of everybody else. Thank you for indulging us, and I call on Dr Parmjeet Parmar.

Bills

Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real privilege to stand and take this call on behalf of the ACT Party, in the second reading of the Restoring Citizenship Removed by Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill. I want to again congratulate the member in charge, Teanau Tuiono, for seeing that this bill has come to the second reading, which is really good, and good recommendations were made by the select committee. Good work by the select committee, the Governance and Administration Committee, all members on the committee. I want to acknowledge them for their diligent work on this bill.

I would like to note that the ACT Party doesn’t have a member on this select committee, so we missed out on those cheese scones and coffee that you mentioned, the member in charge. But I have been following the progress of this bill very, very closely. I want to acknowledge everybody who is up in the gallery as well for their effort to come to your Parliament to witness this bill going through the second reading. I’m sure that there are many, many more community members, family members, out there watching this online or on TV and I want to say hello to them as well and thank them as well.

In the first reading, I said this on behalf of the ACT Party, that the ACT Party believes in equality; the ACT Party believes in fairness, and we wanted to see that this bill goes to select committee. I’m really proud to stand here today and say that the ACT Party played a very important role in enabling this bill going to the select committee process.

At the select committee, what we noted was that people have spoken, and I said that it will be important to hear from people what people have to say. Receiving more than 24,500 submissions is a big thing. One submission included views of more than 5,900 individuals—that is something to be very proud of. I must say that for communities to have a view is one thing, but then to come to that next level of putting that view through to a select committee definitely needs a lot of courage. So many people showing the courage to come to the select committee—submitting and writing and appearing to be heard at the select committee—is something that I would like to acknowledge. I would like to say that this kind of strength from the community that we have seen, this kind of unity of the community that we have seen, cannot be denied. It has sent a very strong message to us here in the House, that this is an issue that is very important to the community, the Samoan community.

The select committee has actually, by majority, agreed on some decisions that they have come to, which I believe are really good decisions, and the ACT Party supports those changes made by majority. It’s really important for us to make sure that this bill is quite clear. There is no room left for any doubt, because this is something I know is a very important step towards a historic moment, and that historic moment will come. I know when the bill goes to the third reading, and we are hoping it will go through—but this step is also a very important step, so we want to make sure that each and every step that we take towards this historic moment is fully understood and that the expectations are managed and that all parties understand what we are committing to.

I want to talk about a few of the discussions that the select committee had. One very important thing to highlight is who is going to be covered by this bill for citizenship. It’s important to note that this bill will cover people born in Western Samoa on or after 13 May 1924 and before 1 January 1949—very important to note—and the wives of those people if married before 1 January 1949.

Talking about their children, the bill covers those children who were born in this period. If they were born before 1949 and were British subjects before that date, they are going to be covered, but other descendants born on or after 1 January 1949 are not going to be covered by this bill. Also, it’s important to note that this citizenship will apply from the date it’s granted. There is going to be no retrospective nature to this citizenship, which is important for us to understand. This citizenship cannot be passed on to other descendants other than, of course, if a child is born to these citizens here in New Zealand and they adopt a child here in New Zealand. According to New Zealand laws, that person, that new individual, newborn individual, will get a New Zealand citizenship by birth under section 6 of the Citizenship Act. That has to be noted.

In this bill, we also must note that while this bill worked on this very important issue that is so close to our Samoan community, it is also important for our wider communities as well, the whole of New Zealand. We have taken into consideration what it means for Samoa. We have taken into consideration what it means for New Zealand, and it is about that fairness and equality and justice that I talked about in the first reading.

It is important that we also realise how many Samoans may be eligible for this citizenship. The numbers look just over 3,400, and this data is extrapolated from the 2021 Samoa census and mostly represents people between the ages of 76 and 100.

The internal affairs Minister will be granting these New Zealand citizenships, so how it will work is that people will have to still apply for this citizenship, but they will not have to go through the standard process of getting the residency first and then applying for citizenship. They will get New Zealand citizenship as of right upon applying once this bill has gone through.

I also want to highlight that I’m an immigrant myself, and many of our Samoan brothers and sisters sitting in the gallery are new immigrants or they are second-generation immigrants, and I understand their emotion, their feelings, behind this, because this is an issue which I can relate to, because anything of this sort can become very important for the community, for the wider community as well. I want to say this, that, yes, we have come from different backgrounds, born in different parts of the world, we have different ethnic backgrounds, we may have different perspectives, but having different backgrounds, different ethnicities, different perspectives is not a division. Bringing all the perspectives together actually makes us stronger, and here what we have seen is what the perspective was of one community, and we have taken that into consideration. Obviously, this was an historic issue—very, very relevant to New Zealand as well—so we need to take that into consideration as well, and we have come to this conclusion that the ACT Party is going to support this bill, with the points that I have highlighted.

I also must highlight that the select committee also noted that it should not be a repeal of the 1982 Act; it should be an amendment. The name of the bill is going to be changed to reflect that, and we support that as well.

The final point I want to make here is this—that all these submitters, those who submitted and those who supported this bill going through, selflessly did this. This wasn’t about them; this was about those people, their older generation that is between 76 to 100. That selfless support for the community coming together and trying to address this issue is something that I would like to acknowledge as well.

I would like to thank everybody who came forward, showed the courage to submit on this bill, and I would like to again thank the select committee for doing a great job. The ACT Party is proud to stand and support this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am delighted to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill as well. Talofa lava, afio mai. Welcome to your Parliament. It is lovely to have you here—to have our Samoan community so strongly represented here today, as you have been strongly represented right throughout this process. It is your passion and it is your support that has got this bill to where it is, so thank you very, very much.

I want also to place on record my thanks for my parliamentary colleagues in the Governance and Administration Committee, especially Teanau for bringing this bill to the House. I think when you started you weren’t quite sure it was going to get through, but both with the support of New Zealand First and ACT it came through the first reading, and now National has said, “We’re supporting it too.” I’m really looking forward to seeing this bill unanimously supported through the rest of its stages. Congratulations for the way in which you’ve worked with us through that. Congratulations also, Rachel Boyack, for chairing us through the process. I think it’s been a very good, collegial process.

My observation is that the select committees that I’ve been involved with are good, collegial processes. If any other select committees are less collegial, I’d encourage you to come and have a look at ours and just quietly watch them, and, hopefully, you might learn something from it.

I also want to put on record my thanks to officials from multiple agencies. There were multiple agencies involved. In fact, we had to bring in a couple of extra agencies because, when we started, this bill looked like it was quite a simple bill at face value, but, as we unpeeled the onion, it got more and more and more complicated. It involved things like history, which is complex in itself, international agreements—and not just the view of the New Zealand Government but also the view of the Samoan Government, which we repeatedly tried to uncover. It included past changes to a range of citizenship laws over the last century—of course, the Privy Council ruling of 1982, various policy initiatives that have been taken. It was a very, very complicated process.

My biggest thanks, I think, is to the submitters. More than 25,000 people expressed their view on this bill. You brought passion, you told us your stories—you told us your family stories; you told us the stories of the nation as well—and you told us that history. And there was a clear, strong feeling that an injustice was done in 1982. There were a range of views, it must be said, as to what should be done to put it right, but I would say that this is the Parliament that’s going to do that. This is the Parliament that’s actually going to do something concrete there, because previous Parliaments, actually, in some cases, declined to do anything about it. In other cases, have made apologies—we’ve had a couple of apologies—but the question is: what were those apologies followed up with?

This bill started off with the aim of giving citizenship to people born in Samoa between 1924 and 1948. Well, why that time? Well, that’s all wrapped up in the history. And Teanau, at the time, reinforced that for us when we sought clarity about the extent of what this bill was about. The history is critical to this bill. New Zealand become the administrator of Western Samoa in 1914. We talk about colonialism sometimes in this House, but that was a really colonial approach of a Western nation taking over the administration of another country. That was formally acknowledged in 1920, following the First World War. It carried on till Samoa become independent on 1 January 1962—so a very, very long time.

We cannot look back on many aspects of New Zealand’s administration with pride. The Hon Barbara Edmonds has pointed out some of the terrible failings, and they come, I think, from an autocratic approach of “We know best. We know what we should be doing.” The reality was that the New Zealand Government and the New Zealand administration did not. In 1918, as we’ve heard, the New Zealand Government’s negligence, effectively, allowed the influenza epidemic into Samoa, causing enormous loss of life. In 1929, as she’s also said, the Black Saturday: police fired on a crowd of peaceful demonstrators, resulting in 11 deaths. Those are things that we should be very, very sorry for. Of course, later this country also showed racist attitudes, and we had the trauma of the Dawn Raids. There’ve been apologies for both New Zealand’s administration before 1962 and for the Dawn Raids.

I’m going to change tack slightly. Until 1948, all New Zealanders were British citizens, and, in 1948, New Zealand citizenship was established. Then, I’ve got to say, we talk about the 1982 Privy Council case, because that is what this is all wrapped around. Miss Lesa contended that at the time she was born she was a British citizen, and, therefore, became a New Zealand citizen as of right. There was debate about that. Clearly, the New Zealand Government didn’t think that was the case, but the Privy Council said “Yes”—the Privy Council said “Yes”. That might have surprised—and I think Barbara Edmonds, again, has said that nobody at that time believed that Western Samoans were British citizens and, therefore, New Zealand citizens and they didn’t have an allegiance to the British Crown. I think maybe they genuinely thought this was the case, but I think that they were wrong. If not British citizens, if not New Zealand citizens, if Western Samoa, as it was then, was not recognised as a country, then citizens of where—citizens of where? I think that today is putting some of that right.

The Government of that time passed in the space of two months the 1982 Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act. That said that people born in Samoa between 1924 and 1948 were never citizens, as though the Privy Council had never made its ruling. That is what this bill is about overturning.

I want to go through some of our deliberations, because the first part of those deliberations was: do we repeal the existing bill, get rid of it all together, wipe it off the statute book, or do we amend it? We had quite a discussion about that. The intent was still the same—the intent was still the same—but we decided in the end that we would amend it. The reason for that was that while one side of the Act, essentially, said, “No—never been citizens.” The other side of the Act also said there’s a different pathway—an easier pathway to citizenship—and we would have removed that at the same time had we repealed the Act. That’s why, by majority, we decided that we would keep the Act but we would amend it to do what Teanau Tuiono wanted us to do.

I can remember, as the Mayor of Wellington at the time, one of the greatest joys was having citizenship ceremonies and welcoming people as new New Zealanders. I’d often ask people how long it was that they had been living in New Zealand, and people would say, “Five years, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years.” When the Samoans came through, it might have been a year, might have been two years, because of that special pathway to citizenship. That’s a very important thing to have retained. Removing those would also have offended against the 1962 Treaty of Friendship. New Zealand only has one Treaty of Friendship, and it’s with Samoa. That’s why, by majority, we decided to amend the original Act: still achieving what the bill was intended to do, but to retain those protections.

We discussed the time frame: 1924 to 1948 was very, very clear, and there were some technicalities around that, but that bit is very, very clear. We had a discussion about the period between 1949 and 31 December 1961. In other words, before Samoa became an independent country—and it is a discussion that I think is a real one there. We discussed descendants and the open-ended nature of that. I think it would be fair to say that there were concerns about New Zealand’s capacity if the number were too large. There were also concerns about Samoa’s capacity. I know, if you look back in history, that there were concerns about losing a very, very large number, particularly of young people from the population of Samoa.

The 1962 Treaty of Friendship requires New Zealand’s Government to consult with the Samoan Government over immigration matters, and we have done so. We’ve reached out as a select committee on several occasions to ask for the Samoan Government’s view. It was their view that this was a domestic matter for New Zealand, but I know from looking back in the history that there were concerns about depopulation at the time—so that was a real concern, and I suspect that was one that they maybe didn’t want to say.

We spent a lot of time focusing on ensuring that we had clarity over eligibility for citizenship, over the pathways to citizenship, and over the process for applying for citizenship. We wanted to make sure it was as easy and clear as possible, and it is not just done in the English language but also in the Samoan language. We really, really wanted to make sure that was very, very clear. We considered how adoption would work. We considered a reduced charge for application. Now, there was an argument about whether there should be any charge at all, but the feeling was that if there wasn’t—and the advice we had from officials was potentially that if there wasn’t a charge, the immigration system could potentially have been overwhelmed, and that would have, of course, disadvantaged all other potential applicants.

Just to finish off with: outside the scope of this bill, we also heard a lot of submissions about it often being difficult to move from Samoa to New Zealand for family reasons just for a temporary visit—the visa issue. We have said outside of this bill to the Government: “Please, can you have a look at the visa process. Can we make that easier? Can we make that smoother so we make it easier for people to come from Samoa for whatever purpose it might be in New Zealand for the short-term visit?” I hope that is progressed.

As the committee report says, this bill does not provide redress for the history of injustice, but it is a concrete response—belated, important, but real. I thank you all for your part in making this happen. I commend this bill to the House.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Talofa lava i te pa, ma le mamalu ua aofia. Fa‘afetai mo le avanoa mo aʻu ou te tu atu ai e lagolago le Sitiseni o Samoa.

Ka tū ahau mō te pāti tangata whenua anake, Te Pāti Māori, ki te mihi ki a koutou hei iwi mō o te moana ki tetehi iwi. E mōhio ana mātou ki te mamae o te kaikiri, e mōhio ana mātou ki te āhua o te hanga ture hei tūkino i a mātou. Heoi anō, ahakoa tēnā he kaha whakakīia ō tātou ngākau ki te aroha nā te mea he manawanui mō ō tātou mokopuna; Samoan and Māori mokopuna.

Ka mihi au ki a koutou mō āku mokopuna, arā Hawaiki. Maluapapa, Waimarino, Savai’i and Tiaki. Tēnā tātou, tēnā tātou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[I stand on behalf of the only tangata whenua party, the Māori Party, to acknowledge you as an iwi of the Pacific to another. We know the pain of racism, we know the nature of legislation for the purpose of abusing us. However, despite that, our hearts are completely full of compassion because we stand strong for our grandchildren; Samoan and Māori grandchildren.

I thank you for my grandchildren, i.e., Hawaiki, Maluapapa, Waimarino, Savai’i and Tiaki. My thanks and greetings to you all.]

Te Pāti Māori isn’t like the other parties in here; we only get five minutes, so I am going to give it everything I can, from our ngākau to your ngākau. I mihi to our w’akapapa that we share: our people, one moana, multiple w’akapapa. I mihi to our mokopuna we share. And, sadly, I mihi to the colonisation and racism and racist legislation that we share that has hurt Samoa—that has hurt our kaumātua and continues to hurt our people. What Muldoon’s Government did in 1982 was despicable. It was low and unjustifiable. This place should never be used for racist agendas, should never let personal agendas, discrimination, and bias come across the threshold.

The New Zealand Government at the time rushed through the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 to stifle our growing population of Samoans migrating to Aotearoa—not “New Zealand”; “Aotearoa”—and the legislation set out to target a culture and a group of people. Legislation that is rushed hurts people. It is simply wrong, and my deepest shame for you is that this place continues to rush legislation that hurts our Pasifika and tangata whenua. E kī, e kī, eligibility for citizenship—e kī, you are descendants and w’akapapa of the Moana. You have w’akapapa that gives you eligibility. I swear that when Te Pāti Māori—not if, but when—gets into Government, that will be restored.

This is not an argument about citizenship. W’akapapa is our tiriti, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi is what it is that restores and ensures that we as Pasifika nations can come through each other however and whenever we need to, for the wellbeing of our nations, our mokopuna, our w’akapapa. While we are here to support this bill, we must never ever forget the last time Teanau and I were in Samoa. The Prime Minister, Fiamē Naomi Mataʻafa, said to us that she wants to ensure that, for the wellbeing of Samoa, all of her citizens have the ability and privilege to come and tautoko their whanaunga in Aotearoa and go home at pleasure—the same way our waka comes in; tai timu, tai pari—that you can move as a moana requires you to move and be wherever you need to be.

That is what needs to be addressed, but today we are here simply to look at putting right something that was so tragically, disgustingly wrong. For us and your w’akapapa, we mihi also to those who have had to stand here with the shame and the w’akamā of our w’akapapa. I tautoko the words of our sister Barb, who says, and reminds us that, while we are a humble people, we are a proud people, and the ability to mobilise, to organise—and, in Te Pāti Māori, we call it “activation-ise”. The ability to activate is a power, a superpower, that no other peoples in Aotearoa can do as well as our Pasifika and tangata whenua nations. Tangata Moana, tangata whenua: keep rising, keep staying focused on the wellbeing of the mokopuna that we share.

I tautoko my whanaunga: whether we’re tuākana or tēina, the reality is we are one people. I mihi to our brother, to Teanau, and I know that this is a massive feat to have us all supporting this. While at times I sit here and can barely stomach some of the words I’m hearing, the reality is that you have done what many can’t do—while you’re not in Government. A huge mihi to you, to your whānau, and to the w’akapapa that brought you here to do this kaupapa. Nō reira i te āhuatanga o ō tātou tūpuna, ngā mihi aroha ki a koutou katoa. [And so with respect to our shared ancestors, loving greetings to you all.]

Waiata

SPEAKER: I’ll just remind the gallery that a waiata is a privilege in the House and it is generally confined to once the vote is taken.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Talofa lava. E te whānau, nau mai, haere mai. Welcome to your House.

I wanted to mihi to everyone, as Teanau Tuiono did, who has come before us, but also to those who will come after us. It is today that we are the custodians and the kaitiaki of the fight for justice. I wanted to also mihi to Faʻanānā Efeso Collins for his brief but gigantic contributions to this kaupapa, also to our Pasifika Greens, to—I won’t be able to name them all—Renee Dingwall, to Reverend Mua Strickson-Pua, to Louise Tu’u, to Agnes Magele, and to many, many others who have also engaged with Teanau in this kaupapa and this fight for justice.

I want to mihi to the thousands, the tens of thousands who came forward to the Governance and Administration Committee and opened your stories of trauma and of resilience and of hope and of that consistent fight for justice through the generations. I also wanted to mihi to the parliamentarians who came to that select committee with open hearts and minds. The fact that we have got here today to a place of consensus in this House is not something to be taken lightly.

Now, I also wanted to just briefly mihi to the community who has welcomed myself, alongside Teanau, into some of your hui and talanoa where I received one of my new names that I’ve been blessed with, Gloria. I’m not sure if it was because you got my name wrong, but ka pai. Thank you very much.

I just wanted to speak to why it is not only as the co-leader of the Green Party that I’m speaking to this kaupapa today but also to ground this very much in our geographical relationships. I am a little white kid from central Auckland, and central Auckland looked like a radically different place in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. At that point in time, central Auckland was estimated to have a Polynesian population of approximately 60 percent. It is the home and the origin and the founding of the Polynesian Panthers.

As we have seen, and as my experience in politics and particularly in the debates around the electorate have shown me, we spend a heck of a lot of time talking about this notion of heritage, but what we tend to be talking about and debating in that notion of heritage is the built environment, not those who built that environment. I wanted to acknowledge the Pacific peoples who came before me, came before us, and built central Auckland and the fabric of that community that I love so dearly today.

I also wanted to acknowledge the fact that how we’ve got to having this debate today is off the back of fundamental injustice, as many have acknowledged before me. We had a Government of the day back then, several decades ago now—although it may sound like a familiar story today—who intentionally passed policies in order to bring in people from the Pacific Islands to fill gaps in our economy and to grow that economy. Yet when times got tough politically, these Governments turned their backs on those very communities and scapegoated them. At a point in time where the Dawn Raids were happening, this racist policy was in action.

It is really important to note that the majority of overstayers in this country were not Samoan, were not Pasifika but were European and American, and that is why this law was demonstrably and evidentially racist. It is really, really that simple, and I’ve checked with the Clerks that I can indeed say that. But I think it’s important to make that point about the racism which filtered through that legislation because of the fact that we actually can’t say that in contemporary times when we are discussing legislation that may share the echoes of what we’ve seen in the past. Until we can get to a place in this institution where we can look ourselves in the mirror and truly acknowledge those injustices and that potential of racism, I don’t think that we will be able to evolve until we can get to that point.

I want to acknowledge that this kaupapa has shaped so many lives throughout the generations. I also wanted to acknowledge the fact that in the Government’s 2021 apology for the Dawn Raids, it said—and I quote—“in many cultures, including in Pacific cultures, words alone are not sufficient to convey an apology and it is appropriate to include tangible gestures of goodwill and reconciliation.” Well, today is just one step in addressing those historical injustices, but as many have already reflected upon, those challenges and those injustices are still with us today, including in the likes of immigration policies around Recognised Seasonal Employer workers. This kaupapa can and must continue, and the Greens are with you in that fight. Ngā mihi nui.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. The National Party is pleased to support this amended bill at second reading, following much consideration and key refinement at the Governance and Administration Committee over the past six months. We believe we have landed at a good place, balancing both countries’ interests as well as finally addressing a long-held grievance by many since 1982. The bill will restore New Zealand citizenship to individuals born in Western Samoa between 13 May 1924 and 1 January 1949 yet who were not in New Zealand in 1982, whose citizenship was removed with the 1982 Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act. The select committee’s intention is clear and explicit in our report back to the House. We are ring-fencing this cohort of now elderly people—possibly up to 3,500 people. Only those directly affected will be eligible, as of right, for citizenship by grant, not their descendants.

Initial advice from officials indicated that if descendants were to be included, that could implicate over 100,000 people—nearly half of Samoa’s population—having a huge impact on Samoa as well as New Zealand. By ring-fencing the eligible 1924-48 cohort, we have done something no New Zealand Parliament has done in 42 years, since the Privy Council decision. We are acknowledging what many lost when the 1982 Parliament unanimously voted to rule that those living in New Zealand at the time were citizens, but not those living in Samoa and elsewhere. Again, it was a unanimous decision by Parliament in 1982 to revoke their citizenship. In 1982, the legislation had cross-party support, with Bill Rowling’s Labour Party and Bruce Beetham’s Social Credit joining—joining—the Muldoon Government to pass it.

I want to acknowledge our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, for being the 11th Prime Minister since Sir Robert Muldoon but the first to actually confront this issue in a practical yet meaningful way. I want to also pay tribute to the support from senior MPs; the offices of the Hon Nicola Willis, the Hon Shane Reti, the Hon Chris Bishop, the Hon Erica Stanford; our Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) spokesperson, the Hon Chris Penk, for his considered guidance; and the chief of staff in the Prime Minister’s office, Cam Burrows. I also want to acknowledge Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden.

As we all know, National opposed this bill at first reading, but some critical changes have since occurred. We are not only fine-tuning the specific intent of the bill but we are now amending the 1982 legislation, not repealing it. Amending not repealing the legislation was the explicit wish of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Officials advise that repealing the bill, as continues to be advocated by the Opposition, would have serious ramifications on the 1962 Treaty of Friendship between Samoa and New Zealand, which, among other things, provides a simplified pathway to citizenship for Samoans. In short, a repeal would “particularly impact individuals outside the group directly addressed by the bill, adding more hurdles for Samoan citizens to apply for, or to automatically receive, New Zealand citizenship”, wrote the DIA’s departmental report to the select committee.

By amending, not repealing, the legislation, we have avoided violating the 1982 Protocol to the Treaty of Friendship and potentially straining diplomatic relations with Samoa. Any amendments by the Opposition in this House, at the next stage, to try to make it a repeal bill go against all the official advice.

Frankly, it was highly problematic having a bill with so many foreign affairs, diplomatic, economic, and immigration consequences being sent to a select committee as a member’s bill. It simply couldn’t benefit from the usual vigour that shapes Government bills from the outset. With that in mind, I want to acknowledge the bill’s sponsor, Green MP Teanau Tuiono, his work, and his willingness to adapt it to get it over the line before we lose what could arguably be our last chance to make a real, meaningful acknowledgment to this generation.

I want to also thank National MPs Tim Costley and Tom Rutherford, and New Zealand First’s Andy Foster, my Government colleagues, for their interrogation and hard work over several months to help knock this bill into workable form. Can I also acknowledge select committee chair Rachel Boyack.

For me, this is not my first exposure to the 1982 Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act. No, my first exposure of it came in the late 1990s, when I was a young staffer in the Jenny Shipley National Government, back in the 45th Parliament. As a researcher, I was assigned National’s first Pasifika MP, Anae Arthur Anae, who’s here today. I helped him write caucus memos to his colleagues to consider this very matter. It was hard, hard going—it was hard going. Arthur, however, didn’t give up and continued the fight and continued his advocacy for the next two decades. I ended up on Auckland City Council as a councillor with Arthur Anae, in 2010, as his bench mate, and he was still going on about it—he was still going on about it. Luckily for me, after last year’s general election, I then, effectively, became his whipping boy inside the caucus. Arthur, I know this isn’t all that you wanted, but you can take pride in what is being achieved across Parliament today.

I want to also acknowledge National’s Pacific Blues chair, and a member of my own electorate committee, John Loau. John presented a thoughtful submission supporting a third way, with many pragmatic suggestions to help build political consensus. John’s priority was to reinstate citizenship to those who were directly affected. Doing so, he wrote, will allow those victims some dignity to this dark period of their lives. Thank you, John, for all your advocacy and for your friendship.

Today, our Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, is flying to join the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Apia. Again, the Prime Minister can feel proud that, since 1982, after six Labour Prime Ministers and four National ones, he is the one Prime Minister who is putting his support to this.

As deputy chair of, and the Government lead on, the select committee, I want to acknowledge the support and willingness of the National caucus to reconsider this—the front bench and the backbench. Thank you to my committee colleagues from across the House for listening to the submissions and making the necessary changes to enable this day and the inevitable—dare I say, the inevitable—passing of what will soon be known as the Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Act; 42 years in the making. I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker, and talofa lava to the community, who are joining us here in your House, the Parliament, today. There are a few people I wish to acknowledge at the beginning of my contribution. First, and most importantly, can I acknowledge the member in charge of the bill, my brother from across the aisle on this side of the House, Teanau Tuiono. Thank you for putting this bill into the tin, for having it pulled accidentally, and then for championing it through the House to date. It has been a real pleasure working alongside you, my brother.

Can I acknowledge our elders who are with us and who are also watching from around the world—talofa lava. In particular, I want to make mention of three of your elders, who, while former parliamentarians, haven’t lost their touch as parliamentarians: Anae Arthur Anae, who has been very forthright in his views with us; my former caucus colleague Aupito Su’a William Sio, who is also at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, but has made sure his views are known to us; and also with us today, can I acknowledge Luamanuvao Dame Winnie Laban. The three of you are a reminder to all parliamentarians that even when you leave, you can still make your contribution. So thank you for your wisdom and your guidance to all of us throughout this process.

Can I pay particular attention to acknowledge Falema‘i Lesa, who took the case to the Privy Council all those years ago. Having her engage in this process and submit to the Governance and Administration Committee has been a very powerful thing. I also want to acknowledge her son and my constituent in the mighty electorate of Nelson, Ian Lesa, who has also been a very useful source of advice to me as we go through this process. I acknowledge you both.

As chair of this committee, it has been a very humbling process to hear the stories of the submitters. Throughout that process, we have been guided and assisted by a number of people, and so I want to take the time today to thank those officials.

We had a rather record number of officials giving advice, from the Department of Internal Affairs; from the Ministry for Pacific Peoples; from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; and from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; but can I pay particular thanks to the Parliamentary Counsel Office. Our committee, I’m proud to say, is a committee of pedants. We do like to dig into the detail, and dig into the detail we did, and having the guidance and advice from the Parliamentary Counsel Office ensured that as we were drafting the amendments to this legislation, we could have the confidence that our intent was very clear in what we have written. We wouldn’t have been able to do that without the support of the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

Finally, to all of the members on the select committee, with the deputy chair, Cameron Brewer, in particular, who also chaired some of the submission hearings, and to my sister, who cannot be with us today, but we send her all of our love and support—Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who has been right by my side throughout most of this process. I’m really missing you today, sister. I wish you were here. This has been your mahi as well, and I know that I speak for all of us when I say that we wish you every good wish, every prayer, and all of our love as you go through the treatment that you are going through and come back to us, well and able to contribute again.

Now to the bill. As I said, it is very humbling to be able to talk to this bill. This bill rights a historical wrong that was done to our community by the Parliament in 1982, and today is another step in that journey of righting that wrong. Can I refer everyone, please, to what is a very detailed select committee report. Please do read it. I don’t want this just to sit on people’s bookshelves, not being read. Please read it: it has a lot of very useful information, and I won’t be able to talk to all of it today.

We are hoping soon to be able to have this translated into Samoan. We weren’t able to do that in time for our report back because we finished it the day before we reported back, but we are working with officials so that we can get this translated into Samoan.

On that, I want to acknowledge a point that my sister Lemauga Lydia Sosene made throughout this process—in a note to officials, in particular—which was how important it is that our officials communicate clearly with our Samoan community here in Aotearoa but also in Samoa and other parts of the world about the clauses in this bill, about how it will apply, and about how it will be implemented, so that it is easy for people to follow. The point she has made, I think, very, very well. We’ve made it in our report, and so part of that will be ensuring that this report is ultimately translated into Samoan so that people who can read and write in Samoan can read their version of the report. That was important to us.

I wanted to point out three areas where there was some disagreement at committee, and this was off the back of the wonderful contributions from submitters. The first was about whether we repeal and replace this legislation, or whether we repeal and then move those clauses into other pieces of legislation. The advice we received was that it was actually a bit of a line call. In amending the original legislation, it probably will be easier for officials to be able to interpret it in terms of eligibility, but also I want to acknowledge that there is a symbolism in being able to repeal that Act and the name of that Act and all of the hurt and the mamae that it caused. My view is still that we could repeal that bill and pick up those important clauses, like the ones that relate to the Treaty of Friendship, and put them in other legislation—we could still do that. That is still the view that I hold.

The second was around the need for a fee when people apply for their citizenship by grant. Now, fees are ultimately determined in regulation by Cabinet. What the committee has chosen to do by majority is to have a fee set in the legislation until such time as that fee is determined. But our view—the Labour and the Green view—was that for that short period of time, we shouldn’t put a fee in place. There should be a window of opportunity for people who have suffered the trauma and who have gone through the hurt to be able to apply for their citizenship without a fee.

The final point where there was disagreement was where we do extend this to in terms of descendants. The view of the Labour and Green members on the committee was that we should extend it to the next cohort, and those are the descendants of those affected who were born before 1962. That is all laid out in the select committee report in terms of our views and the reasoning around that. What I will say is that we have two more stages of this bill to go through—the committee of the whole House and the third reading—and it is likely we will consider some amendments to put forward in the committee of the whole House. Ultimately, though, that will be the position of the Parliament, but we will work through that process over the coming weeks.

I just wanted to make one final point, which was a particular concern that we heard from the community, but it is out scope. We have made some commentary about it in our report, and that is the visa settings for people from Samoa coming to New Zealand, coming to Aotearoa. We heard very clearly that it is onerous, that it takes a lot of time, and that particularly when you have cultural and aiga contributions to make, where people need to come back to Aotearoa—it may be for a wedding or for a funeral—having to go through that visa process is onerous and it doesn’t feel fair to a community that we have a deep and lasting relationship with. The committee was unanimous in calling for the Government to look at those settings and see if we can make some improvements so that it is easier for the people of Samoa to come to New Zealand, particularly in times of a crisis.

Finally, can I just point out and just finally acknowledge that for the people of Samoa, on your minds will be the sinking of the Manawanui on the southern coast of Upolu, where I have visited twice that very area. I think all of this House wants to send our love and support to the people of Samoa and say how deeply sorry we are at what has occurred in your moana, in your waters.

On that note, it has been a real privilege to help guide this bill through to this point. Fa‘afetai tele lava. I commend this bill to the House.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Let’s set the scene and understand our Government’s and this Parliament’s precedent-breaking support. Samoa in the late 1800s: there are interests from Germany, the US, and the UK, and civil war breaks out between local factions backed by these three countries. Then, without consulting any Samoans—this is not something any of us should be proud of—they have a conference and decide how to split Samoa. The eastern part goes to the US—now American Samoa—and the western part—hence Western Samoa—comes under German control. Of course, 1914 was the start of World War I. Britain rings up New Zealand as it’s not so keen on having Germany with a safe haven in the Pacific, and New Zealand is asked and goes in, without anyone firing a shot, and takes control of Samoa for the duration of the war.

Now, the intent at the time was actually to give it back to the Germans in 1919, but the League of Nations has a different plan and it becomes what we call a Class C mandated country, along with other German territories in the Pacific and in South Africa, the likes of South West Africa—now Namibia—Nauru, I think of New Guinea, the South Sea Islands—of course, went to Japan—Micronesia, the Marshall Islands. The mandate lasts from April 1922 until April 1946. Now, the dates get a bit confusing when we look at the dates in this legislation, but we also have to read the British Nationality and Status of Aliens (in New Zealand) Acts, both the 1923 and the 1928 Acts, along with the Act with the same name, but in the UK, from 1914.

This trusteeship: in 1921, the Samoa Act brings this into law in New Zealand, and the bill makes it very clear that Samoans would not become New Zealand citizens. That was the thinking at the time. In fact, we have the letter that the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Gordon Coates, wrote to the League of Nations in 1928, after the legislation that actually this bill gets based off. He said—and I’m quoting here—“The status of native inhabitants [from Samoa] is distinct from that of … nationals [from] the Mandatory Power,”—in this case, New Zealand. Again, quoting, it “cannot be identified there—with by any process having general application.”, and he goes on to say that “The native inhabitants of the mandated territory are not invested with the nationality of the Mandatory Power.” This is also agreed to, of course, by the UK, Australia, France, Japan, Belgium, and South Africa, and none of those countries have ever gone on to give citizenship to any of those trustee countries.

This is the first time in history that a trustee administrated country will be given citizenship. This is incredibly significant. That’s the start of the period and the thinking at the time and New Zealand’s intent to not give citizenship.

Let’s fast forward to the end. It’s the first Labour Government—of course, Savage, and then Fraser—and Labour’s Minister of Internal Affairs at the time, the Hon Bill Parry, again makes it clear that Samoans, in his view and that Government’s view, are not New Zealand citizens when he’s commenting on the law changes they’re putting through in the 1948 bill. I’m quoting from the Labour Government: “The inhabitants of Western Samoa are not British subjects because trustee territories and protectorates are not in the legal sense part of His Majesty’s realm.” In fact, the Privy Council accepted the intent of that Labour Government, and that’s why the cut-off now sits at 1948 in the 1982 legislation that we are amending today. He goes on to say that “Although the protected persons are not British subjects, they should not be treated as aliens either. There should be an intermediate class.” They changed the rules requiring five years of residency to get to citizenship to be just one year of residency, and this, in a way, sets the path towards the 1962 Treaty of Friendship, which builds on what he called an intermediate class.

Now, of course, in 1977, Falema’i Lesa was prosecuted for being in New Zealand unlawfully but argued that, between the periods of legislation that we’re talking about now, she, effectively, became a New Zealand citizen. Ultimately, the Privy Council accepted that. We can understand the shock that there was across all parties in Government at the time, because we know that the intent was, both in the 1920s and the 1940s, that they were not citizens, and hence the thinking to go and change this.

As we’ve heard, Jim McLay was the Minister responsible at the time. He argued that successive Governments had never anticipated this, and he used a comparison to a tax loophole. When someone finds a loophole in the law, a responsible Government would honour those that found it, but would also move to close it, which is what the 1982 legislation did. In fact, that legislation did three things: firstly, it awarded citizenship to Falema’i Lesa and her family specifically but also to any Samoans who were legally in New Zealand at that time; secondly, it created a fast-track pathway—and we love a good fast track—for all Samoans, removing that one-year residency requirement but also things like not needing to pass an English language test. In effect, if you can reside in New Zealand legally, you can become a citizen right away, and that’s something we want to protect by not removing some of those details from the 1982 legislation. Finally, of course, it ruled out future citizenship to people who might not otherwise be entitled to it from that period.

Come forward to 2002-03 and Helen Clark’s Labour Government. They were presented with a petition to do exactly what we’re doing here, but they denied it. Why was that? Well, part of it may be, as was explained in their thinking, that they considered that a repeal of the 1982 Act would be—I’m quoting—“Inappropriate from an international law perspective”, and they noted that no other mandated country had citizenship from that time. In fact, even today, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s advice to us was that the advice it provided to the committee 20 years ago was still valid, and, further, that they consider that before this bill passes, New Zealand’s current legislative policy and administrative settings in relation to Samoa are consistent with international human rights law.

Now, add to that the Department of Internal Affairs’ advice that said that if we were to repeal the 1982 bill, it could create an unintended divide between those who would gain citizenship from that period and all other Samoans and those that might be born in the future that would not be able to benefit from the fast track and the provisions that that brought in. Of course, we know from recent submissions, like we heard from the Hon William Sio, the Minister of Pacific Peoples from 2017 to 2023—we heard from him directly that even with the complete majority, this bill was not something he was able to gain support for from his Cabinet colleagues, which is, of course, a real shame.

That begs the question: why now? Why is this National Government supporting this now when, as we’ve heard, no previous Government was willing to? Well, I want to cover three reasons. Firstly, I have to acknowledge the member in charge of this bill, Teanau Tuiono, for bringing it in, and his clear intent of what he was wanting and the target group. I’m quoting from his intent in the bill that this “would not create new rights to citizenship for descendants of those whose citizenship rights were removed.” The intent was never to go broader, it was to address this historical wrong. By bringing that focus and that clarity, it really enabled us to get a better sense of comfort and to know that this was a targeted bill and something that we could find unity in the select committee together around. That was a big piece of the puzzle.

Secondly, it is about amending, not repealing. We heard official advice that there would be huge challenges with a repeal, that it was—and, again, I quote—“It was very difficult to operationalise or could not be operationalised in its current form” that passed the first reading. It could potentially kill the Treaty of Friendship—kill the fast track for Samoan citizenship—for others. It could inadvertently do more harm than good, and I think it’s a great sign of leadership, actually, that people are willing to forgo the big banner posters of repeal and go for the thing that will actually deliver the practical outcome that was desired. We could add to that things like section 32 of the Legislation Act, which are also problematic in terms of a repeal.

But finally, for me, as much as anything else, it was the submissions, the personal stories that moved me—the emotional, often at times, examples that we were given. I know that this bill is not directly just in response to things like the Dawn Raids, the 1929 massacre, or the Spanish flu, but I heard the submissions from people like Melani Anae, the Polynesian Panthers, David Lui, the Samoan Trade and Investment Council, and Hans Schwalger. They were very clear—and, again, I’m quoting—that the Ardern apology didn’t cut it. It was hollow, it fell short, and this bill is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible bond that our two countries share. One small step, as the Greens mentioned, to show more than just words.

Secondly, it was the personal stories from people who lived in this period, or perhaps their children. I think of Akenese Taupo Pualilo and Ierome Lui Vaoliko—I apologise for my pronunciation—their parents were personally impacted; Akeripa To’Alepaiali’i, who is from this generation, has to apply for a visa to visit his grandchildren; or Mataio Lemaveve, who wanted their grandfather to be able to come and visit them; or Lealasa Tovio. She and her sister were both born in the 1940s. She has citizenship, but her older sister, who was born in 1946, doesn’t, but now they both could become citizens.

There is no legal precedent for this bill, I’m convinced. There is no legal right or requirement, but let’s do it anyway. This is a focus bill on one small group. It’s actionable. It’s amending, not repealing, and it’s a bill that I look forward to a constructive committee stage with. I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Lau afioga fofoga fetalai ma sui mamalu o le palemene.

Ki a koutou ōku tuākana. Ngā mātua ngā whāea ngā rangatira katoa tae atu ki ā koutou tamariki mokopuna. Anei a au e tuku mihi atu ki a koutou, nau mae, haramai mai ki tō tātou Pāremata. Nō reira tēnā rā tātou.

[To you, my seniors, the fathers, mothers, all the leadership, and also to you, the children and grandchildren. Here I stand to acknowledge you, welcome, welcome to our Parliament. And so greetings to all of us.]

I join together with colleagues around the House and acknowledge everyone who has worked towards this day. It’s good to be on the right side of history. My biggest thankyou really goes to Teanau Tuiono nō te Rōpū Kākāriki, the only party that has not been in Government from 1982 to now that could actually do something about it, and today they’re the only party that has, and I acknowledge them.

While Cameron Brewer might claim that the current Prime Minister is doing something about it, I kind of think he was forced into it—forced into it by his colleagues in New Zealand First and the ACT Party. Let’s not overplay that position, because this bill is not over yet and some of us think it should go a bit further. I’m going to support my colleagues who have done a lot of work on this, along with Teanau Tuiono, and let’s see and test whether Cameron Brewer is right, because, if he is, then the Prime Minister will do the right thing and make sure at the committee of the whole House stage that when those amendments go up, they vote for them. It’s no good in standing in this, at the second reading, and proclaiming how good the Prime Minister is now; let’s see him after the third reading. Then, I might acknowledge that—but today, no. So far, 11 Prime Ministers have done nothing. Today, I think it’s right for me to acknowledge what has been done.

I join, also, colleagues in acknowledging the work of the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, and all of the members, including Lemauga Sosene. I send all my alofa to her.

Everything’s really been said, but I really wanted to say that it’s good to be on the right side of history, but this is not the only piece of legislation which is on the wrong side of history. As my whanaunga from Te Tai Hauāuru, from Taranaki, said there are other bills, as well, currently going through this House, or about to go through this House, that will end up on the wrong side of history, and people’s grandchildren, in 40 years, might be back here correcting what their grandparents did. So be careful what you’re passing through this House.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity of speaking. Ki a koutou anō, aku tūākana me aku teina, tēnā rā tātou katoa. [And again to you, my seniors and my juniors, greetings to us all.]

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): Lau susuga i le fofoga fetalai, fa‘afetai mo lenei avanoa faaauro ua mauaina e mafai ai ona ou tautala ai i lenei pili matagofie i luma o Samoa ma ona tagata. Fa‘afetai lava i le tou auai mai i lenei taeao ua matagofie ai lenei aso. Fa‘afetai mo lo tou sao mo Aotearoa aemaise le tou loto aiga mo si o tātou atunuu. Ua manuia le atunuu nei ona o outou.

The details of the Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill and its long history, the disagreements and the agreements, have been well canvassed in this morning’s speeches. Instead of going over them again, I wanted to take this moment of great honour, in your presence, to acknowledge the extraordinary people of Samoa and to give thanks for all that you bring to Aotearoa. I thank you for your grace. I thank you for your patience. I thank you for your perseverance. And, most of all, I thank you for your example to us all in Aotearoa. You and your culture have never forgotten what matters most. As I, hopefully, spoke to in your most beautiful language—perhaps equalled only by te reo taketake o te whenua nei [the ancient language of this land]—it is my deepest appreciation for that example that you provide to us all.

In the brief time that I have, can I also acknowledge my colleague Teanau Tuiono. Tēnā koe e te Pīka, te nui ngā o te wā ahakoa [Thank you, Mr Speaker, most of the time, though] for championing this bill, for wanting to right this injustice. Thank you so much.

To my colleagues across the House who have worked so hard on this piece of legislation at the Governance and Administration Committee, tēnā koutou. And to the good spirit of this House, the thoughtful consideration, the genuine listening—it turns out it leads to good law, or at least a better law. We should do it often.

Can I also mihi to my colleague and friend Margaret—or “Mags”—Epati. You are an absolute delight and treasure to work with, and it is awesome that you just happen to be here on this day and that I was given the opportunity to speak. My colleague Minister Chris Penk spoke in his remarks earlier this morning of the beautiful hymn that he heard. In my experience, that is an expression of who you are, of your commitments, and of your example. And therefore, a o le i uma laʻu tautalaga, ou te toe fa‘afetai atu Samoa, faamalo le tautai ae, faamalo le loto atunuu, faamalo le lototele. Fa‘afetai i le tou nonofo ai i lenei atunuu o Aotearoa aua se sailiga manuia mot ou aiga i Samoa. Faamanuia le Atua. [Member mispronounces word] He rerekē ki te reo taketake anō! [This is quite different from the indigenous language!]

Faamanuia le Atua. Fa‘afetai. It is my delight and pleasure and honour to commend this bill to the House—685 to the world!

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Talofa lava. Fa‘afetai tele lava, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise as Labour’s final speaker this morning to provide my support for this bill. I do so as a member of Labour’s Pacific caucus, and I do so on behalf of my Samoan constituents of Te Papaioea, Palmerston North.

I want to start by acknowledging the sponsor of this bill, Teanau Tuiono. I want to congratulate him on, unfortunately, having luck play a role in this particular issue today. I want to say to everyone that it’s all good that a Cook Islands brother from Palmerston North is leading the righting of this wrong for our Samoan community all around the world. I also want to say that it signifies the importance of having Pasifika representation in this place, in this House, to right wrongs, to make decisions, and I thank Teanau for leading the way in that regard.

I want to also acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee. When I entered Parliament, I had the fantastic opportunity to be a member of that last term, and I know it’s always been collegial. Actually, Madam Speaker, you were the chair while I was the deputy. It’s good to see that that has continued through to the 54th Parliament. In particular, I want to acknowledge my colleague and the chair of that committee, Rachel Boyack. I know that she is fair, I know that she is thoughtful, and I know that she has worked through this process with the support of colleagues around the House, and I want to acknowledge the work that she has done.

I also want to acknowledge the members of the committee who have worked extremely hard, although there is still some work to do, as colleagues have already alluded to. In particular, I want to acknowledge Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who has been a leading light in terms of this bill and its progress through the select committee stage. I know and we all know that she, unfortunately, is not able to be here today, but I was in touch with her this morning, and she asked me to wear this ulafala, acknowledging that she is unable to be here today.

This was a bill that attracted so many submissions. More than 24,500 individuals and organisations took the time, gave the energy, made the effort to submit, because this is an injustice. It included many submissions from off these shores. Often, in select committee, we might think, “Well, how much weight or value do we give that?” In this particular regard, I think it’s important that the weight and value is at a high level. The overwhelming level of support is in favour of this bill. The overwhelming level of support is for this bill to go further than it currently stands.

I want to acknowledge those who are in the gallery today. I want to thank you for your voices that have informed this bill on its journey. I want to acknowledge those who have passed. I want to acknowledge those who are unable to be here, those who are not able to witness this injustice being rectified in this Parliament at this time. I want to acknowledge the former parliamentarians who are here—in particular, Anae Arthur Anae, for his leadership, for his support, and for his call to action for this over many years.

This is a bill that does seek to right a wrong. It seeks to restore a right that was unjustly and unfairly stripped away by the New Zealand Government and the New Zealand Parliament of the early 1980s. It’s a bill that returns the right of New Zealand citizenship to those who were born in Samoa on or after 13 May 1922 and before 1 January 1949, and for whom their citizenship was removed by that 1982 Act. What’s pleasing to hear at this point in time is there is a level of support which sits at that unrivalled level here in the New Zealand Parliament, unanimity for this particular bill. Whilst there have been some issues raised which, sure, we will tease out when we get to the committee of the whole House stage, I do hope that all parliamentarians continue to have an open mind as we work through that particular process.

I want to touch on some of those issues. The first is the title. This is a bill that Teanau Tuiono put in the tin with the title. The proposal from the select committee process by majority is actually that we’ll just change the existing Act rather than institute a new one. I think that’s a shame. I think it’s a shame because it doesn’t give prominence to the fact that this is a Parliament that is seeking to right a wrong. I think the arguments that have been advanced as to why the select committee by majority have suggested that are rather weak. This House, this Parliament, can insert into other pieces of legislation the very issues, the very avenues to address the concerns that have been raised by majority through the select committee.

This is a bill that would allow citizenship to be given by grant, which means that people have to apply for it—it’s not automatic. Not only do they have to apply, the suggestion is that they would pay a fee. It’s very unusual to have a fee specified in legislation. Usually that’s something that does come through regulation, and when I sit back and look and reflect on it, I think, you know, we’re seeking to right a wrong, but we’re asking people to reach into their pocket and to pay for it at the same time. I think that’s wrong. I think that is fundamentally wrong.

Now, we hear that some of the issues might be because of cost implications. The reality is that when you are trying to right a wrong, sometimes that comes at a cost. It would have been much cheaper if the wrong was righted earlier, so let’s not have that argument about cost. It has taken so long to right this wrong, and I thank the member for bringing it to Parliament. I think having an application fee flies in the face of doing the right thing.

We’ve heard this morning that our colleague Lemauga Lydia Sosene has really stressed the importance of communication, and I do support that. I hope that those lead agencies in Immigration New Zealand, in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and in the Ministry for Pacific Peoples will work hard. I know they will work hard to ensure that the communications around who is eligible, how they might apply, hopefully that there will not be a fee for it, the time frames—all of those sorts of things. There is a real need for a multicultural, multi-agency approach around that.

The Labour Party does join with the Greens in progressing through the committee stage the possibility of extending eligibility for this to include descendants who were born before 1 January 1962. This is something that is in the select committee’s report. It is something that will not come as any great surprise. Unfortunately, Government parties don’t agree with that, but we do hope that they consider this with an open mind as we work through the next particular stages of this.

My colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds has touched on the history, and I know that she said that her colleagues would look to the future. Members of the House know I used to teach history, so I couldn’t resist a little sort of inclusion of history there. I used to teach a unit called “New Zealand’s Search for Security”. In it was a photo that was pretty prominent, actually, in the textbook. It’s from 1 January 1962. It’s a photograph of the first Prime Minister of Samoa—the current Prime Minister’s father—and the New Zealand Prime Minister at the time, Keith Holyoake. They were taking down the trustee flags on that particular day to acknowledge the change.

You know, you look at this photo and you think of all the hope, the aspiration, the change, the good stuff that’s about to come, and the sad reality is that there were so many things in history since that time that I think New Zealand as a country should be rather ashamed of—whether it’s about the Dawn Raids, whether it’s about the various protest movements, the Mau movement, and others, and the sort of notion of events that took place.

My colleague the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe is right. When we look at seeking to right those wrongs, it has always been led from the left of this Parliament. When I think about Helen Clark providing the formal apology, when I think about Jacinda Ardern and the process of apology for the horrific nature of the Dawn Raids experience, when I think about our colleague Teanau Tuiono from the left leading this particular bill that will make a huge difference, but, more importantly, it will go down in New Zealand’s history as righting a wrong that we should all be ashamed of. It is the left that leads, but it means that everyone in this Parliament is open to join and be collaborative around ensuring that we do the right thing. I commend this bill because it is the right thing to do, and I hope that this bill will continue to go further than it currently does.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I have a serious frog in my throat after listening to 11 superb contributions, so thank you. Talofa lava.

It gives me great pleasure to rise as the final speaker on the Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill. Today, we continue the journey to right an historical wrong and strengthen the bonds between New Zealand and Samoa. Firstly, I want to acknowledge our guests in the gallery, the community leaders and members of our Samoan community who have travelled from across New Zealand and the world to witness this legislation being debated in Parliament.

I particularly acknowledge those families who have carried the burden of the 1982 Act, the elders who have waited decades to see this wrong put right. To them, I say fa‘afetai tele lava. Thank you for your patience and dignity.

To my parliamentary colleague Teanau Tuiono, who has championed this bill, I want to acknowledge you for bringing this legislation forward. I acknowledge your careful stewardship through the parliamentary process and your commitment to the Samoan community.

When I stood in this House over six months ago during the first reading, I made a commitment. I said then, “When the bill comes to the Governance and Administration Committee, I look forward to further discussions we’re going to have on the bill. I look forward to understanding the perspectives that we’re going to be hearing on the select committee and the real-world implications that this bill may have for people, and I appreciate the opportunity that those people will have at the select committee with the wider support that has been given across this House.” At that time, while the National Party had concerns around the risk of eligibility changes and the lack of consultation with the Government of Samoa, we made it clear we would approach the select committee process ready to listen and learn and prepared to change our minds.

These initial concerns focused particularly on our obligations under the Treaty of Friendship and the potential scope of eligible individuals. On the select committee, learn we did. The testimonies we heard, the stories shared, and the profound impact of the 1982 Act on families and communities became crystal clear through the process. To those in the public gallery and watching at home who submitted and presented to the select committee and made your views clear, thank you. Your courage in sharing your stories, your determination to see justice done, and your unwavering dignity throughout this process has been instrumental in bringing us to where we are today. The journey to this point has been long. In 1982, through an Act of Parliament, countless Samoan individuals were stripped of their Samoan citizenship. Today, we begin the process of restoration.

I do want to outline the precise scope of eligibility under this legislation as amended through the select committee process. The bill specifically provides the right to citizenship for several clearly defined groups: firstly, those who were born in Western Samoa between 13 May 1924 and 1 January 1949 and who were British subjects solely by virtue of that birth; secondly, women who became New Zealand citizens on 1 January 1949 through marriage to such persons; thirdly, descendants of those born in Western Samoa during the period who were themselves born before 1 January 1949 and were British subjects; and, finally, women who became citizens through marriage to such descendants.

One of the most significant changes made through the select committee process was the decision to amend the 1982 legislation rather than repeal it entirely. This was not a decision taken lightly. The majority of select committee members concluded that a full repeal was not necessary and that there were compelling reasons to retain several of the Act’s provisions, though I acknowledge that our colleagues from the Green Party and Labour had different views on this matter. This careful approach reflects our deeper understanding of the complexities involved. A complete repeal of the 1982 Act would have the established pathway to New Zealand citizenship that was agreed upon in the 1982 protocol to the Treaty of Friendship between New Zealand and Samoa. Furthermore, such a repeal would have had significant implications for New Zealand’s relationship with Samoa, potentially affecting the broader framework of the Treaty of Friendship between our countries.

Instead, the amendment approach we have taken provides a clearer, more straightforward pathway to citizenship restoration while maintaining our international obligations and preserving the important diplomatic frameworks that guide our relationship with Samoa. The amendment demonstrates our commitment to both justice and diplomatic responsibility.

The bill establishes a clear and accessible process for eligible individuals to reclaim their citizenship through several key provisions. It introduces a new section 7A, creating a special category of citizenship restoration that acknowledges the unique circumstances of these individuals. It sets out a transparent application procedure through the Minister of Internal Affairs, ensuring that the process is straightforward and dignified. It establishes a reasonable application fee of $177, with provisions for partial refunds if applications are withdrawn, making the process accessible while maintaining administrative efficiency.

The amended legislation also maintains important safeguards by applying relevant sections of the Citizenship Act 1977. These include provisions for delegations of powers, requirements for oaths of allegiance, issuance of citizenship certificates, and necessary regulatory frameworks. These safeguards ensure the integrity of our citizenship processes while facilitating restorations of rights.

Through consultation with the Samoan Government during the select committee process, we can be confident that these changes will strengthen, not compromise, our relationship with Samoa. This consultation process has been crucial in ensuring that our actions align with both countries’ interests and expectations, particularly in respect to the Treaty of Friendship.

Throughout this process we have witnessed something remarkable: the power of democratic process when guided by compassion and justice. The journey of this bill from its first reading, where it, rightly, faced some concerns, particularly from the National Party, to today, where it enjoys broad cross-party support, demonstrates the importance of genuine consultation and listening.

The select committee process revealed not just the technical aspects of citizenship law that needed addressing but the human stories behind every clause and amendment. We heard from grandchildren who spoke of their grandparents’ pain, from community leaders who have worked tirelessly to keep this issue alive, and from those of you directly affected who have waited four decades for change. These testimonies help shape our understanding of what this bill means, not just as a piece of legislation but as a pathway to reconciliation. This bill also serves as a reminder of the special place that our Pacific neighbours hold in New Zealand’s heart.

As we move forward with this legislation, we also reaffirm our commitment to being a responsible partner in the Pacific, one that acknowledges past wrongs and works actively to address them. To our Samoan community watching today, this legislation acknowledges your place in the fabric of our nation and reaffirms the special relationship between our two countries. Your stories, your patience, and your dignity throughout this process have helped shape this legislation.

This bill represents a significant step forward in addressing historical injustice while strengthening our Pacific partnership. As we move forward together, may this bill serve as a testament to our commitment to justice and to enduring bonds between New Zealand and Samoa. May it remind future generations that it is never too late to right a wrong and that the strength of our nation lies in our willingness to acknowledge past mistakes and work towards a more just future. Fa‘afetai tele lava. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, so we just have a couple more formalities to take care of. We do look forward to the voices of our wonderful guests in the gallery, but we just have a couple of things to do first.

The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Governance and Administration Committee by majority be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Name changed to Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage next sitting day. Now, we welcome your singing. Thank you.

Waiata—“Le Atua mamana e”, “Ua fa‘afetai”, “O le fana ta’avili”

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you so much. I’m now going to call the members of the House to order because I know that there’s going to be further celebration that is being organised by my Assistant Speaker, Teanau Tuiono.

Bills

Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I move, That the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 24 February 2025.

I am proud to present this bill, the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill, as the member of Parliament for North Shore. We see few private or local bills in this House. This is the first one for this Parliament, and one of only a handful that I have seen in my entire time here in this House. It’s quite rare for a member of Parliament to take a bill through the House that is so specific to their electorate, but I am privileged to perform this service on behalf of the beautiful North Shore electorate. The North Shore has everything—beautiful beaches, thriving communities, and businesses. I couldn’t hope for a better place to raise my boys and represent as a member of Parliament.

We also have a heritage that makes the community unique. Part of that heritage is the Takapuna Boating Club’s Bayswater clubhouse, which I have here a photograph of in its current state at the moment. Stories of people meeting their future spouses at this venue were common, and the collective memories of this site live on in the memories of many. The clubhouse served the club and community, hosting dances and social and sporting events for many years. Sadly, though, the clubhouse has seen better days. The boating club has since moved on to newer accommodation, and the once-proud building is now in a sorry state.

That takes us back to the local bill and how this issue landed on my desk as the member of Parliament for North Shore. In 1923, when the club was first opened, the land was purchased under an Act of Parliament which sets the conditions for its use. The conditions set at the time made sense, and ensured that the clubhouse could function in the public interest. Sadly, though, those restrictions have become increasingly burdensome. For example, one of the stipulated uses for the site is for public swimming baths, something that there are few of in 2024. The saltwater swimming pool, attached to the site, was closed in the 1950s, partially because of the polio epidemic, which best demonstrates how outdated this Act has become. The club cannot lease the site for anything more than a “peppercorn rental”, which is the actual term written into the legislation. That made sense at the time, but, once again, Parliament wanted to make sure that the site was available for the public.

In reality, though, the club serves neither the public nor the club. The site can’t be used for anything other than what the Act says and can’t even make enough rent to cover its maintenance. Very quickly, it became easy to understand why nothing had ever been done, as amending a local bill involves passing another local bill—so began the long process that has led us here today to debate this bill.

The bill in my name amends the conditions set out in the original Act so that the clubhouse can be used for commercial purposes while still requiring that the principal use of the land remains for community purposes. The bill also stipulates that all money received under any leasing arrangement should be used to maintain the buildings and the land on the site for community purposes. This strikes the right balance. It allows for some commercial usage but also uses the proceeds for the good of the community and for maintaining this heritage asset. All involved believe that this property should, as originally intended, be primarily used for community purposes. I’m pleased that this bill includes that.

The efforts to get this bill before the House have been substantial, and I’d like to thank all of those who have made that possible. This issue was first brought to my attention, and the attention of many in my community, by reporting on it, particularly by Caroline Williams from Stuff. Thank you for your work in shining light on this issue. Thank you also to the Takapuna Boating Club’s commodore, James Jordan. The club’s advocacy to bring this asset up to working order and keep it in the use of public good has been remarkable, and I’m looking forward to seeing what the future holds for this clubhouse. I’d also like to give tribute to former club president Barry Ward, and the late Ralph Roberts, whom I know wanted to see this happen. Lastly, I’d like to thank Jack Bolter, my parliamentary adviser, who has done much of the heavy lifting behind the scenes to get this bill to the House today.

While I am shepherding this bill as a local MP, it was drafted and managed by Auckland Council, the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board, and their hard-working teams. I want to thank all those elected members who helped this along its way, and the governing body of Auckland Council, which unanimously supported this bill and sent it here to this House.

Finally, I’d like to thank all of those in our community who contributed to this process and provided feedback. The community has had the opportunity to give feedback on this draft bill as part of getting a local bill in front of this House. When I discussed the issue with those on the North Shore, the feedback is clear: our community is better because of our shared heritage and cultural touchstones. The Bayswater clubhouse is one of those, and I ask for the support of all members here today for the first reading of this bill. If the bill passes today, it will head off to select committee, where there will be further opportunity for public feedback. I have no doubt that the feedback will be loud and clear: let’s get out of the way of rebuilding and managing this treasured asset. I am proud to commend this bill to the House.

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

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a great pleasure to be able to take a call on this local bill today, the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill. The title is almost as long as the content of this bill, which is a very small bill that addresses an important issue for the North Shore community. I want to start by saying we are very enthusiastically supporting this bill and we thank the member for the North Shore—which is, I understand, the capacity that he brings this bill to the House—Simon Watts, for his leadership and advocacy on this issue.

As Mr Watts said, this is an issue which has united the part of Auckland that it relates to. Mr Watts held up a photo of the building in question. If anyone goes to have a look at it, you will be in no doubt of its need for further investment. It was a once-proud building where, I understand, it was the hub of the local community. Mr Watts mentioned some community activities that took place there, like dances. I understand even weddings were held there in its heyday, and, of course, it had the saltwater baths—I know that it’s unlikely that that will return to the Takapuna Boating Club in this particular area; I think it’s on Sir Peter Blake Parade, but I think that would be a nice thing to think about in the future. Maybe another issue for Mr Watts to pursue in the future is the bringing back of those saltwater baths.

This is an issue where there seems to be a lot of agreement. I just want to acknowledge some of the people who have brought that about today. I want to acknowledge the commodore of the Takapuna Boating Club, Commodore James Jordan. I want to acknowledge the local councillors Chris Darby and Richard Hills, who took this particular proposal to the Auckland Council governing body. I want to acknowledge them for supporting this; also, the Takapuna and Devonport local board for also supporting this initiative; and, also, all of the locals who, undoubtedly, drive past the somewhat dilapidated building and see an optimistic future for things to come. I am a big supporter of increasing the ability for communities to feel that they have the facilities to allow them to do what they would like to do, and that includes, as I understand, looking at renting out the rooms for commercial purposes, potentially getting coffees there, which would be, I think, much appreciated, especially with the close proximity to the ferry.

This is a huge opportunity. It’s supported by local councillors, local boards, and local MPs. It will unlock the use, and upgrade, of this local asset, which currently is falling apart. It’s not often that we get to correct something that was done in this House in 1923, but today is one of those days. I’m sure that there will be widespread agreement around the House, so I won’t take too much of our time, but just to say that, undoubtedly, the locals in the North Shore will be greatly appreciative of the House’s support in allowing them to use this local asset—once a proud part of their history—to update it, upgrade it, and make sure it’s fit for 2024 purposes. I commend this bill to the House.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We likewise will be supporting the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill and acknowledge the local member, Simon Watts, who has brought this to the House. We also acknowledge Auckland councillors Chris Darby and Richard Hills, who brought it to the Auckland Council. Particularly, too, we acknowledge all those who have advocated, from the boating club and from the community, to get this building restored.

It’s a major challenge for us that we have many beautiful buildings across the city that fall into decrepitude because there is no practical means for funding their protection and their restoration. I very sadly watched, out in New Lynn, when the Clark red-brick church that was built on Margan Avenue by the owners of the brickworks went into private ownership and that owner didn’t have the funds to look after the church. One of the side walls collapsed. Water ingress meant the church was so badly harmed that it ended up being demolished. It was a beautiful little red-brick church. It could have made a fantastic cafe on the corner of Margan Avenue. I take real heart that someone has come up with the idea for how we work out how to fund the restoration of this beautiful heritage building in Takapuna to ensure that it remains part of our community and it gets looked after.

It was very cool to read some of the history, to see that the building was moved into place by barge in the 1920s and that, up till the 1970s, the club was still using it and that dances regularly occurred there. Perhaps we should have some more dances at this building, too—I hope not just a cafe. Let’s get some dances going on there again! I think this is the sort of solution that we do need. There is also a Yozin orchard packing building out in Swanson, where I live, out in Rānui, a beautiful old building which is not allowed to be demolished but has not currently been restored. Eventually, it will reach some state of damage that it probably will be demolished. And we see this all too often.

I really admire that people have taken the effort to come up with a solution so that funds can be raised to actually restore this building so that it remains a valuable asset for the North Shore community and, indeed, for the heritage of Auckland in general. Thank you. We commend this bill to House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): The ACT Party will be supporting this bill and want to commend the Minister, the Minister’s staff, and Auckland Council for responding to the community, community wishes, and I also want to commend Parliament. I’m sure all parties will be supporting this unanimously. It’s an example of where we recognise a community need and we agree to support the proposal.

I’m also heartened, on behalf of the ACT Party, to support it because it represents unwinding unnecessary law from a century ago which constrains the development that the community is seeking, that constrains the use of an historic building which itself has already been recycled and repurposed, as Steve Abel pointed out. It’s been transported to this spot by barge to be repurposed, and it also supports aspirations for economic development—I’m not talking about the kind of economic development that’s going to see condominiums on the site, but just the ability to sell an ice cream and charge a couple of bucks for it and use the meagre profits from selling an ice cream to fund the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the building.

Having looked at some images of the building, I am concerned that it is significantly degraded. While I understand, from reading some reports, that the structure is in an adequate condition that will allow it to be remediated and repurposed—and I’m sure that there are competent designers and architects and engineers and builders who can achieve that—I am concerned about the potential need for resource consents and working in the coastal area, which can be quite complicated regulatory areas to navigate for anybody. Whether you work in local government or you’ve got a private asset in the coastal area and you’re trying to get resource consents to do things like build a seawall, upgrade a wharf, or any of the things that are, no doubt, going to be really necessary to support the long-term viability of the structure, this clubhouse.

I want to reaffirm that the ACT Party supports this bill. When it’s referred to select committee, we’ll be wanting to make sure that the questions around the viability of the building, around the design, making sure that there’s a value for money pathway for the Takapuna Boating Club to actually remediate this building and that they don’t end up being given permission on one hand by Parliament, but being told “No”, on the other hand, or “Impossible” by the local government through the Resource Management Act. On this basis, I commend the bill to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill. It’s a simple bill, it’s a common-sense bill, and it’s a local bill. I’ve had involvement in one local bill before, which was the bill that’s given us the Wellington Town Belt, which was sponsored by the Hon Grant Robertson. I want to congratulate the Hon Simon Watts for getting this bill to the House—well done on the work that it’s obviously taken to get us to this point.

The Takapuna Boating Club here has a problem which is in common with many community and sports clubs right around the country, and that is the difficulty and the challenge of maintaining club rooms and other assets with often a limited financial base and a limited volunteer base. This particular building is clearly in need of a lot of support. I take the points that have just been made by the previous speaker, Simon Court, that this building is potentially going to be quite challenging. I hope they can get there, but I’ll come back to that in just a moment.

The key point is that being able to bring a commercial activity in to be able to get some revenue to support the maintenance of a building to be able to get greater use into that building and to be able to help with the maintenance of that building is something which is shared right across the country for so many clubs and societies and sports organisations. The problem which is different here is that this boating club is subject to an Act of Parliament—I don’t think that many sports club are in that invidious position—that prevents commercial activity occurring. What this bill is about is to allow commercial activity as a subsidiary—a limited activity—sitting underneath, if you like, a community activity.

I’m still involved in a number of different clubs as either a chair or as a patron of a number of them, and for one of those clubs we brought in a cafe operation. We did that deliberately. It took us a bit of work to get it through the Reserves Act process, because there are limitations there as well. It was subsidiary to the main focus, which was for sporting organisations, but it really helps with finance; with maintenance; making a place a centre for a community, as opposed to a place which is simply open for a couple of days a week; and it’s also actually a deliberate move to make sure that a building is well utilised. I think that that is a very sensible thing to do, so that is a very sensible thing to do in this circumstance as well for the Takapuna Boating Club.

I do note that the boating club will undoubtedly—or the work that it’s got to do, which we’ve just heard about—be subject to planning and other land-use restrictions. All I can say is that I hope that they are not too onerous. If they are too onerous, probably we should be thinking about whether we can make them easier and smoother not only for them but for other organisations. It’s a beautiful spot, it’s very close to the marina, and I’m sure that if they’re able to get the building sorted out, it will go very, very well.

New Zealand First believes in supporting and empowering—which is what this bill is all about—our communities. That is not just true in this circumstance but also in so many other circumstances where people have great ideas to make our community better, to make our economy better, and I would just say to this House that we need to be empowering all of them right across our society, because that is the way that we will make—if I might use the pun in this particular case—the boat go faster. I commend this bill to the House.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. Aroha mai [I’m sorry], I’ve just run all the way from the Banquet Hall, so I just need to catch my breath for a minute—whew!

E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō Te Pāti Māori nei i tēnei rangi. E tautoko ana mātou i tēnei o ngā pire. Ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero ki waenganui i te rōpū kōmiti whakahaere mō tēnei o ngā pire.

[I stand to speak on behalf of Te Pāti Māori today. We support this bill. And to listen to what will be said between the committee for this particular bill.]

Tāmaki-makau-rau, loved by many, reminds us that there is, and always will be, over a hundred reasons to love Tāmaki-makau-rau. I rise to discuss the community aspects of this bill. My connection to this bill is that I actually lived in Beach Haven, North Shore, for 12 years of my life. At that time, Dan Bidois was my MP when I was 12 years old. I was going to put a petition to him to actually change the T2 lanes to T3—but that’s a whole other kaupapa, so back to this bill.

Te Pāti Māori wishes to hear from mana whenua on this matter raised in the bill, both individually and collectively, where mana whenua deem it appropriate to do so. In supporting the bill to first reading, we wish to hear more about how Auckland City has gone about identifying alternative options, consultation with local boards, and engagement with the public and iwi Māori. While the general policy statement for the bill explains that “Restrictions in the principal Act prevent the club from securing the commercial income necessary to fund restoration of the [boating] club building and provide an income necessary for the club to maintain the [boating] club building into the future.”, Te Pāti Māori notes that the principal use of the land is intended to remain for the community. We, through Parliament, wish to hear from the community directly. Te Pāti Māori will always query the way land was acquired—and, by mana whenua views on the land, occupation. More broadly, we look forward to learning more insights about that.

He whenua Makaurau, Auckland, has many partners. Auckland is a diverse city which many have come to call home. In this way, it is always important to work alongside our key partners, ensuring that those matters are raised in general policy statements. That is why we commend this bill to the House. Tēnā rā koutou.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I join with others in supporting the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill. As has been canvassed, it is a local bill, and its sponsor is the local MP for North Shore, the Hon Simon Watts. His community will be very happy with the work he’s doing here.

Can I also acknowledge another presence on the North Shore, with my colleague Dan Bidois, the MP for Northcote. I’d like to think that I have a part of the North Shore too—certainly part of the former North Shore City, with Greenhithe, Bayview, Unsworth Heights, Totara Vale, Wairau Valley—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: I thought you wanted to be a Westie! Are you abandoning West Auckland?

CAMERON BREWER: You should come, Deborah. You’re most welcome to come to my electorate office at any time, and we can do a tiki tour of the electorate boundaries.

This, as I have said, is a local bill and its sponsor, by enabling this, will enable this Bayswater boathouse and the Takapuna Boating Club to get on and start paving the way for the restoration of that magnificent building, dated in the 1920s. As has been alluded to, it was an old tannery building in Panmure lagoon, and it was dismantled, barged, and then reconstructed by the Takapuna Boating Club in the early 1920s—working bees, everything else. I don’t know whether there were building consents. There certainly wasn’t a Resource Management Act back then. But, once again, like most of this country, it was built by volunteers.

I think it’s appropriate that we’re doing it this week, a few days after the America’s Cup, which New Zealand won back to back to back—there’s three “backs”, isn’t there? Back to back to back. Of course, the person who brought us the America’s Cup was the late, great Sir Peter Blake, and this, of course, sits on the Sir Peter Blake Parade, because that’s where the Blake family was from. We pay tribute to them, and we know that Sir Peter is looking down at us, not only willing on Auckland and the Government to get behind and bring the America’s Cup back to Tāmaki-makau-rau but to get in and support his old boating club and restore his neighbourhood boathouse. I wanted to acknowledge his role in the history of New Zealand and in bringing the America’s Cup to us, which we have retained three consecutive times.

This big building, for those who don’t know Auckland that well, is when you head northbound on the motorway over the Harbour Bridge and you are entering the fabulous electorate of Northcote—the fabulous electorate of Northcote—and there are signs of Dan Bidois everywhere! You look right and you see that big timber building, two storeys high, possibly three if you count the attic. It’s that big white building on the right over the Bayswater Marina, and that is ripe for redevelopment; for restoration. This bill, as others have said, enables an old piece of statute to be amended to allow part of it to be used for commercial purposes, but most of it to be retained for community use.

This project, this piece of legislation, led by the Hon Simon Watts, is 100 years in the making. Aucklanders can be very proud that it’s on its way and that that Bayswater boathouse is coming back to its former glory. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I’m just going to draw the House’s attention to this again to make sure that people really understand that Cameron Brewer really wants to be a North Shore MP rather than a West Auckland MP. I just emphasise that point. I rise, along with my Labour colleagues, in support of this bill, that will enable the Takapuna Boating Club to use its building much more effectively. It’s a pretty sensible sort of bill.

Before I just talk about why I think we should support it, I just want to take an issue with something that an ACT MP talked about, which was about whether it was going to be financially viable in order for the Takapuna Boating Club to have some commercial operation there. I’m just going to suggest to the ACT MP that that is a matter for the Takapuna Boating Club to make their own decisions and I’m sure they’re quite capable of doing that. However, they certainly need this enabling legislation to go ahead, and from then it’s up to them what they do with the building.

It is actually a beautiful building. Now, I know the Minister brought a photograph down to the House. I’ve brought this one as well. Mr Brewer, just so you know, there are actually three storeys—as one can tell from the photograph—and it’s quite a magnificent building. Looking at it carefully, one of the things that you can see from this picture is that the top storey has, and, actually, the next, a deck around it and quite a beautiful verandah. I think this building is going to lend itself to some commercial venture like a cafe. There’s something quite magical about sitting on a verandah over the water, having a coffee, passing the time of the day. I think it’s an entirely viable proposition.

If I could think of something to compare it to, if we think about here in Wellington, the Maranui Cafe at the Maranui Surf Life Saving Club in Lyall Bay—it’s actually a really cool cafe, and, again, partly it’s because it’s right by the water. When the Takapuna Boating Club says they have this heritage building, and it’s quite a magnificent building, and they would like to find a way for it to be viable for them to use it, for it to be restored—now, I note that they said the work has already been done on the foundations and the roof, but they would like to restore this building. The one thing that is standing in their way is a bit of legislation. Now, it’s good legislation, but sometimes legislation does lead to perverse outcomes—and, in this case, it’s led to the outcome that the Takapuna Boating Club cannot use this building to its full potential.

One of the reasons for supporting this legislation is to enable the Takapuna Boating Club to get on and use this facility to support their club through doing it, but, actually, also to restore a pretty valuable building. I hope, in time, that that will provide a really good facility for the local community. I’m looking forward to the day, but, hopefully, we can head over that way, spend a day at the beach, get a coffee, have a nice meal, all those sorts of things that actually is one of the things that make living in New Zealand special—the access to the water, the access to the relaxation, just the general enjoyment of our wonderful coastline and outdoor environment here. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and join the chorus of support today on this local bill. I’d like to start by acknowledging my colleague the Minister Simon Watts and supporting his comments that the North Shore really is a truly great place to live, work, and raise a family. I’m truly blessed to have my family in the wonderful electorate of Northcote.

This bill has had a lot of people that have brought it to the House today. I’d like to just quickly acknowledge Commodore James Jordan, who was a former general manager of Northbridge Lifecare Trust, which is in the Northcote electorate; council staff and officials on the local board; Carolyn Williams from Stuff—you do some great work, Carolyn, and thank you for shining a light on this matter—and past members of the club. It’s been raised, actually, that one of those past members is, in fact, the late Sir Peter Blake. Thank you to all of you for your mahi in this work.

The club has a proud history of community involvement and sporting. It’s been raised in the House that it is an old building, that it was shipped over on barges from Panmure. In fact, 40,000 feet of timber was shipped across the Harbour Bridge to construct this building. It’s now in a state of disrepair, as has been signalled. This bill really gives effect to commercial operations being allowed to help restore this once-great building. It has been heard that that building has some proud stories of bringing people together, and there were stories told of many couples who had met in that building through Saturday night dances. We hope that that building can once again bring people together.

It’s a great privilege to support this bill in the House today. I just acknowledge that it will take some funds to restore this building, and the Takapuna Boating Club don’t have those funds available. They’ve then turned themselves back to the council, and the council doesn’t have those funds available. The purpose of this bill, which we support, is to allow commercial activities to be used to help actually raise those funds up so that this building can be restored and repaired.

It is on that basis that this side of the House certainly supports a vibrant private sector, because, actually, it’s not all over to Government and not all over to charities, such as the Takapuna Boating Club. It’s really great to support this on behalf of the Northcote electorate, on behalf of this side of the House. I’d just like to finish with a quote from former Takapuna Boating Club member Sir Peter Blake: “The hardest part of any big project is to begin. We have begun—we are under way”. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Mr Speaker, I asked for this slot because I wanted to talk about Mt Albert and the kinds of things I’ve seen that support this, but before I do that, I’d like to first of all congratulate Minister Simon Watts for bringing this bill—the local member—and congratulate the local councillors who were involved.

I also want to make my own claim to the Shore because my great—[Interruption] Shush for a minute, people. My great-grandfather was, in fact, the Mayor of Takapuna from 1930 to 1951, and as I drive down to Bayswater, there’s a street named after him. It was actually quite a dysfunctional family—I didn’t know this man. He did not have a good relationship with my grandfather—in particular, he didn’t even know that he was his son in the early years—and my grandfather took his name when he was 20. My mother bears that name—she has the name of that mayor—and so I know that my great-grandfather will have a connection with that building, and I’m proud that he does.

Now, I want to talk about the bill, and I want to talk about the value of the bill. What I’ve seen in my own area is that some of these clubs are doing such good things for our community, and they’re gummed up by the fact that they can’t do things like what is happening in this bill. It’s fantastic when we can double-duty these things—we can be a bit flexible when we can see that a club brings so much to a community—and we need to make sure that that continues to happen.

I like the way that the bill is structured so that it has this emphasis on the profits coming back to the community. In my own area, one of the big lessons I’ve learnt is from our league club, which is an incredible asset in our community. It brings so much value. It brings kids in who would otherwise perhaps be disengaged from their education, etc. They learn so much in that club and it is so inclusive, but those clubs are also looking to spread their wings all around the place, trying to provide a lot more links for their communities in general. There are clubs that do vaccinations and there are clubs that will have internet connectivity. There’s one rugby league club in the city that has a laundry so that its people can come and use the laundry, because that’s what they need in their community. I love the idea of having more flexibility here.

This is not just an asset for Takapuna; people from Mt Albert will shoot across there, too. This is an absolutely beautiful part of Auckland that we all get to share, because it is an incredible city with these beaches. Having this club be able to do this and restore the building and preserve the asset in this way is not good just for the people in the local area; it’s really, really good for Auckland.

I’m absolutely thrilled to see a bill like this coming before the House, and I’d love to see more examples of that kind of flexibility of mind. Sometimes it won’t take a local bill, but it will take a little bit of flexibility in the way that our local board or our council think about the use of space, and their not being too afraid of things like clubs like the one I’m talking about—the rugby league club—setting up a cafe on the premises, because the use of our parks and our waterways is going to become so much more important as our city intensifies. These are our commons. These are really important, and actually having a cafe in the middle of a rugby league field, or having a cafe on the waterfront—those things will connect people in ways they vitally need at a time when we are really challenged by the isolation that can happen when perhaps more of us are working from home, more of us have the congestion issues that we have, and more of us are living in environments which challenge that very strong sense of community.

Thank you for bringing in the bill, Minister. It’s lovely to be here in support of it, and it’s good that the House is able to get out and support a bill like this. I hope that the same flexibility of mind is happening across our country in other electorates to make sure that we are really supporting our clubs in the purpose which they have, which is to bring joy and a sense of community to us. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In reply, the Hon Simon Watts.

Hon SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I’ll keep my right of reply brief, as the people of the North Shore shouldn’t have to wait a moment longer. I am humbled by the support across the House for this local bill, and I do acknowledge all of those members across all parties who have indicated their support for that. I am thankful for that support.

My community of the North Shore values the ability to come together and unanimously support a small but impactful action that will make a real difference. I know that the Governance and Administration Committee will look forward to opening submissions shortly on this bill. It’s a capable committee, with good members who will give the bill a thorough shakedown. The boating club and other groups may wish to submit, and I want to encourage all of those watching who want to submit on the bill to keep an ear out for when the committee calls for submissions. While I don’t sit on the committee, I know that they will handle it carefully and report it back when the time comes.

One contribution by the member from Northcote referenced Sir Peter Blake. It would be remiss of me not to note that this building sits on Sir Peter Blake Parade, and simply acknowledges the deep history of sailing and living and enjoying the beautiful waters that surround the North Shore. This clubhouse is part of that legacy and will be sustained into the future.

When the time comes, I hope all members will continue to support this bill, and, in time, join me, potentially, for a dance at this clubhouse in the future. Once again, thank you to all members for their support. I look forward to the remaining stages of this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Instruction to Governance and Administration Committee

Hon SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I move, That the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 24 February 2025.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

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

Third Reading

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

Mr Speaker, colleagues, and, hopefully, those watching at home now or in the future, today I believe is a transformative day for New Zealand. We will no longer be making decisions for health without a strategy for the mental health and wellbeing of our people. The Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill, which we’re about to pass unanimously, reflects our commitment to building a healthier and more resilient future for all New Zealanders. This bill represents an essential amendment to the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022 and, at its core, it ensures that mental health and wellbeing is at the heart of our health system, with long-term planning to address some of the most critical challenges our communities face today.

The purpose of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022 was “to provide for the public funding and provision of services in order to—(a) protect, promote, and improve the health of all New Zealanders; and (b) achieve equity in health outcomes among New Zealand’s population groups, including by striving to eliminate health disparities, in particular for Māori; and (c) build towards pae ora (healthy futures) for all New Zealanders.” Now, I don’t believe that you can achieve that without a core focus on mental health and wellbeing, which brings me to the purpose of this bill. As we know, mental health issues and addiction affects every corner of our society: from young people struggling with depression and anxiety to our families facing the harsh realities of addiction. The need for a robust and comprehensive mental health framework has never been more urgent.

The bill seeks to address those needs by improving the way we plan, deliver, and support mental health and addiction services across the country. The elephant in the room is that this should have been included in the original Act in 2022. That is the reason that this amendment is in a member’s bill. I want to thank again Minister for Mental Health Matt Doocey for fighting for this amendment in the original bill and for not giving up once it wasn’t included, and for writing the amendment into a member’s bill. I’ve been privileged to shepherd this through the House and feel that the support from all sides of the House and the Health Committee have been a true indication of what this means to us all.

The bill’s primary purpose is to ensure that mental health and wellbeing receive the dedicated focus they deserve within the broader healthcare landscape. It mandates the creation of a mental health and wellbeing strategy, which will guide our health sector’s approach to these issues, promoting holistic wellbeing, and ensuring that those who need help can access it when they need it the most. The strategy will prioritise mental health and addiction services, focusing not only on immediate care but also on prevention, harm reduction, and long-term recovery. It’ll also incorporate a strong emphasis on workforce development, ensuring that we have the skilled professionals necessary to meet the growing demand for our mental health services.

Just to touch briefly on what the bill changes, we’ve talked a bit about the select committee process and what they’ve introduced—several, maybe three, important amendments. One of those we talked about: the removal of the clause that designated the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission as a health entity. We’ve talked about that a number of times. Obviously, it was an original drafting oversight, but I’m pleased for that to be corrected. Maintaining the commission’s independence is a very important part of this bill. Another significant amendment was the expansion of the scope of the mental health strategy to include wellbeing—obviously, not just mental health and addiction. It reflects our evolving understanding of what mental health is and how deeply intertwined it is with overall wellbeing. A holistic approach, one that recognises social, emotional, and physical aspects of health, is essential to truly making a difference.

Furthermore, what I think is an important amendment is adjusting the bill to allow necessary time for the development and implementation of the strategy. Strategy provisions will now come into force 12 months after the bill receives Royal assent, giving the Ministry of Health the time it needs to engage with communities, experts, and stakeholders to create a strategy that truly reflects the needs and aspirations of our people. On that note, my vision and my hope is that this bill is more than just a legal amendment. I see it as a commitment to our future. It’s a recognition that mental health is a vital part of our overall health and wellbeing as a nation. We need systemic change, long-term planning, and continuous improvement in how we face mental health challenges.

I just want to acknowledge the 56 submissions that were received from individuals, organisations, and families directly affected by mental health issues. Among those voices was Save the Children, who highlighted the importance for centring children and young people in our mental health strategy. Their voices need to be heard if we’re really going to make a difference for the future of mental health in this country. The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission also strongly supports this bill, and they advocated, actually, for this as long ago as the 2022 Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. I really look forward to this enabling them to work with our Government to really make a difference, and I want to thank everybody involved and want to see the difference that it can make and should have made back in 2022.

To address what this bill means for New Zealand, for those struggling with mental health issues, this bill is hope for change. It tells our people that their struggles are seen, that their needs are heard, and that their wellbeing matters. It’s a step towards reducing the fragmentation and barriers that have long obstructed our mental health services. For our youth, it promises a future where mental health support is more accessible and where suicide and mental health crises are addressed with the urgency and care that they deserve. For those in recovery from addiction, it signals a commitment to support them not just as patients but as individuals with their full lives ahead of them, deserving of comprehensive care and opportunities to thrive.

I just want to acknowledge how much I’ve really appreciated the chance to speak on this bill, in the first reading, in front of the select committee, in the second reading, and in the committee of the whole House. I’ve spoken about some pretty emotional stuff, but I feel it’s my job in this process to humanise a health strategy. This is not just about a piece of paper, or hundreds of pieces of paper. It’s about more than just one sector of society or one region of New Zealand. This is about an entirely preventable health crisis, a genuine plan for workforce development, for innovation, for investment, and for addressing the stigma of an invisible condition. It won’t just change lives; it will save lives.

I’ve talked about wanting depression and anxiety disorders to be treated like type 2 diabetes. There are so many more comparisons that I could make, but, in short, we’re going to create a framework that is going to deliver long-term, measurable improvements to mental health outcomes. This is not just about policy; it’s about people. It’s about that happy, bubbly person that you just couldn’t believe had depression. It’s about that amazing classmate that just couldn’t cope with the pressure. It’s about your friend’s dad who thought he was a burden. It’s about the brother that couldn’t get out of the cycle of fun becoming a problem. Let this bill be a reminder that mental health matters. It matters to every individual, every family, every community. It matters to me, and it matters to our Government. Thank you.

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

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Speaking as the Opposition spokesperson on mental health, I would like to congratulate the member Katie Nimon on the successful shepherding of this bill through the House. We do support the bill, although I do just want to make a few comments about also wanting to support the member’s statement that she hopes this is not just a legal amendment. I guess time will tell because of some of the procedural things around how this bill interfaces with the Government policy statement (GPS) and the order of business.

I’ll preface my remarks by saying that the reason that Labour did not have a mental health strategy under our Government, even though we were building a mental health sector from scratch and had invested $1.9 billion—a record investment—into that, was that the strategies under the pae ora legislation related to population groups. Mental health, for us, is so fundamental, is so cross-cutting, that we want to see mental health responses embedded across the sector, and we were not sure that having a discrete strategy was actually the best way to achieve that. However, we do appreciate the strategy has been able to bring out the voices of those in the sector to think about what a good strategic approach would look like—and, as with the Government members, we really appreciate their submissions at select committee.

The other usefulness, I think, for us as members of the Health Committee was to get a reassurance from the member and then indications, I guess, from the Minister that there is absolutely no intention to remove the independence of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. That came about a little bit accidentally because it was included in the legislation as initially drafted, and the member very kindly pointed out it was a drafting mistake and that there was no intention to do that, and she was happy to amend the bill accordingly.

The final point, really, is just on the utility of the strategy. I do think it’s great to have a strategic approach, and I really support having strategies. The problem that we have is that the Government policy statement on health has already been given. This happens once per parliamentary term—a headline statement that really sets the direction of Government policy on different sectors—so the requirement under the bill to consult and be consulted, and for the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission to have an input into that, is a little bit academic at this point, unless the Minister is actually going to commit to revisiting or reworking the Government policy statement.

I do have questions in to the Minister about that because there was no strategy, in fact, and this had not been mentioned in the Government policy statement. I guess, just with the order of business being a little bit upside down, even the clerks who were looking at the questions were grappling with this idea that there could be a strategy informing a Government policy statement after the Government policy statement had been given. That is the $64 million question, really: are we going to see the GPS change and inform the strategy, or is this something that is really going to be held over as business for the next parliamentary term?

That aside, the other practicalities are: how will the strategy work in an environment where we have seen cuts to the front line in mental health? We have seen a mental health hiring freeze despite the protestations from the Government. I have personally seen emails and evidence of those front-line cuts in my own electorate, in Taieri, which are really concerning. We also have community groups, mental health groups, who have had funding cuts from contracts from Oranga Tamariki that land fairly and squarely in the mental health sector, providing services to the families of vulnerable children and whānau with complex needs. There are practical implications too, which, essentially, involve the basics, like adequate money and no hiring freezes, in order to make a strategy work. Those are things, of course, for the executive, not for the member.

On that note, really, I just want to again congratulate her for what I do hope will be a useful tool rather than just another legal amendment. As I say, time will tell.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, and tēnā tātou. On behalf of te Rōpū Kākāriki, I stand to support this bill and thank Auntie Katie Nimon for your work. I was having a little tangi, as you were having a bit of emotion, because we know mental health affects all members of New Zealand. It’s important for us, as members of this House, as we look to support this legislation, to remember the feeling of cross-party support that we have in this Whare for this, but also the need for us to move forward together for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

Now, this legislation is really clear. It’s about strategy and planning, and it’s important that we do have that strategy as a clear beacon for where we’re heading as a country to support the mental health, addictions, and wellbeing of all New Zealanders. The way that we have considered, and as a member of the Health Committee considered, the submissions heard from diverse voices, but also felt the passion of the sector—I think that it’s a credit to the way that those who came before the Health Committee and those who have advocated for the adoption of this, having received phone calls myself, it’s good that we’re at this point in time in the journey of the legislation.

In terms of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, preparing these strategic documents, yes, that’s important—and I thank my colleague from the Labour Party for pointing out that while we prepare the strategy, we also need to think about implementation, and we need to be able to fuel the waka significantly so that it can do the important work that it needs to do. And that includes the mahi tahi with the sector—the various voices, the health professionals, the users, the patients, the whaiora, the whaikaha who engage in the services as well as te iwi Māori.

With the cross-party support that we have, I’d also like to acknowledge the mental health and addictions cross-party group that we have as a bipartisan rōpū that looks to advance mental health and wellbeing solutions across this Whare, and my co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick, who’s the chair of this group, because we’re all in this together. As te Rōpū Kākāriki, we understand and we feel the need for us to get behind this amendment—well, this legislation—but to also fuel the waka in order for it to do good in our communities. May I quote Ingrid Leary—while she may not be here, I want to talk about workforce—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can’t talk about a member that’s not in the House.

HŪHANA LYNDON: I can’t talk about—oh, can I quote her?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: But you can thank her.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Can I quote her, because she—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, you can quote her.

HŪHANA LYNDON: I can quote her. OK, cool—I found a quote. Talking about one of the essential parts of the strategy being having a powered-up workforce, Ingrid, in her addressing of this bill in the last reading shared, “We’re going to support this legislation, but with a challenge. Really, the Government members, because everything I heard opposite makes sense and that sounds great. To have a strategy is good news, but without the workforce plan, without the funding, and without transparent procurement, without localised solutions to mental health, the strategy is at risk at sitting on the shelf and gathering dust. And we all don’t want that.”

Now, in our country, we need to recognise that we’ve got a mental health crisis and particularly with our youth. Now, mental health is impacted by many things—the wider determinants when we think about violence, family violence, poverty, educational achievement, access to housing, and also social inclusion. Let us not forget that we require a whole-systems approach in delivering a powered-up, community-centred, whānau-supported system that can support the mental health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders, that we need to consider in the strategy, but also within implementation, the regional diversity, whether we are rural like myself from the North, even if we’re from the deep South, like Taieri, and all of our urban centres—the strategy to reflect those diverse voices but also for the implementation to be considered in terms of the diverse voices of community.

Interventions always provide alternative pathways as well and we need to balance both responsibility and accountability with care and protection—very mindful of those elements of both providing significant support to those in need but also centring our approaches on care and protection for those most vulnerable.

Now, may I talk to our youth, and address the concern for our youth mental health and wellbeing. Now, youth have particular risks in terms of mental health and wellbeing, including sexual, physical, emotional, and even transients—many of our young people don’t have secure housing—intergenerational disconnection from whānau and community. Also, there are those who struggle in education settings, victimisation, bullying from peers, and all sorts of other challenges in life. To prevent mental health distress, we need to cast the wider net across the health system. When I think about a health and social services system, that requires all of us in it together, that this is at the top of our radar as we deliver to our families and communities.

We need to be looking out for our young people. We need to have a listening ear and take care of those who may not be comfortable yet to disclose the taimahatanga—those things that are heavy burdens on their shoulders at this time—but be ready as a health, social services system; as education; and as community to be there to support them when they are ready for the help that they do need and deserve.

This strategy requires buy-in from across Governments, and, as members of this House, may I implore us to consider this being a long-term strategy, that it cannot be just for one term. We need to commit bipartisan to keep the waka moving forward.

Government agencies all need to take responsibility for their role in providing for the strategy to get the traction that it needs. Again, like I spoke to health, social services, education, community, Government departments, if you can see mental distress occurring, put your radar on, look to be that navigator, and support all those who might need the awhi at that time and place. We don’t have to be the skilled practitioners, but we do need to have listening ears and look for the support that that whānau or individual might require.

Now, considering the aims of this bill and also the opportunities that it presents, may I bring the voice of Save the Children, who gave a submission? They are a voice for our young people and our tamariki. They say that our young people also need to be consulted. For us, as te iwi Māori, it’s our tai tamariki, it’s the rangatahi, who are the engine room of te iwi Māori. We’re nearly 1 million large. Save the Children said that they provided a survey of 250 young people and they were between 11 to 19 years of age in 2023, and the message was clear that they want to be considered in decision making and policy development. While we might not think that our young people may have the ability or the discernment to be able to input, they’ve got opinions and they’re watching, and their opinions should count and should matter because, ultimately, they will be service users, but, also, they will be the parents of tomorrow. By empowering the youth voice, as Save the Children has asked, has sought of us, we can provide the safe space for tai tamariki, for our young people, to input into strategy but also into implementation. I challenge that for our people of Tai Tokerau, to centre our interventions, our programmes on what youth think are valuable and important.

Now, in thinking about the reports around accessibility, it’s also around the workforce, it’s also around rurality, and also urban settings. I seek for the strategy to be more than a document on a shelf, that we get a work plan and policies across Government that can be implementing strategies and interventions across the board, that all of our kaimahi know that this is important for this House, that mental health and wellbeing is a priority, and that, by and large, if we are well mentally, physically, spiritually, and environmentally, New Zealand will be well. Nō reira, kia ora tātou.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the third reading of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill. Congratulations to my colleague Katie Nimon for having such an important bill shepherded through with support across the House. I think she’s done a great job there, advocating for a strategy in mental health, and that is what I’d like to talk about.

Enabling a long-term planning structure for the mental health and wellbeing of New Zealand is something that is coming to light more and more as the years go by, as more and more people are feeling more comfortable to open up about their mental health and wellbeing and also addiction issues that New Zealanders suffer with.

The more we can talk about that, the more we normalise it, the more this House takes it into account and directs our health system in ways that are a more brought-together, lined-up approach so that we can actually get a whole-of-Government approach to some of these things rather than just the scattergun approach that we’ve had.

In preparing for this speech, I read through the report of the Government’s 2019 mental health inquiry, He Ara Oranga. There were some reports given back then that there was inadequate access to many, without a choice of provider. There was a high burden placed on primary healthcare and there’s a lot of confusion for patients and people seeking to navigate the bureaucracy and funding mechanism. It found that we need to put the person who’s suffering at the centre of this system, rather than having them become a navigator of a confusing web of providers and agencies.

I think a mental health and wellbeing strategy begins work on another recommendation from that report, which is to bring an overarching solution to the problem and bring a whole-of-Government approach to mental wellbeing in general, and I think that is what is being achieved here by this member’s bill. I’m glad to see some of the amendments that were taken up by the member and by this House: delaying the commencement to allow proper time to prepare, the much talked-about health entity classification—but I won’t touch on that again—and references to “addiction” being changed to “wellbeing”, because, so often, addictions are the manifestation of an underlying wellbeing issue, as we heard during the submission process and as many New Zealanders can attest to in their own lives and that of their family and whānau.

The alignment of mental health with other six health strategies is, I think, putting mental health on a par, where it should be, with some other strategies. I commend this bill to the House.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very proud to be able to stand on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill. I’d like to begin my contribution in the third reading by congratulating Katie Nimon for bringing through this bill, shepherding it, and providing what you mentioned in your speech—hope for change—because this is what, fundamentally, this bill will do.

Mental health is at the core of every person, and looking around this Chamber today, who could disagree with that? There are ever-increasing ways that our mental health is impacted, and I’d just like to point out, particularly, our young people, and the member opposite—Hūhana Lyndon—talked about our young people. The way their mental health is impacted is something that we should all take very seriously. I’d like to point to a couple of things. Social media has a devastating impact on some of our young people. It should be a tool to bring people together, it should be a tool to bring communities together, but there are so many negative impacts on mental health because of the use of social media: increasing rates of depression, anxiety, and the bullying that goes on. These are some of the things our young people tell us and that is really affecting their mental health.

Also, there’s that constant exposure to these curated lifestyles where we look at someone on Facebook, maybe, and we wish we had their life because it seems so ideal and perfect, and the anxiety that creates, that dissatisfaction in oneself sort of increases that low self-esteem. Those are issues that our young people tell us about. Social media should be that tool that brings together, but what we need to do is we need to build resilient minds in our young people. We need to help set boundaries, help them set their own boundaries, and sometimes just turn off the socials.

In terms of mental health, many diagnoses come down to the question of whether the patient is distressed and unable to function normally. Most of us will probably fit that description, that definition, at some point in time, hopefully not all of us all at the same time, but when we’re in our right minds, which I believe we are in the House today, we can re-examine our thinking about how best to care for and restore people to functional mental health. So, in conclusion, creating a mental health and wellbeing strategy is a very good start. I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

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 ki te waha i ngā kōrero a Te Pāti Māori mō tēnei o ngā pire i tōna pānuitanga tuatoru. E tautokotia ana e mātou tēnei o ngā pire.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker, indeed greetings to all of us in the House. I stand to give voice to the comments of the Māori Party concerning this particular bill at its third reading. This bill is supported by us.]

Te Pāti Māori is in support of the third reading of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill. I’d like to mihi to the MP Katie, nāu i kawe mai tēnei o ngā pire, e mihi ana ki a koe [it was you who brought this particular bill, greetings to you].

I’d also like to mihi to Minister Doocey, who last night brought in the other mental health legislation, which included the recognition of Te Tiriti. I’d like to elaborate; this is what working for Māori and Pasifika looks like. Mental health is a crisis, and referencing Te Tiriti is the rongoā for everyone in this situation. Thank you for bringing life to the recommendations of the panel, which included Tā Meihana Durie. Pae ora, mental health, is one of the first times that the Government included Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and as Whaea Debbie said last night, the roof hasn’t caved in on us.

It is a sad reality that our whānau experience significantly higher rates of mental illnesses, higher rates of suicide, and greater addictions, while mental health distress among Māori is almost 50 percent higher than among non-Māori. Māori are 30 percent more likely than non-Māori to have their mental illnesses undiagnosed. Māori are less likely to access mental health and addiction services than non-Māori. Our rangatahi and tāne suicide rates are through the roof and we must start to think about implementing solutions that work for our people.

I’d like to reference some of the work that I did prior to coming into Parliament, which was to educate our whānau and kura around the maramataka Māori [traditional Māori calendar] and how Whiro, tērā o ngā maramataka [that particular moon phase], every day on Whiro in August we have the highest suicide rates. We have our own data on how that looks like, and my job was to go around to many different kura throughout the motu and educate teachers through professional learning and development workshops, through Te Ahu o te Reo Māori or Tupu Ora, around maramataka Māori being a form of rongoā for mental health crises. These are the types of rongoā and avenues and mechanisms that we’ve put in place, as te ao Māori, that coincide with Te Whare Tapa Whā, which has been illustrated by Tā Meihana Durie. Our hinengaro is important to our overall wellbeing, and when our taha is unstable, we are imbalanced.

What we have seen in our communities and across Aotearoa is that our whānau continue to struggle, and social factors are huge contributors to our hauora. To list a few: poverty, whānau struggling to pay their bills, lack of affordable housing, unemployment, abuse, trauma, and the list goes on. Our whānau are struggling. This includes our Pasifika, our disability communities, takatāpui communities, and now our rural communities who are losing jobs. We must eliminate all barriers to accessing mental health services.

Our kaupapa Māori mental health service takes a unique and targeted approach in addressing the inequities and issues we believe work by Māori, for Māori. We have seen our Whānau Ora Māori health providers, iwi, hapū, and marae start to take their own initiatives in creating a safe environment for our whānau and communities to tackle and respond to the Māori mental health inequities that we are currently tackling. We can see this being achieved using mātauranga Māori, as I’ve talked about previously in this debate and kōrero—using mātauranga Māori and practising tikanga as key solutions.

We must deliver and continue to adopt the recommendations from He Tapu te Oranga o ia Tangata - Suicide Prevention Strategy, He Ara Oranga. He Arotake: Te Aka Whai Ora suicide prevention and postvention review also identified six recommendations towards addressing mental health. These recommendations must be considered and adopted towards the mental health strategy. What works for Māori will work for all. To conclude, Te Pāti Māori supports this bill. E mihi ana.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m also very happy to rise to support this bill on behalf of Te Pāti Kākāriki. I think many of the key points have been made, but the logic of a joined-up strategy is obvious. In that regard, I think it’s important for us to consider the whole-of-society factors that contribute to mental health issues. If we are to address these problems long term, we have to address underlying causes and understand what is going on for people when they are struggling with mental health issues. The determinants of poor mental health and addiction outcomes are well understood by research. The drivers of mental health and addiction outcomes come from an array of determinants, including violence, poverty, and educational attainment, or lack thereof, and access to housing and social inclusion are important ways to address the challenges we face.

Having a single whole-system approach to delivering community empowered interventions that tackle drivers of crime, exploitation of the vulnerable and geographic places, and disconnection from culture improves living, working, and recreational environments in the community for residents. Interventions that place alternative pathways balancing responsibility and accountability with care and protection, and which promote access to appropriate support systems—in New Zealand, the youth risk factors include physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; constant transience. Intergenerational disconnection from whānau, whenua, and culture are among issues for tangata whenua Māori; typically low achievement and educational victimisation from peers; challenging behaviour; truancy; and drop out or exclusion.

To prevent harm and mental distress, we need to cast the net wider than just the health system and recognise the role that our whole society at large plays in how we feel. This means working to address wealth inequality, ensuring people have secure housing and inclusive education, and building strong communities that improve and provide support and connection for all people.

A long-term strategy should consider the role every segment of society plays. It will also help to repair some of the fragmented approach to mental health services, where people fall through the cracks, especially in our regions. This strategy needs buy-in across Government and across the people in this House, which it has for a start, but we need to really have the ability to think big if we are to address the underlying causes.

It’s very important, and the bill states this, that it has the aim to eliminate the use of seclusion in mental health care facilities. I can think of nothing more terrible to do to somebody who is struggling with mental health than to isolate them. There are some practical challenges in mental health facilities. The reason why people are isolated is to protect the welfare of healthcare workers, but the use of exclusion needs to be addressed and we need to find ways that we can eliminate the use of exclusion for those with serious levels of mental distress, because it cannot possibly make the situation better.

Developing an effective strategy needs unity and consultation with the sector and the community at large. Many approaches and designs for supporting this sector suffer from a lack of implementation and evaluation, insufficient diversity considerations, and minimal inclusion of lived experience in design and implementation. My colleague Hūhana Lyndon pointed to the need to involve youth in the design of how we deal with mental health. Findings suggest that future policy reforms should prioritise the development of whole-of-Government strategies; involve children’s perspectives; emphasise prevention, restorative and diversionary responses; multi-agency collaboration; ongoing support for implementation; and rigorous evaluation.

I just want to say that it has been a quite inspiring day today because we’ve managed to have three bills in a row that we’ve all agreed on. It’s a good thing that we can do that, and it’s a good thing that we can have honest conversations and find the common ground that we share across the multiple parties in this House, for making Aotearoa a place that is a better place to be, no matter what your mental health status is. Kia ora.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in favour of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill. I congratulate my colleague Katie Nimon—it looks like this is going to pass through unanimously—and I want to thank all of the people who have contributed today for their contributions.

It’s been touched on a number of times how important mental health is. Often we see it playing the poorer cousin to physical health, and it shouldn’t do so, because it is just as important, because if you don’t have peace of mind or a healthy mind, then the rest of it will deteriorate after that. Ms Nimon spoke about the people you’ll see out there who looked to be having these good lives or they’re happy, but there are so many other things that you might not know about them in the background, and internally they could be falling apart.

Awareness of mental health has certainly increased a lot over the past couple of decades, but we still have a long way to go, in that regard. This bill is another step in the right direction. The intention there is to enable the long-term planning and delivery to ensure better health and wellbeing across New Zealand, and to ensure people can get access where they need it and they can get it in a timely manner and an efficient manner and making sure that the person is at the centre of all of that treatment. We probably haven’t got that where we need it to be just yet, but this bill, and the bill that was introduced last night by Minister Doocey, is a step to improving those outcomes—and I can see that everyone in this House is aligned on making sure that we can achieve that as a country.

I want to thank all the members from the Health Committee here that assisted in this. There were a few improvements, or changes, that were made which have been adopted unanimously, and I think this is a really good step. Thank you to all parties for your support here; thank you to all members of the committee for your unanimous support. Congratulations, Katie Nimon—it looks like this bill will get through very soon—this is a positive step forward for New Zealand, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): It’s a pleasure to rise on a bill that’s enjoying such strong support from all across the House and to speak in favour of this amendment to the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act that brings a mental health strategy, alongside the other statutorily required strategies under that Act, that sets up our modern health system.

I had the privilege last night of going to an event with organisations from rural sectors and enjoying some positive feedback from representatives there about the other strategies that are part of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act; namely, the rural and the women’s strategy. The process used to bring those about was to do quite a large public consultation to feed into the strategies that were ultimately adopted. I hope that is the opportunity that lies ahead with this strategy also—to go out to the public to ask, “Well, what are your 10-year aspirations for mental healthcare in New Zealand?” and to be able to do that. Because when we orientate ourselves around what the public wants, ultimately that creates some momentum for it to endure changes of Government, which is something that a 10-year strategy actually has to do.

I do want to congratulate the member who brought this bill and took it to select committee, and for getting this bill passed. It is an achievement and does reflect a lot of dedication and hard, hard work on that. I also want to mention the submitters who came to select committee and dedicated their time to making improvements to the bill.

There is just one unanswered question for us in the Labour Party as to what next, because the strategies sit in a system of not just setting a strategy but actually operationalising that in the New Zealand Health Plan, which is a budgeted plan, also a statutory requirement, and then being reflected in the Government policy statement (GPS) of Te Whatu Ora, which is what they’re going to do in the next three years. We’re yet to hear from the Government if there is an intention after creating the strategy to modify the GPS during this term of Government. That would be a really good question to know the answer to, because, of course, if we want to see change in the health system, it’s only going to happen if those instructions to Health New Zealand are also changed so that they can plan their budgets and so on accordingly. While I’m grateful for all the people who came to select committee, I do hope that their aspirations are going to be met by the actions of this Government in terms of following through and actually modifying the GPS and making sure that the services that people hope for are actually delivered.

Beyond those remarks, I think there’s a lot of really encouraging and heartening comments from around the House as to the contents of what we want in a mental health strategy, both access to care in a timely way, as my colleague Sam Uffindell has mentioned, and also those key social determinants of mental health that my colleague Steve Abel has mentioned. That is a wide ambit of different fronts to be active on, but we know that, to make the difference that’s needed, we need to look across all of those and provide meaningful change. Thank you to all my colleagues who have collaborated on the development of this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I rise today to support the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill. First of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague Napier MP Katie Nimon because her member’s bill will change the way we approach mental health outcomes by requiring the Minister of Health to determine a mental health and wellbeing strategy. This bill is a transformative step towards improving mental health outcomes across New Zealand. It addresses longstanding gaps in health legislation. It will make meaningful differences to people in Mt Roskill and, of course, New Zealand.

However, I would like to use this opportunity to advocate for the migrant communities which make up a large population in the Mt Roskill electorate. Due to the language barrier and cultural differences, these communities are always being neglected and their voices are not heard. I feel there are concerns raised by the ethnic communities in my electorate and across New Zealand and that there is a lack of research and understanding of mental health issues from an ethnic community perspective. A lack of cultural understanding, a one-size-fits-all approach, an inadequate workforce, and lack of community engagement are among the main concerns. But the good news is that help is on the way.

I have been assured by Minister Matt Doocey that all New Zealanders, including all ethnic and migrant communities, will have the opportunity to contribute to this Government’s mental health policy direction, both now and in the future. I am looking forward to this bill passing shortly in this House. Once again, I would like to extend my gratitude to Katie Nimon for introducing this bill to the House.

This bill will have a significant impact on helping this Government to get our approach to mental health on track and delivering for New Zealanders of all ages and stages in life. I’m looking forward to a day when this House can celebrate achieving the target this Government has set up, because behind each target are tens of thousands of New Zealanders who, in many cases, will receive the life-changing and potentially life-saving support, care, and treatment they desperately need. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call. I call the Hon Willow-Jean Prime.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in the third and final reading of this bill. This is my first opportunity to speak to this bill, so I want to acknowledge the member whose name this bill is in, and also the select committee who have done the mahi to get us to this point this afternoon—oh, it’s still morning, sorry.

The point I want to add to the contributions that I’ve listened to today is how important it will be to ensure that there is children’s and rangatahi voice in the development of the strategy. As a former Minister for Youth and also Labour spokesperson on children and on youth, rangatahi have told us that mental health and climate change are the two biggest issues for them. I want to get that on the Hansard and into everybody’s minds—that, as this passes and as we move forward into the development of a strategy, ensuring that there is children’s and rangatahi voice included in that is going to be so important.

I also want to acknowledge the previous contribution from the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall in referencing feedback she had received from the rural community about the rural and women’s health strategies. Don’t want to boast, but I was the former Associate Minister of Health that worked on those two particular strategies. Like she has said, we see the importance in having the strategies, but it’s not just the strategy itself; it’s what happens next: ensuring that the strategies follow through into the health plan and into the Government policy statement (GPS), where the budget decisions are made on the implementation of any of those strategies that have been identified to achieve those strategic plans that have been developed. I too look forward to the full process of seeing that happen, so that it doesn’t just become a plan that sits on a shelf and isn’t influencing the health plan or the GPS, the budget spend, and the initiatives that will enjoy that support to deliver on the aspirations that are outlined in these strategies.

That’s all I wanted to add to the debate on this third reading. We need to make sure that we include our rangatahi and our tamariki voice in that. There is a wonderful little guide to help with that process of engagement with rangatahi to ensure their voices are brought forward into this process. Kia ora.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): It really is a pleasure to be given the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill. It’s a pleasure because I’m not usually on the Health Committee, so I’d like to mihi to my colleagues across the House for the great work that you do in that committee. I’d also like to add my acknowledgment—I hope I can make it a bit more unique—to my good friend here Katie Nimon, the local MP for Napier, and the heart with which she approaches the tasks that are given to her here in the House. We talk about members “shepherding a bill” and it’s really interesting that we use that word because, with mental health and wellbeing, what are we doing and what are we aspiring to? We’re aspiring that we can formulate in this situation a strategy to help people be shepherded through their mental health circumstances and the times where they need that support—that shepherding, Katie. Thank you for shepherding this bill with the heart that you have and the compassion that you have.

I really appreciate the fact that our Government—and this is something I said on doorsteps a lot during our campaign, that we were hoping we achieve this, to make our Government have the first Minister for Mental Health. It shows how important mental health and wellbeing is to us and, I know, across the House—it really is.

I commend this bill to the House. I look forward to having the seventh strategy there. It will help us as a Government be able to focus those plans and those outcomes in the mental health arena. I’d also like to acknowledge and thank my husband, who’s in the gallery today, for shepherding me through the times where I need to be shepherded. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you also for the opportunity to say a few brief words on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill. I think the name of this bill sums up both the intentionality and the importance of the bill, so I would like to commend the Health Committee—a committee that I don’t sit on but I’m very fond of. I also commend the member Katie Nimon for her work in shepherding this bill through, and I acknowledge all of the submitters who would have contributed their expertise, their passion, their lived experience, and their will to see a much-improved bill and a much-improved Act in place.

Mental health is often the poor cousin to health. The Cartesian dualism of why we sort of take out the brain as a separate organ and turn it into a different type of health has always confused me. It’s good to see that mental health—or health—is getting much more recognition. I do agree with previous submitters and previous members who have said that it is important from this point on to make sure that it doesn’t just remain a plan but that it remains something that has funding behind it, that has expertise behind it, that has drive behind it, and that the good intentions behind this bill turn it into good legislation, which actually turns it into good mental health outcomes for people. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): It’s with great honour that I rise to be the last speaker in this debate, as we debate the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Bill, introduced by the very capable MP for Napier, Katie Nimon. It is just a small bill when you actually read it line by line, but it’s a transformative piece of legislation that aims to address the longstanding gaps in our country’s mental health. I think Katie Nimon summed it up very well when she said mental health matters. I can tell you that this side of the House definitely does believe that.

It’s just this week that we’ve introduced the Mental Health Bill to replace some of our old outdated mental health legislation. I think this bill here, which we’re talking about now, is adding to that. And, of course, we have the first ever Minister for Mental Health, the Hon Matt Doocey. I think the primary purpose of this bill is to amend that Pae Ora (Health Futures) Act, really, to better enable the long-term planning and delivery required to improve mental health and addiction outcomes here in this country. We want every New Zealander, no matter where they are, not only to thrive mentally and emotionally but we want them to be able to reach their true potential. That’s what the National Party, of course, believes; it’s in our core principles. It’s great that everybody in this House is supporting this bill, because it’s going to help us create a healthier, more resilient future for our nation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 October.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to speak on this bill, because whilst we have slightly different approaches across the House, we all in this House agree that victims in terms of the criminal justice system are deserving of far more attention. Certainly on this side of the House, we do want to see more done for victims and a reorientation towards victims.

Whilst the Government’s view is that what victims want appears to be longer sentences, we’re not convinced that that’s the case. Having said that, on other things we can agree, and this bill is one of them. This Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill does what it purports to do, which is to protect victims, but, in particular, it protects victims from unwanted contact from offenders.

Now, as is often the case with members’ bills, whether this was absolutely necessary or whether it could be done within the existing legislation is moot. Certainly, Corrections already have frameworks in place to make sure that offenders aren’t contacting victims who don’t want to be contacted. I think the member in charge of the bill would probably point and say, “But there are situations where that doesn’t happen or it doesn’t work effectively enough.” Rather than having some policy framework, what we need is an actual requirement on Corrections, and that’s what we’ve got here. Good on her for bringing this bill to the House, and whilst it might not have been a bill we would have put ourselves, it does something that we actually agree with. That’s why we are supporting it today.

I do want to say, though—and I hope the member will agree with me—that we need to push Corrections hard, because they have a number of obligations under the Corrections Act, and this adds another one. Corrections and the Ombudsman have been in front of us and talked about their operations. What they are actually surprisingly candid about from Corrections’ point of view is that they are not meeting their statutory obligations in terms of how they run their custodial services—that is to say their prisons. That’s not good enough—that’s simply not good enough.

One of the ways we want to see fewer victims is by having prisoners better when they’re released than when they came in, and not allowing them contact with their whānau, not giving them case management plans, and not providing suitable exercise and all of those things that are statutory requirements doesn’t help that. My concern is that Corrections will look at this, kind of roll their eyes and shrug their shoulders and say, “Whatevs.” Certainly I’m sure that the member in charge, Rima Nakhle, will be assiduous in making sure that Corrections do follow up. I think one of the things that we do want to know, and I think is a really important part of this and will be, I understand—because this was discussed at select committee—what’s the audit on this? How do we know many slipped through? There’s going to be human error, right?

My concern is that nothing will change—that Corrections look at us as parliamentarians and say, “Oh, yeah. All very nice for you and your highfaluting talking shop, but down on the ground here, we’ll do it as we always have done.” We absolutely do need to follow up and make sure, in terms of this bill and its requirements, to protect victims from unwanted communications—whether it be emails or letters or whatever, including through side-doors, if you like, through other people and what have you. We need to make sure that that unwanted communication is absolutely stopped. We heard it with instances where the victim was a family member, a mum or a partner or child, and even though they’ve still got strong connections, the harm from those connections can sometimes be quite significant and the control of those communications needs to be in the hands of the victim and not any third party, whether that be their support network or the offender or whomever.

I do recognise that the bill as it originally came to the House actually was framed as applying to any person sentenced. I can see the sense in that, and judges do make orders for people who, perhaps, are on probation or supervision or some other non-custodial sentence, that they not contact a victim. How that’s supervised is actually quite problematic, and it’s, essentially, a self-report. That is, if the victim is contacted, they call the police and say, “The judge said they can’t do it and they are still emailing me or texting me”—or whatever it might be—“or phoning me up.” Corrections isn’t the right institution to actually be monitoring community-based orders. They don’t have the resources, and I think it was good of them to come and say, “Well, look, that’s just too much. We couldn’t possibly do it. You’re setting us up to fail.” So that was taken out of the bill.

Having said that, look, it’s a good bill. We do need to have a grown-up discussion about how we protect victims, because we do have two different views. We’re not going to agree on everything, but if we can agree on empowering victims more effectively and we can agree on protecting victims and making sure the court process and the rest of the justice framework is less traumatic—in short, for victims—that would be a good thing.

I’d just finish on one point, and that is the Te Ao Mārama programme which was instituted under the last Government, which actually takes a victim-centric approach in the courtroom and in the court process and in the prosecution process. Whilst this new Government is still rolling that out, they’re scaling it back, and I’m concerned about that—that’s just a note of concern. Let’s work together and let’s both protect victims when they do occur but, most of all, let’s aim for fewer victims. Kia ora.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m.