Wednesday, 6 November 2024

WEDNESDAY, 6 NOVEMBER 2024

WEDNESDAY, 6 NOVEMBER 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.

[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 and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Speaker’s Rulings

Personal Explanations—Criteria and Process

SPEAKER: Members, the Hon Kieran McAnulty asked me to rule on the criteria and processes for personal explanations.

First, a personal explanation must be personal to the member making it. Speakers’ ruling 152/6 affirms that. Most commonly, they’re used to correct misleading statements made by the member or used by a member to defend their honour or reputation.

Second, a personal explanation may not be used to attack or criticise other members or persons outside the House. To do so is an abuse of the process—Speakers’ ruling 153/4.

Misuse of personal explanations is particularly problematic, because it makes it less likely that the House will grant leave for future personal explanations—Speaker’s ruling 152/7.

Personal explanations are permitted by agreement of the House. It’s my intention that, from this point on, members seeking that indulgence from the House will need to give a succinct but clear explanation of why they’re seeking the leave, so that the House can make a judgment on that request.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. It’s clear that that was a considered view, and I appreciate the effort and time that’s gone into it. You use the term “abuse of their privilege”, and you’ve provided the House with some clear guidance as to how a member should approach seeking leave for a personal explanation in the future. Can the House therefore deem from your response that the personal explanation made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters was indeed an abuse of that privilege?

SPEAKER: What I would say is that it did not represent the intention of the Speakers’ rulings in this matter—would be a better way to put it. I think the test always has to be: if the House has given someone an opportunity to make a personal statement and that personal statement doesn’t contain anything that might not be said in general debate, then there is no further action required. But the real point is that it is the House’s acquiescence that allows someone to make that personal statement. Therefore, not only me but everyone has to be fully understanding of what it’s about. I think also this sets grounds for further consideration if there is ongoing abuse of that process.

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

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

CLERK: Petition of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation requesting that the House urge the Government to build the new Dunedin Hospital as planned.

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

CLERK:

2023-24 annual reports for the:

Electoral Commission, and the

Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security

statement of performance expectations and statement of intent for the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Business Committee on the recommended sitting programme for 2025.

SPEAKER: The report is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 6 to Minister, 5 November

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): A point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct a statement I made during question time yesterday.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: In response to supplementary questions from Dr Ayesha Verrall during question No. 6 on 5 November 2024, I wish to correct the Hansard record, which quotes me stating that the document in question was “released unredacted”. This is not the case. I was mistaken, as an unredacted version was provided to the Speaker. I’m taking the first possible opportunity to correct this, and I apologise for any confusion to the House.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Today, Statistics New Zealand released its labour market statistics for the September quarter. This release includes information from the household labour force survey, which looks at people’s labour force status, and the quarterly employment survey, which captures earnings, paid hours, and jobs. The household labour force survey showed that the unemployment rate increased from 4.6 to 4.8 percent in the quarter, and the quarterly employment survey showed that average hourly earnings increased 3.9 percent over the previous year.

Ryan Hamilton: Why is unemployment rising?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Unemployment is rising and has been rising since 2001 because New Zealand has been in a prolonged recession, with monetary tightening used to drive high inflation out of the economy. Sadly, recessions have a human cost. My heart goes out to people who’ve lost their jobs and who are struggling to enter the labour market. Rising unemployment is a reminder of how letting inflation get a grip on the economy is so damaging.

Ryan Hamilton: Was the increase in the unemployment rate as much as expected?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. The increase from 4.6 percent to 4.8 percent was lower than forecasters had been predicting. In its August Monetary Policy Statement, the Reserve Bank had forecast 5 percent unemployment and the Treasury had forecast 5.2 percent in the Budget update in May. To give some historical context, I would also point out to members that over the last 15 years, the average unemployment rate in New Zealand has been 5 percent.

Ryan Hamilton: What is the outlook for unemployment?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Today’s results reflect where we are in the economic cycle. Typically, when the economy starts underperforming, the unemployment rate is slow to rise. Then when the economy starts to pick up, it can be slow to fall. In other words, unemployment is a lagging indicator. Now, there are clear indications that the economy has turned upwards, but even so, I would expect the unemployment rate to rise a bit further before beginning to fall. In the August Monetary Policy Statement, for example, the Reserve Bank was forecasting the unemployment rate to rise to a peak of 5.4 percent early next year, then steadily decline.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, especially our efforts to rebuild New Zealand’s economy and to support Kiwis with the cost of living. In the last year, wage growth has outpaced the cost of living in the first year of our new Government—compare that to the 13 quarters in a row under Labour, where wages grew slower than inflation. That wage growth comes on top of the cost of living support that our Government has delivered for Kiwis, through tax relief, increases to Working for Families, and FamilyBoost to support Kiwis with the cost of childcare. There’s still a lot more to do, which is why we’re focused on unleashing investment and clearing away red tape, and making sure that we can rebuild the economy and lift incomes for all New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement, “The Government has no plan, and never has had plans, to amend or revise the Treaty, or the Treaty settlements we have all worked so very hard together to achieve.”; if so, how does he reconcile that with the introduction tomorrow of a Government bill that completely rewrites the understanding of the Treaty upon which those settlements have been based?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. As I have explained in this House before, it is Government policy to support this bill to first reading. It is also Government policy to give parties a free vote at the second reading. The National Party, which I lead, will not be supporting it. The only way this bill will become law is if the Opposition parties do support it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Government received any advice indicating that the Treaty principles bill could undermine the full and final nature of Treaty settlements already concluded; if so, what was the nature of that advice?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I haven’t seen that advice, but what I would say is that the Treaty is not changing and Treaty settlements are not changing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does the Government believe that the principle of active protection, which places upon the Crown a positive duty to protect Māori interests and taonga, should be extinguished by an Act of Parliament?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I think I’ve been very consistent on this point: our coalition Government has a policy to support this bill at the first reading, but the parties are then free to support it or not support it at the second reading. The National Party won’t be supporting it. The only way this bill becomes a law is if the parties in the Opposition support it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government is introducing a Government bill. I’m asking the Prime Minister about the Government’s policy intention, not what the Government’s parties may wish to do subsequent to that. By introducing a Government piece of legislation, the Government, of which the member is still the Prime Minister—as far as I know—is responsible. To say, “Oh, well, we’re not going to support it later on down the track.” can’t be an acceptable answer when he’s being asked a question about a bill that the Government is currently introducing.

SPEAKER: Well, there are a number of ways that you can get into that; it’s not for me to start making those sort of judgments. I would ask the Prime Minister, if he wishes to have another look at it—ask the question again, actually, so I can make a better assessment of where it’s at.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does the Government believe that the principle of active protection, which places upon the Crown a positive duty to protect Māori interests and taonga, should be extinguished by an Act of Parliament?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it is Government policy to support this bill to first reading. That’s what we’re doing. It is also Government policy for the parties in the coalition Government to be free to support it or not support it in the second reading.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has confirmed that the Government are supporting the bill as introduced. I am asking him a question about the provisions in the bill, which he has indicated the Government is introducing and supporting. I don’t think saying that the Government’s supporting a bill that it introduces negates the fact that he should then answer questions on what the bill actually does.

SPEAKER: I’m just racking my head for a minute, trying to think of previous situations. I can think of one around superannuation way back at the beginning of MMP, where exactly that position was taken and accepted by the arrangements in the House.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order.

SPEAKER: If it’s something new.

Hon Shane Jones: Highly likely.

SPEAKER: Well, let’s see, but you’ve got to be absolutely certain.

Hon Shane Jones: Sir, the Prime Minister is clarifying, as other Governments have done so, that policy is not static; policy is dynamic. For the purposes of this bill, the policy will be agreed to the point of introduction. But to suggest that it represents the static form of policy is wrong, and you should have ruled accordingly.

SPEAKER: That actually wasn’t a point of order; you’re giving us a lecture on how Parliament should work—useful, but not exactly a point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The fact remains that when the Government introduces a bill to the House, even if they’re indicating that they don’t intend to progress it all the way through the process, they still have to answer questions on that bill. The Prime Minister and the Ministers concerned still have an accountability to the House to explain to the House and to answer questions in the House about the effect of the bill, if it was passed. Otherwise, why would it be introduced as a Government bill? My question to the Prime Minister is about the effect of the legislation. It’s not about whether the Government intends to support it further or not; it’s about the effect of the legislation as being introduced by the Government.

SPEAKER: What you are highlighting here is, in my opinion, a collision between the MMP-style Government that New Zealand now has and the Westminster-style of Government, which is the mechanism for how government is delivered. But I will ask the Prime Minister to make a further comment.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, the only comment I’d add is that the bill hasn’t been introduced to the Parliament.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When the Treaty principles bill states that the rights of Māori “differ from the rights that everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements, or other agreements with the Crown”, is it the Government’s intention that the Treaty itself fall within the definition of “other agreement with the Crown”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The bill has not been lodged.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That can’t be a legitimate explanation. The Government has made this decision. There’s a Cabinet minute of it which has been publicly released—I’ve quoted directly from the Cabinet minute. It’s therefore legitimate for the Prime Minister to be asked and therefore answer the question.

SPEAKER: That would assume that the bill that’s going to be introduced is the same bill.

Hon Simeon Brown: The question was “when the bill says X”—the bill has not yet been lodged and therefore the question was addressed adequately by the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: Yeah, it doesn’t fully obfuscate ministerial responsibility.

Hon David Seymour: Well, I was just going to say if the leader of the Labour Party would like to put his questions to the Minister responsible, I’m right here but I don’t see any questions.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good. That’s a very kind offer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, I wonder whether you could allow me to reword the question, seeing as the Prime Minister refused to answer it.

SPEAKER: I will.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When the Cabinet agreed to the introduction of a bill that states that the rights of Māori “differ from the rights … everyone else has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements, or other agreements with the Crown.”, was it the Government’s intention that the Treaty itself fall within the definition of “other agreement with the Crown”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said in my earlier answers, the first position I’ll make is that it is Government policy to support this bill to first reading. It is also Government policy that parties are free to vote at the second reading. The National Party will not be supporting it, and it won’t become law unless the Opposition parties do so.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I think I can anticipate the point of order, but make it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I didn’t ask him any question about the bill as potentially introduced. I asked him a question about a decision that the Cabinet has taken, the minute of which has now been publicly released, and I asked him about the Cabinet’s intention in making that decision.

SPEAKER: Does the Prime Minister want to respond to that?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I said it is Government policy to support this bill to first reading.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m happy to repeat the question again.

SPEAKER: No, no—you’re not accepting the answer, which is probably a reasonable answer given that Cabinet would have known at the time that it was supporting the bill that it was not going to get sufficient support to pass. That’s not unreasonable. You’re asking another question, I think, about whether or not that has implications for the Treaty itself.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’m asking the question about the interpretation of the decision that the Cabinet has just made—

Hon Member: And agreed to—yup.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —and agreed to. That decision has been made. There is a Cabinet minute that confirms that decision. Asking the Prime Minister to explain a decision that the Cabinet has already made, where that is publicly minuted and recorded—it is not unreasonable to expect that he will answer that more than just simply saying that it’s the Government policy to support it.

SPEAKER: Well, that is an answer. And we can go around for ever and ever if that is the same question asked and the same answer given.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. It cannot be the case that the Government can make decisions and then not be willing to answer questions on the impact of the decisions that they have taken. It is their number one accountability to this House to explain the decisions that they have taken as a Government. They have taken a decision around particular definitional issues around what rights of Māori are or aren’t under the Treaty principles bill that they’re going to introduce, and I’m asking him a question specifically about that decision that they have already taken. I didn’t ask him about the passage of the bill; didn’t ask him about their intentions further down the track. I asked him about the implications of a decision that they have already taken.

SPEAKER: Ask your question again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When the Cabinet decided to support the introduction of a bill that states, “[that] the rights of Māori differ from the rights that everyone [else] has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements, or other agreements with the Crown.”, was it the Government’s intention that the Treaty itself fall within the definition of “other agreement with the Crown”?

Hon David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, in the spirit of being helpful to the House, the member is—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, no. Sorry, points of order are heard in silence.

Hon David Seymour: It’s not that novel a concept. The member is quoting the body text of a Cabinet paper—not a recommendation, not a piece of legal drafting; the body text of a Cabinet paper. He’s actually incorrect to say that that’s what the legislation does. And when it is tabled tomorrow, I’m sure he will see that.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s very interesting, but I think the point is the question has been addressed. The Prime Minister might like to say something further?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

SPEAKER: He doesn’t want to.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister cannot possibly have answered the question. This is quite a significant issue. This is a Government piece of legislation. The Prime Minister is the Prime Minister for all Government legislation, not just the things that are inconvenient or convenient to him, and he has to be able to answer questions on all decisions the Cabinet has taken. To simply say, “Oh, well, it’s not a decision of Cabinet that we’re going to subsequently agree with further down the track.”, isn’t a legitimate answer. This is a decision that’s been taken. Asking the Prime Minister to explain it, that is his job.

SPEAKER: But it’s a simultaneous decision. And, look, I don’t want to reach for the books and start getting out a number of Speaker’s rulings from Speaker Wilson, but the fact of the matter is the question has been addressed—not satisfactorily, and that’s acknowledged inside the Speakers’ rulings that questions may not always be answered to the satisfaction of the questioner, but that doesn’t mean that we go on for ever on a particular question line.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement, “We want to work with Māori. We want to be able to partner.”; if so, how does that align with the Waitangi Tribunal’s view that the bill the Government is intending to introduce is “poorly designed, not informed by consultation with Māori, not justified by robust policy analysis, and risks destroying the very foundation of the constitutional arrangements of this country.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would say to that member, we are wanting to work with Māori on some of the biggest challenges and opportunities this country has. You see us doing that with respect to how we’re driving immunisation rates for under-two-year-olds, partnering with Māori health organisations to do so, and think about the way that we’re working around emergency housing projects, for example. We want to improve outcomes for Māori and non-Māori and we’re going to continue to do that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister appears to have—

SPEAKER: Just a minute—I haven’t called you. Just wait for the House to settle down.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The Prime Minister appears to have selectively ignored the substance of the question, which was a direct quote from the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal which were released yesterday.

SPEAKER: That’s right. There were multiple legs to the question; he’s answered one of those, which meets the criteria required.

Hon Shane Jones: Speaking to the point of order. Sir, we’re at the point of the House being brought into disrepute. That question was addressed. It was a comment taken from a recommendatory body. The Prime Minister addressed the question. You just articulated that that’s the threshold. To continue to relitigate that is to invite us all to break that rule. That can’t possibly uphold the standards of the House.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which Standing Order are you referring to, Shane?

SPEAKER: Thank you. Thank you for your commentary.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What message does it seem to Māori and non-Māori alike that in the same week the Government proposes to bring forward the introduction of a divisive bill that threatens our shared understanding of the nation’s founding document, his Government is also sacking 40 percent of the staff working in the agency responsible for supporting Crown-Māori relationships?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The member is conflating two separate issues that make no sense. We are making sure that we are delivering outcomes and we’re making sure we get a right-sized Public Service to do that. What we’re not prepared to do is have an 84 percent increase in spending that drove up inflation, drove up interest rates, put the economy in recession, and then lays off people from work. So we are making sure we deal with the spending; it’s not wasteful. We make sure that we’re driving down inflation, interest rates—we’re running the economy.

Question No. 3—Transport

3. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on the State Highway 1 Wellington improvements road of national significance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Yesterday, I welcomed the New Zealand Transport Agency board confirming the next steps on the State Highway 1 Wellington improvements road of national significance, which our Government campaigned on to enable Wellingtonians to get where they need to go quickly and safely. The expanded package includes a second Mount Victoria Tunnel, upgrades to the Basin Reserve, and the addition of a duplicate Terrace Tunnel that will further boost productivity, reduce travel times for those travelling in their cars and on public transport.

Tim Costley: Why is the Government prioritising this project as a road of national significance?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Wellingtonians face significant congestion at peak times, and forecast population growth across the region is expected to significantly increase travel demand across the network. Without our Government’s road of national significance, the Wellington region could be looking at travel times increasing by up to 50 percent between Ngauranga and the airport within 10 years. That’s why we are prioritising this project for Wellington.

Tim Costley: What does this road of national significance mean—

SPEAKER: Just wait. The rule of being quiet applies to everyone when a question is being answered.

Tim Costley: Thank you, sir. What does this road of national significance mean for people and freight travelling through the Wellington region?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our Government is continuing to move at pace to deliver infrastructure that will unlock economic growth, reduce travel times, and improve safety. This expanded package in Wellington will result in significant travel time savings during peak times, reducing travel times from the northern suburbs to the CBD, hospital, and airport by around 10 minutes to boost productivity and enable Wellingtonians to get where they need to go quickly and safely.

Hon Nicola Willis: What impact does the Minister think these new developments will have for the constituents of the Wellington Central, Rongotai, and Ōhāriu electorates; and has he received messages of congratulations from the representatives for those electorates?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: This project will have significant benefits both for those driving their vehicles or on public transport in and around Wellington—as I said, up to 10 minutes of travel time savings for those moving between the northern suburbs and the airport. I’ve heard silence from the other side, but I must say: I did see some welcoming statements from Nicola Willis making very positive remarks about this project.

Tim Costley: Can the Minister tell us how this road of national significance will benefit public transport users?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Members in this House will be pleased to hear that by grade-separating the Basin Reserve, those travelling on the No. 1 bus between Island Bay and the railway station are forecast to save nine minutes during morning peak times on their way to work and school. Additionally, those travelling on the No. 2 bus between Miramar and the CBD will notice a saving of 11 minutes on their journeys. Our Government is committed to delivering the infrastructure we need to reduce congestion and support economic growth.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “The Treaty is our past, present and future. It has shaped the country we have become, and the obligations it imposes on both sides will always be with us”; if so, why is he supporting a bill that the Waitangi Tribunal findings state, “If the Bill remained on the statute book for a considerable time or was never repealed, it could mean the end of the Treaty/te Tiriti”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, in answer to the first part of the question. As I’ve said before, we will support the bill at first reading and then we’ll vote against it at second reading. The only reason that bill will remain on the statute book for a considerable time is if the Opposition votes for it, because National won’t be doing so.

Teanau Tuiono: How does he justify his support for the introduction of the Treaty principles bill in light of the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding that, and I quote, “If the bill were to be enacted, it would be the worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty in modern times.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said in my answer, it’s not going to be enacted.

Teanau Tuiono: Is it not more important for the Prime Minister of Aotearoa New Zealand to honour the founding agreement of our nation than to honour a one-term coalition Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said before, the reality is we are in an MMP environment with a coalition Government. That is the reality of it. I’m sure the ACT Party didn’t get everything they wanted. The National Party didn’t get everything they wanted; we came to a compromise. This is the way that we’re handling it. We will support it at first reading but we’re free not to support it at second reading, and that’s what we’ll do. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That sort of general barracking has just got to stop.

Teanau Tuiono: How does he respond to the finding of the Waitangi Tribunal that, and I quote, “the [Treaty principles bill] would end the Treaty partnership and any formal relationship between the Crown and Māori” and “could have the impact of undoing everything that [has] been achieved for Māori in the past 40 years”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, if the Opposition parties at second reading vote against it like the National Party will, it won’t become law.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for how the Opposition parties vote and yet has continued to refer to that in his answers today. He does, as Prime Minister, have responsibility for the decisions that his Government has taken. This is another example of a member asking a question of the Prime Minister about decisions that his Government has taken, which he has chosen to refer to decisions the Opposition might take in his answer. He should answer for the Government.

SPEAKER: And he has done. He said a number of times that it is the policy of the Government. The fact that the policy might be to vote for a first reading and not for any more, none the less, that is the policy. And the other question that is being asked is covered off, I think, by the problem you’ve got with the structures we have under MMP, where you form a Government from parties that will have different views, make concessions to one another, which will mean that there’ll be some bills supported some way through the House that may not be supported through the rest. Now, if you want to turn around and say—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Further point of order—

SPEAKER: Hang on. If you want to turn around and say that somehow I should rule that the provisions of the MMP electoral system do not apply inside this House, that would be an utter nonsense.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not arguing that at all. I’m asking you to enforce the rules that say that the Government needs to answer questions about decisions it’s taken. The Prime Minister’s repeatedly said the Government has taken the decision to support the bill at first reading. Therefore, asking him to answer questions about the implications of that decision, about a bill that they have indicated they are supporting at first reading, is not asking him in any way to abrogate or to bypass the MMP party system; it’s asking him to explain the implications of a decision that they have taken to support.

SPEAKER: He did answer in a way that is a speculation about what might happen. He has previously said quite clearly: supporting it to the first reading, not any further. Now, that can’t be clearer when you’re asking for the Prime Minister to speculate about a Waitangi Tribunal position—what would happen if this was on the statute book for a longer time. The only way that could happen would be if other parties in this House beyond his own and those who’ve declared at second reading they’re against it voted for it. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable answer.

Teanau Tuiono: How does he respond to the finding of the Waitangi Tribunal that, “At present, the progressing of the bill is having serious impacts on the relationship but the bill if enacted would kill that relationship.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, the bill will not be enacted if parties in the Opposition vote against it.

Teanau Tuiono: Is having a six-month-long process that risks dividing our nation with the possibility of misinformation thriving a price worth having to maintain his coalition?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we are following process. We are making sure the bill will be supported at first reading. There will be a six-month select committee process. That is a chance for the public to engage with the process; then it will come back to this House for a second reading, at which point it’ll be voted down.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will the Government support a shortened select committee process to save the significant expense that the House will go to in having the bill at select committee for six months, given the Government has already determined it’s going to fail at second reading?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, but I think it is a bit rich from that member to raise expense when he and that member spent $1.2 billion on three waters and it went nowhere.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement that “it is a priority to support New Zealanders into work”; if so, how many additional people have become unemployed since she took office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I stand by my full statement from August, which was in answer to a question from the member: “Yes, it is a priority to support New Zealanders into work, and today’s unemployment statistic is yet another reminder of how letting inflation get a grip on the economy was so damaging.” That is equally true today, as I said in reply to question No. 1. To the second point: the number of people unemployed in New Zealand has been rising steadily since 2021. Rising unemployment is not a new phenomenon. Up until the December quarter of 2023—that is, the final two years of the last Government—the number of people unemployed rose by 30,000. Since then, the number has risen by 25,000.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does her heart go out to the 25,000 additional people since she took office who are now unemployed and where her personal income tax changes will have no effect as they have no job?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: To the first part of the question: yes. To the second part of the question: the member is operating under a misapprehension that those unemployed today would stay in unemployment for the rest of the year. In fact, anyone with knowledge of the labour market would tell you that people come in and out of unemployment, and I expect that a large number of New Zealanders who do lose their jobs will then get jobs in which they will be paying lower taxes so they will have more money in their bank accounts, and that will be a good thing.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does her heart go out to the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector, that is down 12,000 jobs; the manufacturing sector, that is down 9,000 jobs; and the construction sector, that is down 12,000 jobs since the election?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, it absolutely does, and my heart also goes out to every farmer who in these past six years had a Government that was actively working against them, tying them up in red tape, and blaming them for the environmental challenges of our country rather than thanking them for putting food on the tables, bringing in export receipts, and growing this economy.

Reuben Davidson: How is she supporting TVNZ workers who have been informed today that their jobs are on the line, the latest local media casualties in light of zero action by this Government to support the local media sector?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject many of the characterisations in that question. Of course, the employment decisions of TVNZ are operational decisions that are necessarily at arm’s length from the Minister. I know that members opposite have a bit of a fraught history when it comes to inappropriate interventions in what should be independent matters, but if he wants to rewrite the rule book on that, I invite him to give us his ideas because they sound like they might be quite silly.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does her heart go out to Pacific people, who face a 9.9 percent unemployment rate; and in particular Pacific youth aged 15 to 24, where one in four are now unemployed?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, it does, and that is why every day we are working to rebuild this economy, to bring inflation down so interest rates can drop, so businesses can have the confidence to invest and create new jobs, so that we are driving higher education standards, so we can have a more productive economy where more Pacific people have access to good future employment and education, and why, for example, we are doing things like introducing fast-track consenting so that we can create more jobs on new developments faster, rather than tying up projects in the Environment Court. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I know it’s a Wednesday and everyone’s very excited about all sorts of events happening in other parts of the world. Calm it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does her heart go out to the thousands of public servants and Government service providers that have lost their jobs as a result of her Public Service cuts that have been described by one commentator as worse than Ruth Richardson?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, here’s what I’d say to that commentator: in the year of 2024 to 2024, the number of public servants increased by 421. It is true that the number of public servants has reduced from its peak in December 2023, but I would say this: no Government, no country, can live beyond its means indefinitely. If the position of that member remains that the way to restore the strength of this economy is to hire more public servants in the back office, then she should go out and tell New Zealand that, because I tell you this: New Zealanders know better. They want front-line services, they want investment in productive growth, they want services that deliver, and that demonstrably was not delivered by a Government that lived beyond its means, increased the number of public servants, but didn’t increase the results they delivered.

Hon David Seymour: Can the finance Minister relate to Ruth Richardson, who also inherited a set of books from a spendthrift Labour Government along with inflexible labour law initiatives that she had to reform?

SPEAKER: Only one part of that question was in order, but go—say something.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: If I could make a couple of remarks, there are two reflections—

SPEAKER: One would be enough, I think.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: There is a reflection that I have often had recourse to, which is how difficult it is when people complain about the state of the house after the massive party that they had, the extent of the hangover, and complain about how quickly we’re cleaning up the mess.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order.

SPEAKER: A point of order, the Rt Hon Winston—the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: You should withdraw and apologise for that, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I do, immediately.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How is it possibly in order for that question to be in order and for the Minister of Finance to take a patsy question from a Government Minister to basically attack the Opposition, but the Government isn’t willing to answer questions for the decision it itself has taken? The Government has no responsibility for the previous Government. It has no responsibility, actually, for Ruth Richardson, but it does have a responsibility to answer questions about its own decisions, which so far today it seems to be refusing to do.

SPEAKER: Yeah, except that the question initially asked for a comparison—or was there a comparison between the former finance Minister and the current finance Minister, with a suggestion that one was bad and the other was worse, so some response is obviously going to come from that. The question that was asked by David Seymour was: does she relate to the former Minister? I said at the time that I thought there was only a very small part of that that was in order, and I think we will now move on.

Question No. 6—Education

6. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Education: What further update can she provide about her Make it Count action plan?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): As part of our action plan, last week I announced a $2.5 million plan to support secondary school students working towards their NCEA literacy and numeracy co-requisite requirements. I’m pleased to share that, from this term, 160 schools from across the country will be involved, with up to 10,000 students. On Monday, I announced our targeted maths programme for years 7 and 8 students, and I’m pleased to share that, as of today, 374,521 primary and intermediate school students will benefit from maths workbooks and teacher guides, an increase of almost 5,000 students from yesterday. This is so much more than just a stationery update: these high-quality, curriculum-aligned resources will help teachers and lift student achievement.

SPEAKER: I realise that the Ministry of Education people who may have given advice on the structure of the question are pretty keen on very long answers, but they’re not particularly helpful for the House.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What feedback has she heard from principals on her Make it Count action plan?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Feedback from schools has been positive. I’m delighted that school principals already want to get involved. One wrote, “I would welcome the opportunity to be part of this trial and further develop the knowledge and skills to make a better difference to this cohort of learners. We strongly desire this cohort to enter secondary school with confidence in themselves as learners and set a positive trajectory for future learning.”

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What feedback has she received from the sector about other elements of the maths action plan?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Last week, I was delighted to release the new maths curriculum, which is a knowledge-rich curriculum and sets out a structured, evidence-informed approach based on the science of learning. In response, The Education Hub founder, Dr Nina Hood, said, “I think the Minister has identified a number of key challenges that we have in the system and is putting in place steps to address those. It’s just making sure that you’re taught in the way that builds up knowledge sequentially.” This Government is ensuring that our teachers are supported to deliver lessons that cover what students need to learn and when they need to learn it.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What feedback has she received from education experts?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Massey University Distinguished Professor Gavin Martin described our newly released math curriculum as a world-class document. He gave a big shoutout to this Government for all of the hard work and, in particular, to our maths curriculum writers, including Audrey Tan. This Government has an unrelenting focus on lifting student achievement and closing the equity gap in our education system so all children are equipped with what they need to succeed.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does he agree with Dr Shane Reti when he said, “We are sending out a signal to the people with myeloma and the people with leukaemia, we understand, we haven’t forgotten you”; if so, what actions has he taken to deliver on that following receipt of the Cancer Control Agency’s report, titled: Understanding Blood Cancer Medicine Availability in Aotearoa New Zealand?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health): In answer to the first part of the question: yes, absolutely. I happen to have known Dr Reti for over 10 years. We’re both from Whangārei, where, in fact, he worked with my mum, and he’s one of the kindest and smartest people I know in politics. So I don’t doubt for a moment his sincerity when he says that he is there to help people with cancer, as we all should be. In answer to the second part of the question: while the report’s publication is relatively recent, this Government has initially increased the budget for Pharmac over four years by $1.774 billion to fill in a fiscal hole left by the previous Government—when the member asking the question was the Minister responsible. Subsequent to that, we have increased funding by a further $604 million. Now, it’s not Dr Reti’s responsibility to choose which drugs to buy, or any politician for that matter, but what has happened—and I can tell you, when you go down to Pharmac and you hear from the people there, people work for Pharmac because they love buying medicines for Kiwis. They are so busy funding new medicines for people with all manner of cancers, and I hope that soon they will fund more medicines for people with blood cancers.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he assure blood cancer patients that all nine medicines identified in the report as offering significant clinical benefits but currently unfunded, or their equivalent, can be funded from the extra investment in Pharmac that he just cited?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The member knows very well, because she’s had this job, that if a Minister is able to ensure that a particular medicine will be funded, then Pharmac is not actually independent. Therefore, I can’t stand here and say that Pharmac will fund a particular medicine, but what I can say is that they have never had more money to fund medicines in the history of this country. The amount of money that’s going into it is exceptional and it’s already having its effects felt by people battling cancer up and down this country.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why didn’t the Government run a process that would have given these patients with blood cancer an equal shot at the funding to patients with solid tumours when, after all, Dr Shane Reti knew about this issue before the election?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: That is precisely what the Government has done. Pharmac do not discriminate. Their goal is to secure for eligible persons maximum medical benefit from the available funding—available funding that has been dramatically increased under this Government. And let me just say it one more time for that member, in case she’s forgotten anything or didn’t know when she was the Minister of Health herself: the biggest difference that a Minister of Health or a Government or a Minister of Finance or a Minister responsible for Pharmac can do is provide more money for the people at Pharmac to buy more medicines for Kiwis. And on that simple measure it is not just 1-nil, it’s 1,000,000-nil.

Hon Dr Shane Reti: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: The Hon Shane Reti.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Oh! He wants to be in this question now.

SPEAKER: Hang on, just—please.

Hon Dr Shane Reti: Can the member confirm that up to four blood cancer medicines have recently been funded by Pharmac?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, I most certainly can, and that is an example of the decisions that Pharmac is making in order to ensure the money is put to the best possible use. It benefits people with solid tumours; it benefits people with blood cancers; but it also benefits people, for example, with type 1 diabetes, who now have continuous glucose monitors funded by the taxpayer through Pharmac. Right across the board, this Government is improving access to medicines at a level never before seen in this country.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: In light of his previous answers, am I to take it that people with blood cancers do not have an assurance that their cancer medicines will be funded, but solid tumour patients do, or do solid tumours also have no assurance that they will be funded under this initiative?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I think it’s fairly straightforward; this Government is very clear that Pharmac makes the decisions about which medicines to fund. We make the decisions about how much funding they receive, and the member knows this. What the Government has done is ensure, in line with—

SPEAKER: Just stop there. We’ll hear the rest of this in absolute silence.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a very serious matter for a lot of New Zealanders, as I’m sure nearly every member of this House who’s known someone with cancer will know. As I was saying, what the Government has done, in line with pre-election commitments, is provide funding that will allow a list of drugs, or their equivalents, to be funded. That commitment has been undertaken. From now on, we do everything we can to increase the amount of funding for Pharmac, in order that more medicines can be bought. For example, I’m happy to tell the House that I have asked Pharmac to be active and aggressive in showing how they, by funding more medicines, can save money right across all of society to boost the Pharmac budget even further than the current record levels, in order that more people with all types of ailments, including blood cancer, will have more chance of seeing their medicine funded sooner.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that Pharmac’s ability to deliver more cancer drugs to New Zealand cancer patients would have been made even harder if this Government had allowed the time-limited shortfall in Pharmac funding—the fiscal cliff left by the previous Government—to endure?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I remember very well meeting with that Minister, our Minister of Finance, and our meeting was scheduled to be about that shortfall. We knew that if we did nothing and carried on with the previous Government’s funding track, we would go from around $1.5 billion per year to about $1.1 billion per year. The advice I’d received from Pharmac was that Pharmac would first decide—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, everyone seems to have forgotten we’re listening to the rest of this question in silence.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Some medicines and some indications—they would have to stop new patients getting those medicines. If that didn’t save enough money to make up for the previous Government’s budgeted shortfall, then they would have to—

Hon Member: Speech!

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —actually take people off medications. You know, someone thinks it’s funny to heckle. I can tell that young member that, actually, medications for people and people losing their medications when they are often terminally ill is a very serious matter. If you wouldn’t mind listening, it would be helpful. We recognise that Pharmac would actually stop people receiving medicines they’re already prescribed; that was the advice. So our finance Minister Nicola Willis and I looked at each other at the start of the meeting and we said, “We’ve just got to do it.”, and that was, basically, the end of the meeting.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Just wait for the silence that is going to be across the House for the duration of this question.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has Shane Reti broken his promise to blood cancer patients that they will not be forgotten, when it is actually true that they are an afterthought in this policy?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: All I’m going to say to that is that there is a line in opposition politics between advocating and exploiting somebody, and I think what that member just did crossed that line.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he believe his coalition agreement with ACT has more mana and integrity than Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I’ve explained, we are in a coalition Government. We are supporting, as a Government, this bill to first reading, and beyond that, it’ll be up to each individual party as to whether it ultimately goes through and becomes law.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. The question was: “Does he believe his agreement with ACT has more mana and integrity than Te Tiriti o Waitangi?” I didn’t hear him address or even answer remotely close to that question.

SPEAKER: Well, you could also argue that he’s got no particular responsibility for asserting mana to one document or the other. The Prime Minister might like to make another comment on it.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m very clear that the Treaty of Waitangi has obligations on both Crown and iwi, and we will continue to uphold those under law.

Rawiri Waititi: How can tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti voters have confidence in a Prime Minister who is willing to sponsor a select committee process which will become a platform for racism and misinformation, given the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal, “The Māori-Crown relationship has already been damaged and would be further damaged, including by the select committee process which we fear could become a platform for racism and misinformation that would prejudice Māori”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: They can have confidence because they’ve got a Government that’s here to advance outcomes for Māori and non-Māori. And what I’d say to you is that when we have 12 percent of Māori students at year 8—thank you, Labour Government—we have a plan to deal with that. When we can move 1,500 children, many of them Māori, out of emergency housing accommodation in motels and into permanent, proper homes, that’s great; that’s a fantastic outcome. It’s better than what that Government did for six years, with an absolute majority for the last three, and did so very little. It’s fantastic that we are working incredibly well with Māori health organisations to improve immunisation rates for under-two-year-olds. That’s about outcomes and getting things done for Māori and non-Māori.

SPEAKER: I just make the comment that personal reflections aren’t provided for—in fact, they’re specifically provided against in the Standing Orders, whether they are by way of interjection or in debate. Members need to remember that.

Rawiri Waititi: How can he sleep at night knowing that the violence of the Treaty principles bill is going to have a discriminatory intergenerational impact on our mokopuna?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree with the characterisation of that question.

Rawiri Waititi: How many apologies is the State willing to make while they continue to inflict violence and abuse on our people, whilst continuously breaching Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I disagree with the characterisation of that statement. This is a Government that is here to advance and improve outcomes for Māori. And the sad reality is that under the previous administration, despite a much-vaunted Māori caucus, very little was achieved for Māori.

Rawiri Waititi: How can he stand in this House and support a bill which the Waitangi Tribunal has described as “the worst”—let me emphasise: “the worst”—“most comprehensive breach of the Treaty/te Tiriti in modern times”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’re not supporting the bill in second reading.

Question No. 9—Health

9. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he seen about new funding for medicines in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you very much for the question. A great many—in particular, the $1.774 billion boost in the Budget this year, followed by a further $600 million over the next four years to expand access. That means that the total budget over four years is $6.294 billion, or nearly $1.6 billion a year averaged over the four years. This is far more than has been spent by Pharmac on medicines in history. In fact, it’s about 60 percent more than the billion or so that it was only a few short years ago. At present, there are 11 cancer medicines being funded, nine that are having feedback considered, for a total of 20; 21 non-cancer medicines in total are either funded, being considered, or consulted on, for a total of 41 medicines that are now being either funded, considered feedback, or consulted on as a result of that funding uplift.

SPEAKER: I’ll just point out that the question did ask about recent announcements. It’s fair enough, but perhaps you don’t need to recite the entire announcement rather than the answer.

Todd Stephenson: Has he seen any specific announcements to respond to the shortages of oestradiol?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, I just thought it was my duty to be candid to the House, but I can be briefer, if you’d like. In terms of oestradiol, this has been a major pain point for women up and down New Zealand. Due to recent developments in research around the relationships between hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer, global demand has nearly tripled for hormone replacement therapies. This has led to a worldwide shortage and one that has affected New Zealand’s women as well. However, I’m proud to say that Pharmac has been agile and really quite active in getting out and finding supply, as well as getting new medicines funded in order to alleviate the shortage. As of 1 November, oestradiol gel, a topical hormone treatment, is now funded, and it’s estimated that 18,000 women will benefit from it in the first year. I’m well aware of the stress that this has caused, from the correspondence I’ve received; however, I’m pleased to say that this problem is at least some way to being resolved, thanks to the actions of Pharmac.

Todd Stephenson: Has he seen any announcements that will support cancer patients?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, I most certainly have, and I referred to them earlier. What I would say is that, right across the world, the rate of progress in creating new treatments for cancer is truly astonishing. As someone who believes soundly in science, I am hesitant to describe it as a miracle, but what is presently happening and the number of cancer treatments coming online could be described as that, if anything was to be. This Government’s commitment is to keep finding ways to fund more and more of them to increase New Zealanders’ survivability.

Question No. 10—Police

10. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by the statement in his 20 September 2024 letter to the chair of the Regulations Review Committee regarding the Arms (Shooting Clubs—Content of Annual Reports) Amendment Regulations 2024, “I am comfortable that this technical change would not have negatively impacted public safety”, and does he heed Police advice on public safety?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes, as I said in the letter, the purpose of the amendment regulations was to remove unnecessary administrative requirements for non-pistol clubs, which are largely run by volunteers. When clubs struggle to adhere to overly burdensome requirements, they run the risk of closure. Because the safe use and education about firearms in controlled environments like ranges is beneficial to public safety, it is important that regulations are workable for volunteer organisations so that this resource can remain available to the community. I would note that the Government has only made two changes to firearms law and regulations in New Zealand. This regulation change is one of those, the other being strengthening the firearms prohibition orders regime to keep guns out of the hands of gang members. Police did not provide the public safety advice specifically in relation to this administrative regulation change, but did provide advice that the firearms prohibition orders being strengthened would have significant public safety benefits.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did he disregard Police advice provided to him on 6 June on the proposed changes to shooting clubs that made numerous references to the public safety risks associated with reducing the reporting obligations on shooting clubs?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I made a decision to make a small technical change, that Cabinet supported, that meant that the requirements for reporting was not duplicated. That removed some of the burden to these voluntary organisations because we want these ranges to remain open, because we want people to have safe spaces where they learn firearms safety, and that is done at ranges.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did he tell Parliament on 19 September that gang members were not using gun ranges to practise their shooting skills, when police advised him twice, on 30 April and again on 22 July, specifically of that risk?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Because gang members have not been getting access to gun ranges to practice for firearms.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Which is correct: his answer to question No. 9 on 19 September or the two briefings released under the Official Information Act in April and July from police; if it is the latter, will he correct his answer in Parliament?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: What is accurate is that I’ve had no advice from Police to say that gang members are using gun ranges to practice with firearms.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order. I seek leave to table a document received under the Official Information Act that is not publicly available that stipulates police advising the Minister of Police that there is a risk, and that gang members are using gun ranges to practice their shooting skills.

SPEAKER: Why is that not publicly available?

Hon Ginny Andersen: It was received under the Official Information Act and provided to me.

SPEAKER: It hasn’t been released anywhere else?

Hon Ginny Andersen: No.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Can I just say, that last question seemed a long way from the primary.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did he support proposals to weaken police inspection powers over gun ranges when Police had clearly advised him of the risks of unlicensed shooters such as gang members being allowed on gun ranges by licensed firearm owners?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I reiterate again that the change that was made in the regulation was minor in nature, it was technical, and it was to remove some of the burden on our volunteers that are actually running these ranges. The reason why we did it quickly is because they were coming up to annual general meeting season and we wanted to have confidence that these ranges remained open because there is a big public safety issue around making sure that people do have access to these ranges. Otherwise, what happens is you run the risk that people start looking for alternative locations that aren’t registered ranges, and that actually increases the risk to the public.

Hon Nicole McKee: Is the Minister confident that by supporting clubs and ranges, we are supporting safer communities?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Absolutely. I mean, the reality of it is—and many of the member’s colleagues use ranges—that they are the safe place to use firearms. That is where firearm safety is delivered. It is where firearms use is monitored. The best thing we can do about public safety is to ensure that these ranges, which are largely run by volunteers, are given the support they need to keep those open.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why is he risking public safety and the safety of front-line police officers by enabling a gun lobbyist to weaken our firearm regulations when he has been specifically advised by Police that gang members are using gun ranges?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I find it a bit rich from a previous police Minister who oversaw some of the worst violence and growth in violence that we’ve seen in our country. And I will stand by our reputation any day in terms of prioritising public safety and doing everything that we can to continue to make sure that we increase public safety.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. I’d ask that you reflect, in the context of Speakers’ rulings 190, 191, and 192, about the tenor of a host of the questions today. It is permissible in supplementary questions for people to draw on reports or take quotes, but we’ve had a plethora today of quotes taken grossly out of context in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, quite apart from the inflammatory language that comes from that report—and that’s a matter for the authors of that Waitangi Tribunal report. But there are standards and there are parameters around how quotes and how statements and how reports are to be treated in the House. To avoid that brings the House into disrepute and we are bordering perilously close to that today.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can I congratulate Shane Jones on reading one page of the Standing Orders and encourage him to read the entirety of the Standing Orders because then he would find that that point of order itself violated a number of them.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t think that’s fair comment. I think if members of the House look at Speakers’ rulings 191/3 and 192/1, they’ll get a fairly good guide on how quotations should be used. In the end, these are matters for the House and they have not been ruled out.

Question No. 11—Health

11. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister of Health: Is he concerned about the impacts of poor access to dental care, as outlined in this week’s report from Dental for All; if so, what steps, if any, is he taking to reduce the cost of dental care?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes. We know that good oral health is important for the wider health of New Zealanders. Currently, free dental care is provided to children and adolescents until the age of 18. There is also funding in place to support adults on low incomes. It’s a longstanding issue that needs very careful consideration. However, as outlined in the Government policy statement, the importance of ensuring primary and community healthcare services, including oral health services, are responsive to need remains a priority.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What does he say to almost half of New Zealanders who put off going to the dentist because of cost when he was unable to name a single initiative he has taken to reduce the cost of dental treatment?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This Government has spent $250 million approximately on oral health as a proportion of Vote Health. We’re also committed to increasing community fluoridation, which will provide community benefits. We also provide support for the toothpaste to toothbrush programme which provides care to vulnerable populations, and also to whānau of those vulnerable populations.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will he take any actions to lower the cost of dental care, or will he allow families to go without being able to afford getting basic health care as a result of cost?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Vulnerable families have access to low-cost access dental care, including recent increases—2022, as I recall—to the emergency dental grant, which, I believe, is now called the special needs dental grant for immediate and essential treatment.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he think low-income communities should go into debt to access dental care, or should dental care actually be part of the public healthcare system and be made free?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I’ve already expressed that low-income and vulnerable families have access to dental care, but of course we’d like to do more.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he think the current for-profit private model that prevents people from accessing dental care when they need it is fit for purpose in Aotearoa?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I think is that if we improve the economy, we’ll then have the ability to provide a wider range of health services.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent announcements has the Government made about building and construction?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Among other things, we’ve recently announced the basis of a self-certification regime. The context is that we’re also looking to crack down on incompetent, careless, and unethical builders. But we know that in order to reform the building and construction sector to support more affordable homes and a stronger economy, we know that at the same time we need to provide more streamlined processes for those who are worthy of that trust.

Joseph Mooney: Why does the current system need reform?

Hon CHRIS PENK: It currently takes on average 569 days for a home to be built and consented. Amid a housing shortage that has persisted for some time, that is simply too long to wait. Currently, a single-storey home of standard dimensions might feature some 10 to 15 separate inspections. The resources of the building control system would be better spent mitigating more significant risk elsewhere.

Joseph Mooney: Who will be eligible to self-certify their own building work?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The scheme will undergo a robust consultation process, but there are two key pillars that will feature. The first is at the individual tradesperson level, such that plumbers and drainlayers will be able to self-certify their own work in the same way that electricians and gasfitters already currently can. The industry’s been calling for this for years. The second pillar is that businesses with a proven track record—which, I admit, we do need to define carefully—for example, homebuilders who build hundreds of similar homes every year, will be able to enjoy a more streamlined consent process.

Joseph Mooney: What feedback has he received on these proposals?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The feedback from the sector has largely been very positive. I do actually also want to acknowledge the constructive approach across the political aisle. We’ve enjoyed cautious support in principle, and I do want to acknowledge that, and also willingness to engage on the details, so we will be doing that. Within the sector, Greg Wallace of master plumbers has been advocating for self-certification for his members for four years. Ankit Sharma of master builders, the CEO, points out that this will enable his organisation’s members to build more affordably and efficiently. And Aidan Jury from Jennian Homes highlights the time factor as being critical to builds, including as to costs. So we’re determined to make these changes for the betterment of all Kiwi consumers.

SPEAKER: That’s—

Arena Williams: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Oh, one more.

Arena Williams: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. Ha, ha! You might have guessed, I’m in a hurry to leave.

Arena Williams: How many tens of thousands of builders need to lose their jobs before he announces that the building sector is in crisis, given today’s confirmation that 12,000 jobs are gone under his watch, but, according to him, things are fine?

Hon CHRIS PENK: I’ve never pretended that the situation we inherited from that side of the House when they were in Government was anything like fine. We did inherit a crisis. We are moving quickly to address that in a way that will reflect great safety, affordability, and sustainability of our housing.

General Debate

General Debate

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Every day, New Zealanders see more and more examples of this Government taking New Zealand backwards. Whether it’s our health system descending further into chaos, today’s news that unemployment is continuing to increase, race relations deteriorating to the worst point it has been in over 40 years, or record numbers of New Zealanders leaving the country, New Zealanders need no further proof that we have a Government with no vision and no hope for the future of this country. This is a Government constantly making bad choices and bad decisions that is leading New Zealand backwards.

When everyday working Kiwis look at this Government, they do not see a Government that reflects their hopes and aspirations. They see a Government content to run down our health system; cut investment in public service; put tens of thousands of New Zealanders out of work during a very tough part of the economic cycle so that they can, among other things, fund $2.9 billion worth of tax cuts for landlords; and give over $200 million in tax cuts to Philip Morris, the country’s largest supplier of cigarettes.

And they’re doing that to fund what? They’re funding $1.5 billion worth of cuts to State house spending—that includes building and maintenance. They’ve cut things like the upgrade of the Interislander—watch this space, though, for Nicola Willis to come back to the House and say that she got it wrong and that maybe, actually, the ferry deal that she said was so bad wasn’t such a bad deal after all. They cut spending on school and hospital upgrades up and down the country; they cut free prescriptions that were helping to keep people healthy and keep them out of emergency departments; and they increased costs to our younger New Zealanders who use public transport every day.

I think that some of the worst things they did were the cuts to the disability sector. I think picking on some of our most vulnerable Kiwis at a time of an economic crisis was particularly mean-spirited, and the way they defamed and degraded the carers of those people with disabilities was particularly reprehensible. Then we’ve seen cuts to the support services that our most vulnerable families rely on, funded by Oranga Tamariki. Many of those providers working—some of them with our most vulnerable families—didn’t find out they were having their funding cut until after the funding had already stopped. I think that’s a terrible way for the Government to operate and it shows absolute contempt for some of our most vulnerable children.

They’ve cut almost all positive action on climate change. At a time when New Zealanders need no further convincing that climate change is here and it’s real, this Government have wound back the clock and are burying their heads in the sand once again.

Then, when it comes to the cost of living, the only thing they can point to is a fall in inflation and a fall in interest rates, which is almost exclusively because of the actions of the Reserve Bank and nothing to do with this Government. But they’ve taken what could have been a soft economic landing for the economy and turned it into a crash landing and left some of the most vulnerable New Zealanders absolutely exposed to the sharpest edges of the recession.

It gets worse than that, because if you look at the areas of pain for households: increasing rates—the Government have made it worse. Increasing insurance—they have done nothing. Increasing rents—they have made that problem worse. The electricity market failure, despite all of the hot air from people like Shane Jones—absolutely no action has been taken on the fact that we have seen electricity prices skyrocketing.

As for their hollow rhetoric about the situation they inherited, let’s remember this Government has borrowed more money in this year’s Budget than in any of the Budgets that we delivered, except for one, which was in 2020 when we were at the height of the global pandemic.

Despite their tough-on-crime rhetoric, we haven’t seen any real solutions there. All we’ve seen is the promise of weaker firearms regulations, making it easier for gang members to get access to guns.

This is a Government making it harder for New Zealanders. They are making it harder for New Zealanders who go out and work every day for a living. It is a Government that is taking New Zealand backwards.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. When the Prime Minister visited Dunedin a fortnight ago, he clearly didn’t want to front up to residents. The Prime Minister was spotted sneaking in through the back door of the Dunedin Public Art Gallery to avoid Dunedin people. Today, there’s no back door for the PM to duck out of and it’s time to front up for some real answers on the issues that matter to our people here in the House.

I want to tautoko our southern leaders here who have turned up today because they have travelled up with “Cliff the Ambulance” to be heard by this Government. We hear you. This Government seems to want to close their ears, but we say to this Government: don’t park an ambulance named Cliff at the bottom of one; fulfil your promises to our people and stop letting people fall; and don’t patronise us with the false ideas of overblown costs and bluster. If you don’t invest in people’s health, the evidence shows us that the costs we will pay are multiple times that. What will it take for this Government to do the basics of putting the health of people first?

This demolition Government is well known for its shiftiness. Perhaps the PM thought that protesters and their message didn’t fit with the narrative he was trying to sell when he snuck into Ōtepoti. But here’s the thing: we in the South aren’t interested in another empty sales pitch from a Government that fails to deliver. The very least the people of the South deserve is to be told straight; we don’t like weasel words. If this Government is prioritising tax cuts for landlords and tax cuts for big tobacco over the health of people in the South, at least have the guts to tell us straight.

Today, “Cliff the Ambulance” arrived at Parliament and delivered a petition. Cliff has been travelling the length of the South Island with massive support throughout the South. So is the Prime Minister going to have the courage to face up to our deep South community here today about his broken promise?

When will this Government acknowledge the critical infrastructure deficit that they are creating? From refusing to fund hospitals in the regions to canning the Interislander ferry replacement, it doesn’t stop. We know this Government is wasting even more money by its mismanagement: $110,000 each and every day it refuses to take action on our southern hospital.

The Government has also announced two new tunnels for Wellington to make traffic and pollution worse. So how many more minutes will those new tunnels—costing somewhere between $3 billion or more—save us? About 10 minutes, we’re told. And how many lives will be lost if the Dunedin Hospital is reduced to a state where patients are left waiting in corridors, sterilisation of surgical equipment continues to be compromised, and floor space is cut back to a point where patients aren’t able to be moved between wards and theatres? How many lives lost if the facilities are not funded to deliver all the publicised cancer drugs? The accident victims and the stroke and heart attack victims are waiting in ambulances outside an inefficient and overcrowded hospital.

The piles are in the ground. They are waiting for an in-patients building, and yet this Government dithers and now claims that the delivery of the hospital is too costly. What is costly is every delay. Cutting one floor off the in-patients building will also mean cutting the psychogeriatric beds and, as Grey Power Otago president Jo Miller said, this is a hospital that services the whole of the southern region. As Aged Care Association chief executive Tracey Martin said, it’s the “stupidest idea” she’s heard.

The Government is happy to blow money on breaking a ferry contract—something like half a billion dollars with nothing in return, and there may be further costs. Now it’s refusing to get the southern hospital built. We won’t be played off against each other. We want to see the hospital built now. We want to see other health institutions being supported. We don’t see ourselves competing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It has been 12 months since this Government has been first elected and we have been very busy delivering on the core things that will make life better for New Zealanders: rebuilding our economy, restoring law and order, and delivering better public services.

As the Minister of Climate Change, I am responsible for delivering on our climate budgets and targets on behalf of the Government. But recently, I have become very concerned about the climate impacts of the amount of hot air coming from the other side of the House. I am proud to work with the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, and I am pleased to be working alongside her to ensure that we get more money into the back pockets of hard-working Kiwi families. We know high housing costs, we know high food costs, childcare costs are making it tough for families out there across New Zealand. That is why we as a Government are easing the cost of living impact for those families, which was a pre-election commitment.

Today, over 30,000 households have received their first payment under the FamilyBoost childcare payment scheme, with Inland Revenue estimating that, from 1 October 2024 to 1 October 2025, 100,000 families will be eligible. Recently, the Opposition spokesperson for finance, Barbara Edmonds, appears to have done a complete 180 on FamilyBoost. She’s now saying there aren’t enough families getting it. Of course, this completely contrasts to her vote on FamilyBoost, which legislated when she voted for zero families in this country to receive it.

I would like to express my gratitude and thanks to Barbara Edmonds and the Labour Party for bringing more air to FamilyBoost. Your efforts mean that more families can hear about the great things that this Government is doing to support them getting more money into their back pockets and to support them with childcare costs. And, of course, to those people at home watching this—who may have tuned in maybe to this instead of the US election—well, go to the IRD website and see if you are eligible to make a claim.

Moving on to energy. This year, our country has seen heightened risks in regards to energy security because of the reckless decisions made by that last Government. Electrifying New Zealand, the economy is a key part of our plan to improve energy security, grow our economy, and to ensure we reduce emissions to meet our climate change targets. Our goal is to double New Zealand’s renewable energy by 2050, as we want to see more clean energy that is abundant and affordable so households can heat their homes with energy coming from renewable sources, people can charge their electric vehicles across New Zealand, and businesses have the confidence to ensure that energy security will allow them to grow their operations.

Recently, we’ve listed 22 energy projects with a combined capacity of 3 gigawatts to be fast tracked under legislation. This will help to ensure clean, reliable energy that is affordable to supply New Zealanders, and that will increase generation capacity by nearly 30 percent.

I spoke earlier about the hot air coming from the other side, and there is plenty coming from the members at the moment, as you can hear about their opposition to fast track. My advice to those members who oppose that legislation is if you really want more renewable energy, you want it to be abundant and affordable, well, you need to get behind this bill and vote it and put your money where your mouth is.

In all seriousness, New Zealanders are struggling at the moment. They know it’s tough. They’re dealing with the hangover from hell from the last Government. The good news is this Government is getting this country back on track. We’re rebuilding our economy, restoring law and order, and delivering better public services. It is an absolute pleasure to be part of a Government who truly understands what New Zealanders want and need and knows how to deliver them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m just going to remind people that interjections are fine, but the House has been getting quite loud—although I must say, when a speaker is speaking at the top of their voice it is much more necessary to be loud over the top of them. Thank you.

LAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also want to thank the previous member, Simon Watts, for that great hype boy energy for my speech.

This week marks the start of the NCEA exams across the country. First off, I want to say a huge congratulations to all the students for reaching this point. It’s no small feat to get here, especially with exams as challenging as NCEA. All your hard work, late nights, and perseverance are about to pay off, and we’re all backing you.

I remember sitting my exams—gosh, it was called School Certificate, 25-odd years ago, I don’t want to show my age. I think it went on to sixth form certificate, and, correct me if I’m wrong, seventh form, which I think was bursary, which is now year 13. I actually enjoyed exam time. I enjoyed cramming everything in. We used to stay up late on Diet Coke, because we didn’t have the same amount of energy drinks that we have nowadays. But I knew that summer was just around the corner, like I could smell that beach vibe. Anyone from Canterbury would know that we were heading off to Kaiteriteri beach, most of us, to spend that time with our friends. Know that you are at the end of the line, you’re about to have summer, you can go off, you can enjoy that break with your relatives, with your friends, and not worry about your results until at least January.

Back to the present—let’s talk about NCEA itself. It’s fair to say that, while the system aims to assess a range of skills and knowledge, it isn’t perfect. Ideally, NCEA should empower students to chart their own paths, but many find it more challenging than supportive. I regularly hear from teachers struggling to adapt to curriculum changes, especially those introduced in 2020 without the support that they felt they needed.

One area that stands out is Digital Technologies NCEA level 1. I want to share an email I received from a teacher, regarding this new curriculum. The teacher, a Christian, expressed concern about being required to incorporate Māori spirituality into computer science topics, focused on usability heuristics—usability heuristics, I don’t even know what that is; I hope someone else knows what it is. While they appreciate New Zealand culture, they felt it was inappropriate to insert Māori principles into this specific subject area, especially as it crosses secular professional lines for them. Originally, teachers could choose to teach either computer interaction or they could teach mātauranga Māori—the Māori principles—but after receiving feedback, it was decided, without further consultation by the ministry, that both would now be mandatory. We’re hearing that teachers are struggling to deliver this. I ask: how does this curriculum equip our students for professional careers? How does it serve them if even the teachers feel unheard?

We’ve also seen a steady drop in NCEA achievement over the past six years. For instance, level 1 pass rates have declined from 75 percent in 2017 to just 61.7 percent in 2023. This brings up critical questions. Does NCEA allow students to show their strengths? Does it provide the skills for further studies or jobs in trades?

But there is some good news. This Government is focused on improving achievement. The Hon Erica Stanford has announced the “Make It Count” for high school kids, and also an intensive catch-up programme for years 7 and 8 in mathematics, preparing them for success in high school. I’m actually really excited for this because I have a child going into year 7 next year, and so this is really important. As a parent, we want to make sure that our kids do well and that they’re ready and prepared for year 9. Quite a few year 9 teachers are telling us that the kids are just not ready and prepared, especially with numeracy skills.

We know that low attendance is a significant issue. I’m proud of the Hon David Seymour and this Government for tackling to get kids back into the classroom. But we also need an education system that motivates students to want to show up, that engages them, and that offers them a reason to stay. Unfortunately, some students fall through the cracks, especially those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, where the challenges feel more like canyons. That’s just not acceptable.

That’s why the ACT Party is advocating for a more flexible education system that opens doors for everyone. We believe success shouldn’t hinge on a one-size-fits-all model. Whilst fixing our State schools is essential, we also have charter schools available. Now, I know charter schools have been misrepresented, so let’s just clarify: charter schools are publicly funded like traditional schools but they have the flexibility to innovate and meet students’ unique needs. They can focus on practical skills, smaller classes, and tailored teachers and learners. I’m really excited for those students who feel unseen and unsupported in the current system.

So, as you go off this week into your exams, remember that these exams don’t define you. They don’t measure your full potential or everything you’ve learnt; they’re just one step in your journey. Regardless of the outcome, they are pathways for you to achieve amazing things.

Hon MELISSA LEE (Minister for Economic Development): New Zealand’s small to medium sized enterprises are often called the backbone of our economy, and yesterday they would have felt this Government heard their voices. Yesterday, we announced some new rules for Government agencies. When I say that Government agency rules have actually changed, why would businesses celebrate? That is because these changes will make them pay their suppliers—meaning the businesses—faster, improving cash flow for businesses. And cash flow is the lifeblood, is the lifeline, for many, many companies who have been struggling under the previous Government. Having invoices paid on time can make a huge difference. It could mean the difference between them continuing with their business, or folding. Cash flow is king.

Government agencies should lead by example. That is why I’ve changed the Government procurement rules to put these requirements in place. From 1 January next year—2025—135 central Government agencies must pay 90 percent of invoices within 10 business days. This increases to 95 percent from the start of 2026. But wait for it: from 1 January 2026, agencies that send or receive more than 2,000 invoices—eInvoicing—will need to pay eInvoices within five working days. That will make a humungous difference to businesses.

Government procurement is worth $51.5 billion—not million; billion—every year, and that is nearly a fifth of New Zealand’s GDP. I want Government procurement to play a big part in growing our economy, making sure that we deliver for New Zealanders, who have been asking to get New Zealand back on track.

Hon Members: Back on track.

Hon MELISSA LEE: That’s right—getting New Zealand back on track. Right now, I’m reviewing the Government procurement rules so we can do just that: get New Zealand back on track. And you can watch this space for more announcements soon.

I’d like to now talk about the ethnic communities portfolio—because I’m very passionate about the ethnic communities, obviously. Because I also have the economic development portfolio, I am looking at the synergies that these two portfolios can actually produce. A couple of weeks ago, I hosted an Ethnic Xchange Symposium which was actually completely sold out. More than 300 businesses got together to discuss how they can contribute better. The reason why I actually mention that is that, in 2021, the ethnic communities contributed $64 billion to New Zealand’s economy, and our population—our ethnic communities’ population—is growing; they are numbering bigger. In Auckland, one-in-three Aucklanders comes from Asia. It is a huge diversity that we actually have.

I’d like to thank my ministerial colleagues Nicola Willis, David Seymour, and Judith Collins, who actually participated in the forum at the Ethnic Xchange Symposium. I’d also like to thank the trade Minister, the Hon Todd McClay—

Hon Simeon Brown: He’s in China right now.

Hon MELISSA LEE: —given global trade was one of the key themes that was actually discussed at the Ethnic Xchange Symposium. As my colleague says, he’s been travelling around the world, he’s been, you know, globetrotting, signing trade agreements left, right, and centre. I am particularly proud of what he actually did, securing with the Gulf region a high-quality trade deal for our exporters to make sure that they can contribute to New Zealand’s economy as well.

Diwali has been celebrated up and down the country. We held a Diwali celebration on Monday in Parliament. Yesterday, I was actually in central Wellington celebrating another Diwali event. I just want to say thanks to all of my colleagues, right across the House, who have attended Diwali celebrations. Isn’t it fantastic that most of us, in fact, own saris and salwar kameez and actually know how to say “shubh Diwali” as well, and that our ethnic cultures and celebrations are becoming part and parcel of New Zealand’s everyday life and we actually celebrate and honour our ethnic community celebrations, whether it’s New Year or a religious event—that we actually honour them and celebrate and they contribute hugely to New Zealand. On that occasion, I’d like to say shubh Diwali to all our Indian community.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am back here in the House once again in the general debate to speak to some very concerning developments in the children’s portfolio. This Government has got its priorities wrong. It is taking us backwards. They are treating our most vulnerable children and families wrong. Yesterday, we learnt that the Government is proposing, has made decisions, to introduce the use of force through third-party providers in their boot camps.

Now, this is a concern for a number of reasons. The only reason the Government has made this decision and is considering extending something which is only currently available to enforcement officers who are properly trained is because they are hell-bent on introducing and continuing to run their military-style academy boot camps. If those experiments did not exist, this decision, this dangerous decision, would not have to have been made, but they have decided that the boot camp is their answer to youth justice issues, and in order to be able to deliver their boot camps, they are extending the powers to use force on children to third-party providers who could be running their boot camps.

It is dangerous and it is concerning that the Prime Minister did not recall having any conversation about this matter, yet it was a Cabinet decision approved in June—and he chairs Cabinet. Then we have a Minister for Children absolutely defending this decision and the giving of this power to third parties, even though the advice from her officials is very clear that there is a risk that abuse could occur, that harm could be done to young people.

The Prime Minister yesterday said how important having safeguards would be. Well, if the Prime Minister had read the Cabinet paper and paid attention in the conversation and discussion they were having in Cabinet, the Prime Minister would know that the Minister for Children noted that there would be no safeguards in primary legislation and that because of the time frames, they would not be able to complete those in time for the introduction of the bill and that it would be relegated to regulations to be worked out after the introduction of this bill to the House.

Now, this is deeply concerning because we have a report from the royal commission of inquiry into the abuse in State care that finds very clearly that abuse was able to happen in boot camps and other care and protection facilities because of the lack of safeguards. How can this Government make a decision at Cabinet to extend the use of force to third parties without any safeguards—no safeguards in place, no safeguards in the primary legislation; to be worked out through a regulation process after the fact.

I will note that the regulatory impact statement says there have been constrained time frames. This is being rushed for political expediency, not what is in the best interests of children and young people. It concerns me that the Minister for Children did not consult the Chief Children’s Commissioner, the main advocate for our young people—did not even bother to consult, even when the Children’s Commissioner has made it very clear, on any policy to do with youth justice, she would like to be consulted. The Minister for Children is absolutely ignoring the chief advocate for our children.

I am deeply concerned this Government has got its priorities wrong and is taking us backwards.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Following my colleague Willow-Jean Prime, I’m glad we’re on the topic of boot camps because this has been a major focus of attention this week because of the document that I received from somebody who was so deeply concerned about what these boot camps are going to look like when they’re set up. That’s what I want to talk about today: I want to talk about some of the lines that the Minister for Children has talked about this week, justifying why the boot camp experiment that she’s trialling right now is any different to the boot camps of the past.

The Minister for Children was asked about this at question time yesterday and this was her response. She said: “The boot camps of the past I was referring to were around decades ago with untrained staff, no proper oversight, and in an isolated setting of appalling conditions.” Now, that might be true, but if you look at this document and the Cabinet minute around these boot camps being set up, you can see how the conditions that the Minister for Children talked about yesterday are very close to being met.

Let’s start with the first one: untrained staff. This Government is setting up a structure whereby third-party providers, whoever that is—that could literally be anybody; you could start a business or a company and be a third-party provider—are going to provide these boot camps. How are we supposed to know what level of training they’re going to get? Well, we don’t know that—at all. So, there: No. 1, untrained staff—check.

Next one: no proper oversight. There has been no safeguarding of the rights of children in this legislation. First, the Government has decided that they will allow for the use of force without even an afterthought around those safeguards. The Prime Minister got on TV and talked about the safeguarding in children’s rights—safeguarding is so important—yet I would ask him to name one single safeguard in that legislation. That’s because it wasn’t there, because there is no safeguarding, because they chose force first and then those safeguards are an afterthought. This was the exact thing that was highlighted in the royal commission inquiry into abuse in State care report, where it said that the conditions of abuse were created when there wasn’t sufficient oversight and safeguards for those children. There we go: second box—check.

The third thing that the Minister talked about is an isolated setting and that the boot camps of the past—the major example is the Te Whakapakari one that was on Great Barrier Island, which was an isolated setting. But the kids that are in that boot camp right now are also in an isolated setting because they’re not from Palmerston North, they’re from South Auckland. A majority of them are from South Auckland. They have been moved out of their communities and taken to the other side of the country where they’re expected to undergo this military boot camp.

The three conditions that the Minister uses to justify why her boot camps are any different from the ones of the past have all failed. What does that tell us? That the boot camps that are happening right now are no different to the ones that happened in the past. And what happened in the boot camps of the past? Well, at best, they failed. The boot camps that the John Key National Government started were a failure because a significant majority of those young people went on to reoffend later in life. At best they were a complete failure, but at worst you look at the 1970s boot camps that were on Great Barrier Island where children endured horrendous abuse at the hands of people who were supposed to be protecting them.

I don’t want to hear this nonsense that the boot camps now are any different to the boot camps of the past, because the public can see it for what it is. That’s what caused the flurry yesterday: that every little straw that the Minister tries to grasp at to say that these are different is slowly slipping away. That is why we are calling this Government to end their boot camp experiment. Put an end to it, because what we can clearly see is that the environments of abuse are being set up. The potential risks for abuse of children are being set up and are right in front of us.

That’s why yesterday we launched our petition calling on the Government to end their boot camp experiment. I invite anybody who shares this concern to sign our petition and join the voice of the people to tell this Government: stop experimenting with our tamariki; put their rights and their protection and their safety first. Kia ora.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): What’s the most important thing for our future?

Tim Costley: Getting us back on track.

KATIE NIMON: Absolutely, Tim Costley.

Suze Redmayne: Education.

KATIE NIMON: Education—thank you very much. I have 62 schools in my electorate and I always take the opportunity to say that the Napier electorate is not just Napier City; it goes all the way up to Gisborne. Some of the fine young children in schools like Matawai School and Waerenga-O-Kuri, Wairoa schools—we’ve got multiple of them. Those children all deserve a bright future. It does not matter where you go to school; it is what you are learning and it’s the opportunities you have. That is why I am so proud of what our Government is doing to streamline what kids are learning, to give them equal opportunity no matter where they go to school. The structured literacy and the structured numeracy approach that we are providing is something that is going to level the playing field, and boy, I am excited.

Now, I get out and about and I go and visit a lot of schools. Some of the schools that I’ve visited recently have told me that they’ve actually already been using structured literacy. They’ve already been using structured numeracy. Not only are they looking forward to the different providers that they can utilise and they are excited by that opportunity; they’re also really excited to see other schools get on board, because they have seen results. Some have been doing this for three years and seeing such remarkable growth in every single student. My niece is one of them—reading at three years above the age that she is, which is incredible. I just want to say that it’s not just what we are doing now; it is how we are going to make sure that every single school gets this, and I think it’s really important to draw the public’s attention to this.

While we had structured literacy and structured numeracy available to teach in schools, it was not mandated, it was not funded, and schools had to fund it out of their own operating budget. Schools had to make that decision as to whether they could afford that or do all the rest of the stuff that they needed to do, and not every school has that same opportunity.

Just last week I went up to two country schools, Kotemaori School, which is a fine school that has just had their two classrooms rebuilt by this Government after mould and dampness and holes in the ceiling that have prevented these kids from being able to go to school. They actually had to move to Putorino School, which I also went to visit. Both schools are thriving now that they’re back in their place, because, of course, their sense of place is really important to them. Those two communities are not the same, but both of these schools are very excited. One has already been doing structured numeracy for a while and one is about to start and they are learning from each other and they are doing such great things.

In one of these schools, there are 14 kids there and what I was so inspired by is the aspiration of these children. Now, this is a very interesting school demographic-wise—50:50 split, Fijian and Māori, and that is because of the country make-up of some farmers, some forestry, and the children and whānau that live there. Out of these 14 kids we had a future doctor, a future vet, a future police officer, two rugby players, we had a professional netballer—

Cameron Brewer: Future MP.

KATIE NIMON: —we had—oh, we had one. We had one kid that wanted to be a politician, actually, Cameron Brewer. These children believe that the sky was the limit for them and nothing was going to hold them back because of the Government and the education system and the Minister believing in them. The feedback I have got from the principals and the teachers of these schools is that they are so happy with the direction the Government is going in, the scaffolding that is being provided for them to be able to deliver what it is that they are there to do.

I just want to say, country and urban schools, no matter where you are, the opportunities are the same. Single cell or open plan: an example between Onekawa School and between Port Ahuriri School—two different schools, very different styles, equal opportunity. In fact, actually, the changes that were made by the last Government to make Port Ahuriri an open plan school, the school is working to try and bring some flexibility back into the way that they divide their classrooms up, because they want to own that.

Look, I’m really excited about how they’re taking the lead. One thing that I thought was really brilliant was some feedback that I got from these schools that those that are already out there using structured literacy—and not necessarily all of the same programmes that we’re providing, because there are four. Let me tell you, maths, no problem—Prime, Numicon, and the Oxford University Press are great options for different ways of providing that information for children.

These schools are supporting each other and that is what is so fantastic to see. Those that have been out there and trialled different types, whether it’s Prime, whether it’s Numicon, they’re able to provide that context to each other and say, “These ones are fantastic.” or “This is really good if you’ve got children with this learning style.” or “If you’ve already been learning this or teaching this way, this one’s going to be very good for you.” To principals and schools out in New Zealand at the moment: if you haven’t made your order for your structured numeracy workbooks, now is the time, and if you want to get out there and ask your comrades, your counterparts, your friends what they’re doing, please do that now. Thank you.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to talk about something that’s actually quite sad, and it’s the Treaty principles bill. I want to speak particularly to the National Party, who actually have a long and honourable tradition in upholding the principles of Te Tiriti and making really good progress. I think to the work that Jim Bolger and Doug Graham did, and I think to the work that Christopher Finlayson did, and I think how sad it must be for them to see the National Party undermining decades—and, in fact, hundreds of years—of work in mending Treaty breaches. The Treaty of Waitangi is our founding constitutional document. The National Party is standing by while one of its coalition partners brings a wrecking ball to that relationship—sends it back 100 years or more. As we see the bill introduced tomorrow, snuck in while many will be distracted by international events, snuck in so that the hīkoi so carefully planned won’t be there when it’s introduced, it undermines our very democratic process.

I have heard David Seymour criticising again the Waitangi Tribunal, which is doing a fantastic job. What they say hits home, it’s accurate, and I can imagine it’s hard to hear, because they’ve said, for example, just yesterday, the Crown, in bringing this bill to this House, has breached the principle of good government in its pursuit of a policy that’s not evidence-based, has not been adequately tested, has not been consulted upon, and fails regulatory standards. That’s not even talking about the harm and the violence that it’s doing to our constitution. The Waitangi Tribunal went on to say, “This bill proposes to destroy all of the promises and guarantees that the Crown gave to Māori in 1840 or suspend them for the lifetime of this bill, if enacted. It’s not surprising”—they said—“that Māori people are angry.”

I’m angry too, because I’m a partner to that contract. That party is standing by whilst its principles are utterly undermined. The suggestion that it’s some kind of trivial contract that can be revisited at a whim is wrong. It’s a partnership. It was a solemn partnership, a sacred partnership that two people entered into, and one of those people, the Crown, promised to protect and promote the rights of Māori and they didn’t. What we need to do now is to honour that promise and to recognise that since 1840 we have worked on what that relationship is and what that Treaty means. Out of that has come some scholarship, some thinking, some philosophy, and some principles, and one of those is the duty to protect. This Government is doing the opposite. It is actively harming, not only with this bill but we’ve heard about boot camps, we’ve heard about Oranga Tamariki, and much, much more.

Hon Rachel Brooking: The environment.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The environment—the Resource Management Act being gutted; not consulting iwi partners on what we do with our environment.

To suggest that the Treaty is frozen in time, that it’s not a living document that develops, that we can build upon, that like any document of treaty between two people evolved with that relationship, is an absolute flaw. Probably the real flaw is that in some way the Treaty means unequal treatment. There has been unequal treatment for 180 years. What we need is to address that, and in addressing that, we need to recognise the rights of Māori, both at customary law, which is being gutted by the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, but also under the Treaty. My National Party colleagues, you don’t even believe the bill that you’re putting before the House—your Prime Minister has said that. Why can’t you stand up, make a choice for New Zealand that isn’t harmful to our relationships, that takes us forwards, not backwards. Do what’s right. Do what’s good.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): This Government is working hard to get the New Zealand economy back on track. Families across New Zealand are benefiting from tax relief, falling interest rates, and childcare tax rebates thanks to our FamilyBoost policy. I would also like to recognise the significant effort that our trade team, led by the Hon Minister Todd McClay, have been delivering for New Zealanders, internationally. That means demand for the best of our exports, including high-quality beef and lamb, dairy products, kiwifruit, apples, etc. With one in four Kiwi jobs tied to trade, signing international trade agreements, including with the EU, the United Arab Emirates, and the six nations Gulf Cooperation Council, GCC, means more opportunities and more money in the back pockets of hard-working New Zealanders. But we believe that there is more to do.

Yesterday was a great day for all New Zealanders, especially all the musicians and music lovers. Yesterday, I was thrilled to launch my member’s bill to guarantee major stadiums—those actually capable of holding at least 25,000 fans, including Eden Park—the ability to hold at least 15 concerts per year. To my colleagues across the House, I would use this opportunity to ask for your support of this bill. Hosting more concerts will make a massive contribution to our economic growth by increasing consumer spending. It also makes a massive difference to other key industries, including tourism and hospitality. This creates more job opportunities and drives us closer to get our country back on track.

Let me give you some examples. Pink’s recent concert in Dunedin alone—37,000 fans generated $16 million for the Dunedin economy, and she played smash hits like “Just Like a Pill”, “Raise Your Glass”, “Try”, and, you know, one of my favourites during my university time, “Get the Party Started”. But, unfortunately, not every single time we have a love story with a good ending. Early this year, New Zealand missed out on Taylor Swift—who I’ve been told by my staff also goes by the name “Tay Tay”—for one reason: the resource consent for Eden Park is only limited to six concerts per year. Missing out on Tay Tay was a lay lay for our economies and the estimated $70 million of economic activities we lost, and it’s time for us to “Shake it Off”, the red tail.

Beside the economic benefits, local musicians and bands benefit directly from live performance. They gain exposure and experience, build their fan base and earn income. Last week, we had some major events in Eden Park and I have chatted to a few Uber drivers. They are telling me that whenever there is a concert in Eden Park, their business is doing well; they get more rides. That has made a huge difference for some of our hard-working people in Auckland, and New Zealanders. I also to want to spend some time to acknowledge all the Uber drivers, many of whom call New Zealand home. My bill will mean more international artists coming both to New Zealand but also to a stadium near you and your electorate. In Auckland, this means Eden Park and Mt Smart; in Wellington, it means Sky Stadium; in Christchurch, it means One New Zealand Stadium; and in Dunedin, it means Forsyth Barr Stadium. This is why I’m asking for the support of this House to fast track more artists to the major stadiums near you, because it brings economic benefit to your own electorate; because nothing says we are back on track like Taylor Swift dropping some tracks.

The people of New Zealand deserve more. We deserve more international artists playing in New Zealand. We deserve the economic revenues and, most of all, we deserve the memories. The memories are priceless. I’m looking forward to bringing my daughter to more concerts and sharing more moments with her. Thank you.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): What I just heard was the title of an album: Blank Space by Taylor Swift herself. And that’s all I heard, blank space. Well, well, well—well, well, well—we have a Government that is fearful. We have a Government that is afraid as our people activate and consolidate and unite as we prepare for the biggest hīkoi that this country will ever see—bigger than any other hīkoi in history. This is what this Government is fearful of. They are fearful of that.

I want to go back to a National MP—and a Māori MP at that—Sir Apirana Ngata. He talked about the price of citizenship—he talked about the price of citizenship—and that Māori participation in the great wars—in the great wars—would earn the respect of Pākehā. I want to mention an interview with the last surviving member of the Māori Battalion, Sir Bom Gillies. He said, “had I known as much as I know now, I would have stayed home.” Moana Maniapoto, the interviewer, said, “Is that because of what [you] went … [through] over there?” Tā Bom Gillies said, “No, not only that, it’s the way they keep treating us. We lost those fellas for nothing. We’re no better off. We’re still fighting for a place in our own country.” This is the situation we have right now with the Treaty principles bill.

E te iwi, we have marched for our reo, we have marched for our whenua, we have marched for our moana, and now you have made us march for our very existence. How long do our people have to march for? How many more marches will it take? How many more tangata whenua, tangata Tiriti, and tangata moana need to rise up to make sure we have the Aotearoa our mokopuna deserve to inherit. I’m telling you now, we are rising like a good rēwana bread. I know the heat is too much for you, but the more heat you put on a rēwana bread, the more it rises.

For every 100-day plan this Government makes, they forget we are people with hundreds of years of resistance and we will rise. If history has taught this Government anything, it’s that colonisation has never broken us and we have never backed down from a fight. To our people: this Toitū Te Tiriti movement is tīpuna-inspired, Tiriti-led, mana motuhake - driven, and mokopuna-focused. We are a movement that does not bend the knee to any colonial sovereign—never have; never will. Our kaupapa is bigger than us. Ka haere tonu te mahi, ka haere tonu te hīkoi mō te Tiriti. [The work will continue, the march for the Treaty will continue.]

We need you. We need all of you to hīkoi. This isn’t just our fight, this fight belongs to all of us. It is a fight for the Aotearoa our mokopuna deserves to inherit—all of our mokopuna. Our memoir to our tamariki mokopuna: we will continue the fight. Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed by our tīpuna. Te Tiriti holds our rights as tangata whenua—it’s nobody else’s right to debate. Our tīpuna marched long before us. We are fighting for you to one day not have a fight for your existence on your whenua that you walk on. You are good enough, because our tīpuna made it so.

Ignorance is the oppressor; vigilance is the liberator. Know the scent of your enemy, know the scent of your vision, so that you may achieve liberation. Ka whawhai tonu mātou āke, āke, āke. Ka whawhai tonu mātou āke, āke, āke. [We will fight on for ever and ever. We will fight on for ever and ever.]

We don’t have the luxury of fighting on one front. We have to fight on all fronts. This hīkoi wasn’t built on one catalyst event like the Treaty principles bill; it is a whole lot of events and violent offences that this Government continues to inflict on to iwi Māori, and we will not stand for it. E te iwi, we will continue to prepare ourselves, and this House needs to prepare itself as our people organise, as our people unite, as our people prepare to march on these streets of Wellington and to the doorstep of the very House that continues to inflict violence. If this is the price of citizenship, you should hang your heads in shame. Toitū Te Tiriti.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. Now, talking of hīkoi and marches—and a 35,000-person one in Dunedin: build it once, build it right, build it now. That is what the people of Dunedin have been saying over and over and over again, and the “it” I’m referring to is, of course, the Dunedin Hospital—the tertiary hospital for the regions of Otago and Southland.

Now, I want to acknowledge that there are a lot of members of different councils—there have been mayors who made a petition to Parliament today and they were outside saying, “Build it once, build it right, build it now.” The nurses’ union presented me with a petition of 34,000 signatures. The person who’s organised this petition is Linda Smillie and she’s a strong advocate for the building of this new hospital in Dunedin. There’s four components to that that I want to talk about—this “it” and the “Build it once, build it right, build it now”—that it’s an in-patient building, that it’s a tertiary hospital, that it’s a teaching hospital, and that there’s a number of beds and theatres that were promised by National during the election campaign. I’m going to step through those issues.

Before I do, as I’ve noted, we had mayors and councillors out the front today on the steps of Parliament, and those mayors were from a range of councils. We had Dunedin, Invercargill, and Waitaki, and we had many councillors from the Dunedin City Council. During the election campaign there was a lot of talk of localism and the importance of councils and that local voice. This is a great demonstration of local voice in action, because many of those councillors—and some of them are here and I’m sure they won’t mind me saying—don’t always agree with each other and they will vote for very different political parties. But, on this matter, they are aligned and in full agreement about building this new hospital—this tertiary hospital, this in-patient hospital, this teaching hospital.

Now, the first issue I want to talk about is that it’s the in-patient building. I have here a photo—I was recently in the mayor’s office and he has a similar view; I think this was probably taken from the next door Otago Daily Times building—and you can see the out-patients building here. This is a new building. It’s not open yet; it’s under construction. You can see there, very clearly, a very large building that has had a lot of construction work on it. The old hospital is just behind it—you can’t see it. There’s some university buildings around here and over here. But here, Madam Speaker, you’ll see there’s a large piece of land and it’s got piles on it, and this is ready for the in-patients building that, of course, will work together with the out-patients building. You’ll see this is a big piece of flat land in the middle of the city. That land has been acquired. The consents are there for the in-patients building. The land has been remediated, it has been strengthened, and there are piles in the ground ready for the building. But, instead, we’ve got estimates that about $10 million a quarter is being wasted while this project is suddenly paused—despite all election promises, it’s paused.

It needs to be a tertiary hospital. That is, it does all the tricky stuff for people throughout Otago and Southland. It needs to be a teaching hospital. We have a wonderful university, the University of Otago, that teaches not only doctors—and it can teach more doctors, that’s an easy thing for it to do, much cheaper than Waikato—it teaches nurses, it teaches physios, it teaches dentists. And they use this hospital as well as using the units in Wellington and Christchurch. We had the National Party campaign on delivering this hospital but now they’ve come and said, “Oh, maybe we’ll go back into the old building”—that is leaky. When we have floods, it leaks. All that is happening is this Government is taking us backwards. They need to build it once, right, and now.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 7 to 10, “Amendments to Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Point of order. I hope I’m getting the language right. I move that the bill be taken as one part.

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

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m about to experience what it’s like to be on this side of the microphone; on this side of the bench. Let me begin by acknowledging everybody at home. Talofa lava, kia orana koutou katoatoa, tēnā koutou katoa. I know that this has been a journey for the community—an important journey—a journey of which my part in that journey has been a small part and this Parliament has been a small part of that journey as well, but none the less a significant part as well.

Let me also acknowledge the former members of Parliament of Samoan descent who have come out to support. I note that Anae Arthur Anae is with us once again, and may I extend a kia orana and a talofa to him as well. Also noting we’ve had the Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban with us at the last time, Terisa Ngobi, and Aupito William Sio as well. So being the Samoan-adjacent Pacific Islander supporting my Samoan aiga, it has been incredibly humbling and a privilege to support those communities.

In the second reading, we had unanimous support for the bill. For me, that points to an acknowledgment from the House that we are dealing with a legacy issue; that this is a legacy issue that we are dealing with, an acknowledgment from the House that this is a wrong that we want to right. For many years, the Samoan community have been trying to push this Parliament to do the right thing. I want to put on record my thanks to all of the parties who have gotten us this far—and noting this is as far as we’ve ever got as a Parliament to getting some form of restitution; some form of restoration for our Samoan aiga. The emotion was palpable amongst many of the speeches, and I want to acknowledge that.

I also want to acknowledge that, of course, with the communities, they want us to go further. Just to clarify for the communities that are listening: there are a couple of stages that we go through. There’s the first reading; the select committee process, and so grateful of the large number of submissions from both here and in Samoa and abroad that brought their concerns to the select committee; and then we had the second reading, which received unanimous support; and now we are at the committee of the whole House.

In the Governance and Administration Committee, we didn’t agree on everything, but we did agree to locks and braces and belts on the legislation—I think that’s the language that was used—to move the legislation forward as well. I do have a couple of Amendment Papers on the Table just to highlight—and just to test, actually—to see if there has been movement for different political parties.

I note and acknowledge, first of all, as a first-term MP that put this bill into the biscuit tin, I was unaware of the complexities of what that might mean as well—but more aware as a second-term backbench MP in the Opposition—that it requires a conversation across the House and a conversation for those who, if I could put it this way, are closer to the levers of Government, in order for us to actually get some movement. There are opportunities before us in order to actually see if we can go further.

I also note within the select committee, there were many, many, many perspectives; many other issues which are actually outside of the scope of the bill that the community brought up as well. I think it would be interesting for the community for us to touch on that—but, of course, I will defer to Mr Chair to make sure that the committee doesn’t wander off the garden path and get lost in the taro patch. I think, in the wider context of what we are trying to achieve, it’s important to touch on some of that.

For example, clarity on how this might impact access to superannuation. Those were some of the concerns and issues that were brought to the select committee. Frustrations—absolute frustration—with the visa conditions, with the quota system, with the visa system, and with the visa-processing times was also expressed as well. I recall one submitter who talked about how he fell into the cohort that we have identified within this current form of the bill. He lives in America, and he had to travel through New Zealand in order to get home to Samoa, and he’s got to jump through all these visa hoops as well—which is, of course, I feel, unacceptable.

That stuff falls out of the scope of the bill, but I think if the opportunities that we are presenting that I’m bringing back from the select committee don’t have enough support around the committee of the whole House, there are other opportunities. I would encourage parties to look at that—particularly Government parties—to think about what we can do to make that legacy more meaningful, what we can do to make that legacy impactful and important. As has been expressed to me on a number of occasions, members’ bills are limited; Government bills are more expansive, but also because of that, it does require us to have a conversation as well.

My Amendment Papers that I have on the Table, one of them is around the discussion that we had around access to fees. I note that usually with this type of bill, you wouldn’t actually specify application fees within primary legislation. The point—and I expect that other members, particularly those who were in the select committee, will possibly articulate a view—is that one of the reasons why it ended up there was that it could delay the commencement date. I note that justice delayed is justice denied, and the original cohort that we are trying to support here are not getting any younger. That’s important to note.

However, I reflect on the convincing arguments of Lemauga Lydia Sosene—she actually swayed me. She did, I think, some really powerful convincing around certain issues with that type of approach. If I can summarise that—and others will, I expect, do possibly a better job—it’s that if you have been denied citizenship; if you had something taken away from you, why should you have to pay for it? Why should you have to pay for it as well? I get the balance on the other side of that—that operations cost money, delaying of the commencement date, and so on and so forth—but, on the balance of that, I sided with Lemauga Lydia Sosene and that’s what one of the Amendment Papers features as well.

One of the other very strong submissions that featured in a number of submissions was around widening the scope to direct descendants, particularly those born before 1962. This was a very strong view that was expressed, so I have another Amendment Paper to that effect on the Table. It’d be interesting to canvas different perspectives from different political parties as well. As I said, there are some opportunities which could exist outside the scope of this bill, but before us we have a couple of opportunities within the scope of the bill that I’m hoping that we can explore today.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call. I may need to take two calls on this bill because I do have some questions for the member in charge, relating to his amendments, and they’re two separate pieces of the legislation and two separate clauses to talk through. I just do want to talk through the amendments that are on the Table and ask some questions of the member. I’ll start with Amendment Paper 139 in the name of Teanau Tuiono, the member in charge of the bill, which specifically amends clause 10. Now, can I just note on the record that the Labour Party will be supporting this amendment in the committee today, and so I thank the member for putting forward this amendment.

During the select committee process, we heard from members of the community who wanted to see the scope of the bill in terms of whom it applied to extended, so that, essentially, the first group of descendants who were born before 1962 would be covered. Now, members who were part of the select committee process would note that there were also submissions made wanting to extend it further. During the select committee process, Labour and the Greens both voted in favour of legislation that would have allowed for that first group of descendants who were born before 1 January 1962 to be eligible. I just note that what the member’s Amendment Paper does is it adds a new—well, there’s already a new section 7A in clause 10, and it replaces subsection (1) so that it clearly refers back to the original Act that we are amending to include another section in there which would apply to people born before 1 January 1962.

I’ve got two questions for the member about this, and it’s my hope, in listening to arguments in the committee of the whole House, that perhaps at least one other political party will consider supporting this. I’m interested to know if the member is aware of how many people this may affect, and, secondly, why he has specifically put in place that date of 1 January 1962 and why not later dates. I’m interested to hear from the member on that.

Now, the slightly more complicated matter is two amendments that we have on the Table that are related to fees that, essentially, lead to those who are successful not having to pay a fee, but using different mechanisms. Just to again note on the record—looking at Amendment Paper 140—that the Labour Party will be supporting this amendment. We heard very clearly from members of the community that given citizenship had been taken away from them, they felt a huge amount of hurt about that and, for some, a significant amount of trauma. They felt very clearly that one of the ways the Government can honour that is by not requiring a fee to be paid, and it’s a small fee—it’s not a huge impact on Government revenue at all—but, symbolically, it would say to these people, “Yes, we acknowledge that the decisions made back in 1982 have caused you harm and we don’t expect you to have to pay a fee in order to apply for citizenship by grant.”

I note that the member from New Zealand First Andy Foster has an amendment on the Table that would achieve the same outcome, but my reluctance on this matter is that people would still have to put up the cost up front—they’d still have to come forward with the cash in order to apply. It would require the fee to be fully refunded if the application were successful. The Labour Party’s position is that we support Teanau Tuiono’s amendment and we are happy to have continued discussions around the amendment proposed by Andy Foster.

I do note that, regardless of what is in the bill, Cabinet always has the opportunity through regulations to put fees in place. One of the things that we noted during the select committee process was that, to start with, there will be quite a number we expect to apply immediately who should be eligible and should be successful, and during that time frame, having no fee would be fantastic. At some point in the future, Cabinet makes regulations around all fees for the cost of applying for citizenship, so it wouldn’t rule Cabinet out in the future saying, “Right, you’ve had your window to apply with no fee. Now it will become standardised, like any other application.”, after three or six months, or something of that nature, and, yes, just like any other application, there’d be a fee. That was, essentially, what we were trying to achieve through the select committee process.

I’m interested to explore some of these conversations throughout the committee of the whole House stage. I thank the member for his work so far on the bill and also his amendments put forward today.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted, before speaking about the Amendment Paper which I’ve got on the Table, to talk a little bit about the context of it, because that’s really, really important, and just first of all say congratulations to Teanau Tuiono for getting the bill through the process. It’s not just getting it drawn, but getting it through the process. It’s been a much more complicated bill than I think any of us anticipated. I also acknowledge Rachel Boyack for chairing us, and all of my colleagues on the Governance and Administration Committee. I think it was a very, very collegial process, and I thought we worked really, really well together to try and nut out these issues.

I also want to place on record my thanks to all the submitters—25,000 people. If you think this was a sizeable issue for our Samoan community, you betcha it was. It’s a very big issue because people felt about these issues very, very deeply, and that’s why it’s important to reflect a little bit on that background.

I just wanted to reflect on why we’re here. Why we’re here is that New Zealand held Samoa—or Western Samoa, originally, as it was—as a protectorate under the League of Nations after the German occupation was removed, essentially, during the First World War, and, essentially, New Zealand held a role of looking after Samoa for good or bad—and often, sadly, it wasn’t done well—right the way through until Samoan independence in 1961. There was a change in 1948 with the adoption of the New Zealand Citizenship Act, when, effectively, New Zealanders became New Zealand citizens, not British citizens, and that’s a key point in time.

In 1982, obviously, we had a backdrop there of Samoans in particular—Pacific Islanders generally, but Samoans in particular—being targeted by the New Zealand Government. We had all the issues around the Dawn Raids and so on, and so there’s not a great history there. We had the situation where Falema‘i Lesa was told, “You’re an overstayer.”, and she took that all the way to the Privy Council, saying, “Actually, no, I’m not. How can I be an overstayer, because I was born in Western Samoa”—as it was known then—“during that period of time, 1924 through to 1948, when we were British citizens. Therefore, if we were British citizens and New Zealand was looking after it, we were New Zealand citizens.” The Privy Council actually overrode all the New Zealand courts and said, “Actually, we agree.”, and then, of course, what happened was that the New Zealand Government—and it was the Muldoon Government, but it was also supported by the other parties who were then in Parliament; so both Labour and Social Credit—said, “No, we’re going to overrule that.”

Parliament is sovereign, and so it had the right to do that, but it has left a longstanding grievance from the Samoan community. That is what this bill is about and is addressing, and that’s why it’s really, really important that we do that.

Now, to my amendment, my amendment is, basically, saying that at the moment, you have to apply—and we had a long discussion, as a select committee—for citizenship. It doesn’t just get granted, so you’ve got to apply and you’ve got to pay a fee. It’s a lower fee than if you started the process from scratch and you were applying from anywhere in the world, because, basically, it’s about confirmation of citizenship, not an application for it, but we still have a lot of people saying to us, “Hey, that’s not fair because these people already had citizenship.”

The Privy Council said they were entitled to citizenship and the Government of New Zealand of the day, in 1982, took that away, and so there’s a feeling of injustice. I’ve heard the argument of whether this sets up a precedent for anyone else. Well, I don’t think that the Government of New Zealand has done this in any other place at any other time to a whole nation, effectively, so I don’t think it’s going to cause a precedent in that way. Also, we’re talking about people who are between 76 and 100 years old—76 and 100 years old—so I don’t think it’s going to cause a precedent there.

There is another thing that I should say about immigration, and Teanau Tuiono has got the Amendment Paper on the Table saying, “Well, let’s just waive all the fees altogether.” We had very, very strong advice from Immigration New Zealand, the Department of Internal Affairs, etc., saying, “Please don’t do that, because what we know will happen is that people will have a go, and you could end up with thousands and thousands and thousands of people having a go. That will put a significant burden on the administration system.” And also, what it would mean is that there are other people who are legitimately applying for citizenship or residency from around the world who will get clogged up in the process and that would disadvantage them—not a good idea.

What my Amendment Paper says is that you pay the fee, but when you’re successful—and it can only be those 3,500-odd people who are aged 76 to 100, who were born between 1924 and 1948, who are the only ones who would be able to be successful. If they are successful, then they will be entitled—not a judgment, but entitled—to having that fee being refunded. That, effectively, is a way of saying that we understand that you were citizens because the Privy Council ruled that you were citizens. We understand the longstanding grievance that is here. We are not going to penalise you for that, and we are going to give you the money back.

Look, if I might just finish off with a couple of other things, which I think were outside of the scope, but we did touch on them—and, Teanau, you’ve mentioned this. One was a very, very strong aspiration that people from Samoa are able to come and go more easily for family reasons, for special events, and all those kind of things. While it’s outside the scope of the bill, we have said to the executive in the report from the select committee, “Please can you consider the visa situation, because there is no Pacific country which is visa-free. There are lots of other countries, and most of them are in Europe or South America or North America or Asia, but there are none in the Pacific. Can you have a think about that and whether that’s a good thing to do?”, and that was passed through the select committee.

The other thing which I specifically wanted to focus on, because it has come up from a number of sources, is the issue of superannuation. Of course, to gain New Zealand Superannuation, merely being a citizen is not enough. There’s a sliding scale there, depending on how old you are, but for people who were born before 1959, you have to have been in New Zealand for 10 years. Obviously, that’s something which the member might want to consider in this context, but that is not something that is for now, and that is not something that is within the scope of the bill. So I would like to commend my amendment to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Firstly, congratulations to the member again—24,500 submitters really reiterates how well the community turned out, made their views clear on this piece of legislation. We sat and spoke in this House just two weeks ago in what was an emotive but also a really moving opportunity for the House to give perspectives on the submissions that we had heard through the select committee process.

You heard during that time how the National Party at the first reading didn’t support the legislation, for a couple of key reasons, but then, through the select committee process, myself and my colleagues Cameron Brewer and Tim Costley were able to work with the other members of the Governance and Administration Committee to refine the bill to a place that we thought as a political party we could support it, hence why you saw us at the second reading change our position on the legislation and vote in support of it, to bring it to broad cross-party support from every political party in the House.

One of the key reasons why we as the National Party voted in support of it at the second reading was because we had got a change in the first place during the select committee phase around rather than a repealing piece of legislation, it was an amendment to the number one legislation of the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982. For us, that was a big deal because it focused on what the implications would have been for the Treaty of Friendship, and what that would have meant for New Zealand’s relationship with Samoa, and whether repealing the full legislation would have actually breached that Treaty of Friendship and what the implications of that may have been.

The other component that we in particular were pleased to secure on the select committee stage as well was around refining and defining who were eligible through this piece of legislation. Getting it to that cohort of 1924 to 1948-49 and roughly around 3,500 people was really important to us, as a political party, to support the legislation.

I note that the member himself and members of the Labour Party as well have said that they will be supporting the Amendment Paper that’s on the Table at the moment, around broadening the scope of the legislation so that descendants are included as well. We here in the National Party won’t be supporting that Amendment Paper because we made it pretty clear through the select committee process that we needed to get the bill refined to a place that we could support it, and it was that initial original cohort and not the descendants of them, for a variety of different reasons.

One of the other Amendment Papers also put up by the member in charge, Teanau Tuiono, particularly focuses on around the fee for application. As my colleague Andy Foster from New Zealand First stated, the advice we received from officials during the select committee process was clear: “Please don’t do this. Please don’t do it because of the burden it will put on those processing the applications as soon as the legislation is enabled and passed. But also, please don’t do it because you just think that it’s at the power of the executive to decide or through regulations to decide what the fee should be.”, because what that may have done is created this no man’s land between the legislation passing and no fee being set. You may have a cohort who had applied and got it for free. And then three, six, twelve months down the track, you had people then having to pay for their application. It created an in-between phase, a no-man’s land, which would have been, I think, detrimental to the impact of what this bill is actually trying to legislate and change.

We won’t be supporting the amendment in the name of Teanau Tuiono around removing the fee for application, but we have considered the Amendment Paper put up by my colleague Andy Foster around clarifying that the fee may be refunded if their application is approved. We’ve considered it long and hard. I look at my colleagues Tim Costley and Cameron Brewer and our wider team here on the National Party. We’ve considered that and we think that is a pretty reasonable place to hit. We think that’s a pretty reasonable place to stand on this.

We will be supporting that Amendment Paper on the Table, just to make it clear to our colleagues across the House. We won’t be supporting the two in the member’s name, but we will be supporting Andy Foster’s around refunding the application fee to those that are successful in applying for and receiving citizenships through the Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Bill.

I do have a number of other points I’d like to talk to. I want to talk to those, but I’m happy to allow my colleagues to go first. I will be seeking the call, so if you’re happy to be gracious and to give it to me like you have to other colleagues, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Tom Rutherford.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Hon Member: Mr Chair.

TOM RUTHERFORD: No, he’s giving me the call. Thank you. The couple of points in particular that were also really important were around the changing of the title for the legislation. We had many considerations that we talked about through that, and we’ll have title and commencement come up further down the track, but it was particularly important to make sure that the title was reflective of what the legislation was aiming to achieve. We made some amendments through the select committee stage, and I’ll talk about that a little bit later on as we go through.

I did think it was really important that we were very, very specific, and you’ll see it in the report back from the select committee, so that if this were to be brought before the courts in the future, you could see what was quite clearly defined around who was eligible through the legislation and who wasn’t. We needed to be really clear who the applications through the citizenship were applying to, because if the wording wasn’t specific through the legislation, then I suspect there would have been a myriad of future court cases that would have been dealing with this legislation. I don’t think that really would have served in anyone’s interest.

I just want to acknowledge why we have been very, very specific through the select committee stage to make sure the legislation is fit for purpose and intending to receive and focus on those that we think deserve it. It is that initial cohort from 13 May 1924 to 1 January 1949. As rightly pointed out by a number of colleagues already, those people could be up to 100 years old, and so there are, unfortunately, sadly, many who have probably passed on. There are many families, and we talked about many grandchildren, who are watching this be passed to see what it would have meant for their whānau and for their elders. Even though it’s not applicable to them now, because they’ve passed, it’s actually really important that the legislation still gets across the line.

We’re really supportive of it now for that initial cohort of 3,500, but we won’t be supporting to broaden it because we just think we’ll be opening up a lot more ramifications around the descendants’ aspects and talking about what superannuation looks like, as my colleague Mr Foster talked about too. Around what that may be for around—we’ve got specific criteria ready to be eligible for superannuation, and then if you start to blur the lines a little bit, where do you draw the line for other people who may be relevant to receive it too?

I just want to finish on a couple of key points. Let’s not forget the relative importance of the Treaty of Friendship. Let’s not forget how vital that has been throughout this process—the real relationship that New Zealand holds with Samoa, and the relationship we’ve held through the select committee process. We heard from the former Prime Minister of Samoa during the select committee process, and we heard from the Samoan Government. Though they didn’t necessarily want to present to the select committee, we knew what they were trying to say to us through the select committee process around what this bill may have meant for the Samoan community.

I think it’s important in the sense that we have found a really good balance with this bill. We’ve found a really good balance in the sense that we’ve refined it to the 3,500. We’ve kept it down not through to the descendants, and the National Party will only be supporting it if the legislation fits in that mould. I just want to put that to the member in the chair. I do have a question I would like to ask as well around the advice that the select committee received to the member around the application fee, and whether the advice was either in favour or against it, and what the advice had to say about it. I’d welcome the member to respond.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair, for this opportunity. I would also like to start by congratulating the member in charge of the bill, Teanau Tuiono. It’s actually quite exciting to have a member’s bill come to this stage, and a very special member’s bill, I would say, because this bill is going to make a difference not only in the lives of people, those who will get citizenship through this bill, but the families and friends and the entire Samoan and Pacific community that is here in New Zealand, so I really want to acknowledge that.

In the second reading, it was also really good to see that the community was here in large numbers, and the member in charge hosted a beautiful event after that where we had a really good opportunity to interact and to talk about other issues that were on their minds. Based on that, I can see that we have the Amendment Papers put forward by the member in charge and also New Zealand First member Andy Foster. I am taking this call to support the Amendment Paper put forward by New Zealand First member Andy Foster on behalf of the ACT Party which is to amend new section 17A, inserted by clause 15, to insert new subsection (3) which says the fee must be refunded to the applicant if their application is approved.

I want to acknowledge the member in charge of the amendment which is actually to make a change that there is no fee for an application for grant of citizenship under new section 7A, inserted by clause 10. We believe that this amendment that is to refund the fee to applications that are approved is quite a balanced approach, and that’s why we want to support this.

I also want to highlight that when the bill came through for the first reading, the ACT Party was the first Government party to stand up and support this bill because we assessed the bill and we thought that this bill must go to the select committee process and then very soon we were joined by New Zealand First. In the select committee, we heard from around 25,000 submitters. I would say that the select committee process is a much more powerful process than the committee of the whole House because there the wider community is involved, whereas in this process, the committee of the whole House is us members of Parliament that are involved in deciding what other changes should be made to the legislation.

In the second reading, we supported the bill that was reported back and is now going forward. As I said in my first reading speech, the ACT Party believes in fairness, we believe in equality, we believe in justice. We also believe that when we talk about fairness, when we talk about justice, it cannot be delivered partially. There needs to be a comprehensive approach towards that and these people, those who would have had their citizenship anyway if it wasn’t taken away, then for them now to apply, that’s one step. Yes, they have to do that, but then to pay if their application is approved, we believe is something that we really need to seriously consider. That is why we have decided to support this amendment going forward.

It is also important that we address the issue that is in front of us in a fulsome manner, to the extent that we can, while we are fair to everybody else as well, because when we look at the process of granting citizenship, that fee is actually a cost recovery system. We want to make sure that it’s fair, but going with this approach of refunding the fee for applications that are approved I think is going to be a practical approach, because this will also put some personal responsibility on people to really consider and see that they do qualify before they apply. We don’t want to see that rush that just comes in only because they think that they might be able to get citizenship because of this bill going through.

I also want to say that, going forward, it is going to make a huge difference in our local Samoan community, because I’m an immigrant myself and I fully understand that when the community comes from their birthplace to another country, makes another country their home country, which is New Zealand, they not only think about themselves but they also think about family members, those who are back home. This is what the community here is doing. They are advocating for the families there.

This is not the first time that this issue has been advocated. There was a petition before that had a huge number of signatures, and this now has come in the form of a member’s bill, which we are having the opportunity to debate, and it’s really great to see that it has come to the stage where us in the committee of the whole House are able to analyse this bill and see if there was any other opportunity for us to improve, any other opportunity for us to make it fairer, and any other opportunity for us to ensure that this fairness and justice that we want to deliver, those wrongs of the past that we want to fix, that we do that in a comprehensive manner. We will be supporting this amendment. Thank you.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Let me first of all thank all members for their very considered contributions. I thought I’d better get up and start giving some answers before I run out of pages.

Just to the questions from Rachel Boyack, who made a very strong contribution in navigating us through the select committee process—and I want to again acknowledge her skill in guiding us through a complex process as well. Her question was around what the numbers are for people born before 1962 that this amendment that I’ve got on the Table would apply to. The age range is 62 to 100, and it will be around about 19,434 people. That estimated figure was put in the table in the departmental report and was put together by Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials using data from the 2021 Samoan national census. They did do some extrapolation with the numbers and calculated against a number of variables. It is an estimate, and it is a guesstimate. From our perspective, in terms of having a pool of people that could actually apply for a particular citizenship path, it doesn’t seem—at least from the Green Party’s perspective—to be an exorbitant number. But I do take the points made by members.

The other question was: why 1962? Well, that’s the establishment of the Samoan State. If members haven’t had an opportunity to have a read of the Governance and Administration Committee report, I would encourage members to do that. I’ve been on a number of select committees and this one was particularly thorough. There’s a really important historical part in that select committee report, along with the legislative bits and pieces as well. The important thing here is that it is Samoan history and it is New Zealand history as well. It is the history of New Zealand citizens who had their citizenship denied; just to underscore the importance of knowing that history and being familiar with that history and the importance—the importance—of that relationship with Samoa. It’s the only country that we have a Treaty of Friendship with, so making sure that we do everything that we can to make that relationship as strong as possible is important, and noting, as I think all members around the select committee noted, the comprehensive and rich contribution of Samoan communities to the fabric of Aotearoa.

Just to respond to my particular amendment and the reason and the rationale for proposing it—I do take the member Tom Rutherford’s point, as well. If you do go through there, there is some rationale why people voted a particular way, and I did mention that a bit earlier around not delaying the commencement date, certainty in operations, and so on and so forth. But, as a backbench MP in an Opposition party, if you don’t ask, you don’t get. I’m pretty certain the community wanted me to ask; so I’m asking. The rationale for change was that I was proposing to amend the bill to reduce the application fee for citizenship under this bill to zero dollars—currently, it’s set at $177—because we don’t believe that it is appropriate to impose an application fee on people who had a right taken away from them. And, just to note, it is extremely unusual for a bill that addresses an historical wrong to require those who’ve been wronged to pay for an act of restoration. As we said in the committee’s report, the bill does not provide redress for the history of the injustice, but it is a concrete response. I guess the Amendment Paper is asking the House to take that one step closer to acknowledging that injustice and to making that path to restoration that much more solid.

Just to respond to the very good, strong contribution by Andy Foster, member for New Zealand First, who made, I think, very considered contributions during the select committee process as well, and the very considered tabled amendment that he has on the Table as well. I guess, Mr Chair, if I could put it this way: if people don’t want to support my Amendment Paper, Andy Foster’s one will be something we’ll be thinking about supporting as well, because it at least is on that path towards restoration. Thank you, Mr Chair.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and can I begin by acknowledging my friend and colleague Teanau Tuiono for the amazing work that he has done in shepherding this bill. I want to acknowledge the broader Samoan community here in Aotearoa and throughout the world and their homeland for their amazing contributions to the select committee stage, which I think has delivered a really, really big mandate for justice to be delivered. With that in mind, I wanted to present the Green Party’s view in support of my colleague’s amendment. Particularly, I wanted to touch on the one around broadening the scope of who would be eligible for citizenship, including descendants.

I think that the member in the chair has already made a really important contribution that I wanted to echo, in that this bill is not for redress, but it is a response. To me, I think, if members across the Chamber are going to acknowledge that there was an injustice done in the past, the least we can do is genuinely commit to going all the way, as far as we can and within the scope of the bill, to deliver some sort of adequate response and justice. I want to acknowledge that if we were to go with the bill as it is and without the amendment, we would be subjecting some of those descendants from having to go through strenuous and often costly immigration processes to remain connected with those people who could be granted citizenship. This is why it’s critical that we look at how justice can be delivered fulsomely, and I think submitters at the select committee stage presented really compelling arguments for this to be the case.

The Green Party is backing our colleague’s amendments in full, and I wanted to also touch on Teanau’s amendment in relation to ensuring that there is no fee for an application for a grant of citizenship under the new section 7A, inserted by clause 10. There are two reasons why I think that despite the advice in the select committee report, this amendment still stands. In the Governance and Administration Committee report and in contributions from National Party members, we have heard arguments against it, relating to the fact that the Department of Internal Affairs recovers its costs for persistent citizenship applications at the same time, and they also talked about the burden that all these applications would place on the Public Service. I would argue that, actually, the Government parties have a choice around whether they commit to adequately resourcing those departments to accommodate justice being delivered. I think, to me, if there is a commitment, then those resources should go in place to allow this amendment to go through. This can include things like even temporarily bolstering the workforce and having a task force that it is very specifically in charge of processing these applications.

I think there can be accommodations that can be made that I don’t believe would be costly, and, either way, would be relatively temporary to allow the bill to work in a way that doesn’t create further financial duress for families. Through intergenerational injustices, many of them were dispossessed from their homes and workplaces, and, in this case, the citizenship that, actually, they had a right to. This is why we think that Teanau’s amendment in relation to not having a fee makes a lot of sense. In saying that, the Green Party understands and hears the member Andy Foster’s arguments for his own amendment, and we want to deliver what best we can for the community under the circumstances that we’re working within. We acknowledge Andy Foster’s contributions and rationale for his own amendment, but in saying that, our preference is for justice to be delivered in full within the means that we have. I want to commend Teanau Tuiono for lifting the voices of submitters and presenting amendments that I think genuinely honour the voices of Samoan community members who have asked Parliament to genuinely commit to justice.

Finally, on the point of broader immigration settings, I wanted to ask the member whether he had received any feedback around the additional stress that family members would experience in relation to those immigration settings being in place should, for example, one of his amendments not be accepted, and whether he’s received feedback around, for example, the cost or the delay in visa processing times that could mean that people be split apart. I’m interested to hear from the member if he’s received any feedback around the immigration settings that we’re working within that make a case for his own amendment.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Chair. This bill, as it’s worked its way through the various stages so far, has often been high in emotion. There’s been a moderate amount of history, but very little in the technical. I would like to just delve into some of the details and pick up some of the comments that the member in charge made earlier on, and particularly around both clause 10 in the bill as it stands today, but also the Amendment Paper that we’ve just heard a view in favour of from the Green Party. This is about the provisions as to whom this bill applies, who can ultimately gain citizenship, or a pathway to citizenship, because of this. It is actually very technical, and, as we heard from the member himself, may be more technical than many realised at the outset. This stems, in its very title, as it stood when the bill was introduced, from the 1982 legislation in response to the Privy Council, who identified two very distinct dates: one was 13 May 1924, and the other, 1 January 1949.

There are questions now as to whether or not we should extend these to different dates. I do want to drill into this, firstly at a very technical level: if the Amendment Paper 139 went through as written, it doesn’t just award the path to citizenship to those that were born in this period and their descendants born in this period up to 1949. The reason it’s important to include the descendants is, as we know, the case that perhaps someone was born in Samoa in 1924, qualifies for this, maybe moved to Australia, for example, after World War II, and had children there in 1948. Those children may have never lived in New Zealand, they may have never lived in Samoa, but as a result of the bill as it stands, they can apply for New Zealand citizenship. That may be surprising to some, but it was a very considered point in the Governance and Administration Committee and it was very specific that that was awarded—there was a discussion around that.

As this Amendment Paper stands, it would then also award citizenship to any other descendants of that group out into 1962, which, conceivably, in the extreme case, could be the grandchildren of the original people that actually lived in Samoa or New Zealand, and may award rights of citizenship where no other class of citizenship would be awarded in that category. I would just ask the member, has this been considered? Is there any advice about any precedent that would set for other grandchildren around the world, and whether or not that is out of kilter with extant citizenship laws?

Secondly, and more broadly, they are very specific dates that were chosen, and they were chosen based entirely on the Privy Council decision that this all hangs off, with Falema‘i Lesa back in 1982. It is no mistake they were chosen, and we know that the 1924 date actually stems from 1914, 1921, and 1923 legislation—it’s not just a date that was plucked as an arbitrary marker. The 1949 date comes from legislation started, obviously, in 1946, under Fraser and Savage. If we were to now say, “Well, actually, those dates don’t matter. Let’s consider other dates.”, whether it’s 1962, or there’s another one in the select committee report for descendants of that period where they could be born either side of 1962—if we were to say, “Actually, the dates from the original Privy Council ruling are not important.”, what does that mean to the fundamental premise by which this bill comes? That is to say that this is a group of people who had specifically their citizenship removed by the 1982 legislation, and, in effect, the member in charge, in his initial comment, said this was about justice for those who were impacted by the 1982 Act. That Act is very specific, cutting off at the end of 1948, so I just wonder as to what the thinking is there.

As I read the select committee report—I’m on page 10—it talks about two specific things. Firstly, under “Concerns about citizenship rights”, it says that options were considered which looked at all descendants of Samoans—giving citizenship to all Samoans. Now, we heard one view that that could be 100,000, but, of course, it would ultimately be almost all 200,000-odd Samoan citizens. Equally, another one was talking about just the descendants, and the overwhelming feedback we heard in submissions was about all descendants: it was never really cut off to 1962; it was all descendants who stemmed from that original group that so many people argued for. It was always framed on descendants of the original group bound at that 1948 and the 1924 date, and the select committee said—I’m quoting from paragraph 2 of that section—“we consider that either of these options … go beyond the intent of the bill … The updated policy intent [for] the bill [as] provided to us by the Member in charge”—was very clear—“… that it ‘would not create new rights to citizenship for descendants of those whose citizenship rights were removed.’ ” In other words, it was very tightly bound around these specific dates.

I understand the emotive argument of why some might like to look to other dates, but I would just ask, what does that mean to those from 1914-24? I know that’s a very small, marginal group, but why would we not acknowledge them? What about other descendants? Why would we cut it off at one place? I believe that the correct thing to do is to adhere to the member in charge’s original intent—very clearly articulated—to bound it to those who were directly impacted by that 1982 legislation, which hangs off that Privy Council ruling and very specific dates, grounded in four or five key pieces of legislation that span half a century. My question to the member in charge is really about clause 10 in the bill and in the paragraph about the implication to grandchildren of descendants that may have no connection to Samoa and New Zealand in a legal sense, and, secondly, about the broader intent this divergence could mean.

The other point I guess I would make, just to get this done in one go, as other people have, is that I hear the contributions from across the Chamber on the application of fees. It hasn’t been pointed out, but, again, on page 12 of the select committee report, one of the drivers for setting that fee was to set the lowest one possible so that it wouldn’t be the $470 that it could have been otherwise. I do support the amendment from New Zealand First, in that it adheres to this lower setting and it provides a mechanism to get a refund but it avoids delaying justice for others by swamping the system—and, again, quoting from page 11 of the select committee report, “the financial sustainability of that application process.” being so important.

The last aspect I guess I’d like to ask the member about is really about the change from a repeal bill. In some ways, this bill as it sits now looks fundamentally completely different to the one that we saw at first reading, and I think for good reason.

Teanau Tuiono: It’s got a better name, though.

TIM COSTLEY: It’s got a great name. Look, I think it is a huge step forward, but there are a couple of points I would just like to raise. Obviously, the select committee report sums it up—I think very nicely—where it talks about how the repeal of the 1982 Act would remove the pathway to citizenship that was agreed in 1982; it would impact the Treaty of Friendship. The other point I wonder if the member has considered is just around section 32 of the Legislation Act, which says that, when a bill is repealed, it doesn’t change or remove the impact or the operational effect of that bill from the time that it was enforced. Repealing that bill—as I understand, but I’d like to hear the member’s view—would not actually restore citizenship; that there would be no further mechanism for those people to gain citizenship, because we would not be introducing what we have today. Further, it would remove the path to citizenship that the 1982 piece of legislation made for all Samoans, not just those from the target dates of 1924-48 but for all Samoans, to have that fast track: if they can reside here legally, they can apply for citizenship; they don’t need to pass the English language test. It’s something that we offer no other country and I think is very special. I wonder if there has been thought that’s gone into that or that we should capture now.

The reason I ask some of these questions, although they may seem obvious to some, is that I foresee, like we heard from Mr Rutherford earlier, a time when this ultimately may be challenged, when other descendants might say, “Well, what about those that were born in”—I don’t know—“1975? What about those born in 2024?” What is the impact on them? I think it is worth capturing now, because I don’t know that we’ll have time in the third debate to go into the technical details, what the intent is, the reason that we have stuck to these dates. Fundamentally, I guess my other concern is if we were to change dates and things now, the Treaty of Friendship requires that the New Zealand Government consult with the Samoan Government on all matters of foreign affairs, citizenship. If we were to change it, would this create legislative issues—[Time expired] Mr Chair, very short, to finish this point.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Very short, Mr Costley.

TIM COSTLEY: Very short, Mr Chair. Would this create legislative issues where we would then have to pause the bill or discharge it so we could go back and renegotiate with the Samoan Government?

In conclusion, I’d like to hear from the member about clause 10, about the implication for grandchildren, about changing away from dates founded by the Privy Council, about any implication of repeal from the Legislation Act, and, of course, our relationship with Samoa. Thank you.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for the varied and considered contribution from the member—and a point taken about the Treaty of Friendship. It is so incredibly important that we treat that with the respect that it deserves. To note that that requires—you know, the diplomacy relationship is incredibly, incredibly important. I guess the way that I looked at the hard repeal of the Act—and you will note that there are no amendments on the Table reflecting that. I think it was captured very well by Rachel Boyack in the second reading, about the symbolic nature of doing a hard repeal; about saying, “Look, we had this and now it’s gone and it’s over there.”

In the Governance and Administration Committee we did have a debate, and the Greens and Labour went one way. There was an opportunity for us to move the operative clauses—which are incredibly important, around the protocol and making sure that those pathways still exist—into other parts of legislation. That would have been, as the member has canvassed, a lot more complicated, but nevertheless the symbolism would have still been quite notable and quite noted as well. I take the point—I think what all members have been saying—around not trying to delay commencement, so I think the opportunity to actually look at a hard repeal, in this context and this scope of this bill, has passed. Hence that’s the reason why there was no Amendment Paper, at least from us, on that particular perspective.

I can also agree with the member around my initial intention. As a first-term backbencher MP, when I kind of really got into the details of this—and I think we’ve all arrived there as a House—you find out about the history. At that time in this House, we were going through the Dawn Raids process and I had a number of people contacting me and saying, “Well, have you actually had a look at this?” and when you have a look at it, it’s an incredibly painful history. It’s incredibly heavy history. You have people who’ve had their citizenships removed. They were New Zealand citizens and they had their citizenship removed.

As a first-term backbencher MP, I was like, “Well, this is terrible. This is absolutely not right. This is not fair, it is unjust.” My motivation was, of course, to support those elders, and that’s the rationale why I put that undertone in. Acknowledging all the Samoans that I grew up—Fa’anānā Efeso Collins, Te Ao Pritchard, Lotu Fuli, and all of those people. I grew up with them and came from the same neighbourhoods, and it seemed to me to be something that was my job to do.

However, the beautiful thing, I think, about the select committee process is that you get submitters that come in. In this case, many submitters that knew more than me, had more expertise than me and were able to offer other perspectives, other things that I had not considered as well. Hence the move from myself to, actually, “Let’s look at what descendants look like. Let’s look at what the actual number was.”

My amendment and the rationale for change—and it was through that select committee process we had varying interpretations of who was captured within the group, and so I was considering a scenario where the 1982 Act had never been passed. Those descendants born prior to Samoa declaring independence would have been eligible for New Zealand citizenship. That’s why this Amendment Paper at this stage is a way to get fuller restorative justice, and I want to acknowledge my colleague and friend Ricardo Menéndez March, who put that succinctly for us.

I also support the reflections on the impact of the Privy Council. If you go through the history and if you go through this legislation, the Privy Council case was a reaction to what happened with the establishment of New Zealand citizenship in 1948 and all the history prior to that, post - World War I, from when Samoa went from a German colony to a New Zealand colony. Then the 1982 Act was a response to the Privy Council case, just in the same way that this now amendment bill is a response to the 1982 Act. I think I can agree with the member but then also, still on behalf of the community, push for more. I think that’s what I’m attempting to do today.

I also acknowledge the important contributions from around the committee on stuff outside of the scope of the bill in the select committee—which got unanimous support—and those comments, I felt, were around the frustrations with the visa conditions. Just responding to Ricardo Menéndez March’s comments, I take the frustration with the visa conditions processing times. You have people that will apply for the quota and then they won’t get it—the sometimes rigid way of trying to actually get the forms together, and so on and so forth. That is incredibly frustrating for many Samoan communities and Samoan people who we have talked with. I hope that is a live issue for the Government; a live issue about what we can do about making it easier for people from the Islands, people from Samoa, to come to Aotearoa New Zealand. Many of us have Samoan relatives, Samoan friends.

It is one of the most important relationships that we have in the House, and if the opportunities presented via my Amendment Papers don’t move forward, there are other opportunities that I would like Government parties to consider outside of the scope of the bill around supporting better pathways for residency, better immigration settings, making sure that it’s easier for people applying for the quota to be able to come to Aotearoa and, of course, better movement for Pacific peoples to allow them to spend time with their family, friends, and communities.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Kia ora, thank you. First of all, I also want to join in te w’akanui o tā tātou pire, me koe, tūngāne, arā Teanau [the celebration of our bill, and you, brother, Teanau]. This is indeed a really significant kaupapa. I acknowledge, and did at the first reading, all that it took to get here.

I have a couple of bases to discuss, and I want to start at history, in the bill commentary, and, specifically for Te Pāti Māori, the history and the significance of w’akapapa, from the perspective of w’akapapa and the perspective of Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, from the flow of the tide that connects us, not only in toto but the connection to us as tangata whenua and Samoa, in the moana and the whenua and the pito, and the tūhonohono of that—I guess, the basis of that and the fact that even though the history starts at a moment in time which actually doesn’t acknowledge our relationship as a Pasifika: one ocean, one people, multiple waka. Had we been able to start the bill in that context, I think we would probably have landed very, very differently. I want to, I guess, put to the committee that, for Te Pāti Māori, while we acknowledge the history in a contemporary sense, for us as tangata whenua, there is a much longer history—thousands of years for us.

That then brings us to this point of eligibility in the bill commentary. For us, the eligibility should, and will always in principle, be noted on the basis of our w’akapapa. While we acknowledge the bill and the restrained aspect that it has, from our perspective, the bill should have been extended to all descendants, for all connections to the Pacific, as should every visa and everything else. Heoi anō [however], that is a mahi for the future. We note that National—not this National today; National in the past; don’t give me those eyes over there—created this drama. We support the whakaaro—

Hon Member: Have you read the history?

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Well, Muldoon. We support the kōrero that the Green Party—Te Pāti Kākāriki—and Labour had, that the bill should have been extended to a different time zone and different year. In noting that, we also note that there was also discussion and moemoeā for the bill to be extended for the citizenship of all Samoans.

A couple of things also very quickly: the superannuation—had the model of us as Pasifika nations, and the w’akapapa and whanaungatanga, been acknowledged, we wouldn’t be discussing the visa settings, and, absolutely, superannuation should have been realised for all as well. We support Teanau’s amendment scrapping the fee, acknowledging that there has since been one and acknowledging the comments of my colleague beside me in Te Pāti Kākāriki.

From our perspective, I guess what we do want to discuss and make sure is that we are acknowledging that this is a very small part of what needs to be realised for those of us in the Pacific. It does make me wonder—and this is a concern—while we acknowledge the support that our whanaunga have, that we perhaps haven’t met also the aspirations of the Samoan Government, which is to make sure that their citizens can go out and come in as readily and as easily. Again, had the Tiriti—and I mean the Tiriti o Waitangi—been respected, not the Treaty of Friendship that’s been quoted a lot, we perhaps would have landed at a different spot. I also want to acknowledge that that silence is perhaps because we’ve got a lot more to do.

So, on that note, I do also want to acknowledge that with the amendments that are being discussed at the moment, we will take the vote on and support Teanau’s amendments and then see how this rests. Kia ora rā.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): I just want to take this opportunity to respond to the comments from Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, co-leader of the Māori Party, and thank her for being one of the first responders—if I can put it that way—in being supportive of this bill. We were in Samoa celebrating that friendship as well, and I mentioned this to the member and she was very, very supportive right off the bat. I think she understood that really important connection between tangata whenua and tangata moana, and having a whole lot of Māori-Samoan mokopuna probably would have helped, as well. I note that many Māori stop me in the street to say that they are very, very supportive of this bill and supportive of supporting our whanaunga, our aiga, in Samoa.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Fa‘afetai tele lava, talofa lava. I do want to begin by acknowledging the author of this bill, Teanau Tuiono—who’s a friend—not only for having this bill drawn but for actually working with all of the political parties to ensure that we have the bill in its form today.

Can I also acknowledge former MP Arthur Anae, because Anae Arthur Anae has not only advocated for this bill this time around but in 2003 there was a petition with over 90,000 Samoan people that was presented here in Parliament, and I remember reading the history of what happened at the time, seeing the many, many thousands just outside of Parliament presenting their petition and basically arguing at the time that this is something that should be addressed: the fact that Samoans who were citizens—and the Privy Council had ruled that they were citizens of New Zealand—had their citizenship taken away from them, that it is something that the Government should have considered.

I do also want to acknowledge the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, Rachel Boyack. I was one of those members who was fortunate enough to sit in through some of these submissions, and I could see just how well Rachel Boyack’s chairing was, in ensuring that we were respectful of all the submissions. There were so many emotional submissions, so many people that came with their families, their grandchildren, their children, and they cried. They cried in front of us as they were presenting. It was really obvious that they themselves were still traumatised. Even grandchildren who were not born at the time when the 1982 Act was passed were traumatised.

Can I at this time just say that I do have a conflict of interest because I am Samoan adjacent. I’m married to a Samoan, a very good Samoan man. We do have two Samoan daughters and our youngest daughter is Mae Salesa. She actually worked with Anae Arthur Anae and his group and even though she was 18, she actually had a petition. She got nearly 7,000—especially young people between the ages of 18 to 24—to sign the petition on behalf of their grandchildren.

The reason why our daughter did this is because her own grandfather here Iremia Salesa, was one of those Samoans who lived in New Zealand at the time and his citizenship was removed from him. It was really quite emotional. I wasn’t at the select committee where she presented; she presented in front of the select committee that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni chaired, but I do know that there were a few tears shed when she was presenting. She presented not on her behalf but on behalf of the close to 7,000 young people, and they were basically asking, “Can the New Zealand Government review the citizenship Act? Can we implement measures to offer legal pathways to those who are affected, and can we also look at engaging with the Samoan community?”

It is, of course, the engaging with the Samoan community that was one of the things that the Governance and Administration Committee did so well. Again, I want to acknowledge not just Rachel Boyack but all the members of the Governance and Administration Committee. I do want to also acknowledge and thank every single political party in this House because it is not often that we have a private member’s bill where we have unanimous support, and this is one of those bills. Not only do we have unanimous support but this is a bill that will actually give justice, and it actually has real meaning to a whole lot of people, to thousands and thousands of people.

On this note, I do want to reiterate the words of Rachel Boyack, who said that Labour is in support of Teanau Tuiono’s Amendment Paper 140; the amendment that there should be no fee for an application for grant of citizenship under this new Act. I say this because, inclusive of GST, $204 may not be that much to us who live in New Zealand. Can I please remind this House of Parliament in Aotearoa New Zealand that we’re talking about between 76- to 100-year-old Samoans, many of whom still live in Samoa, and $204 is way more in Samoan dollars and it will be a huge cost for them. We are talking about a unique measure where we’re trying to give redress to a wrong, and not just this wrong. Can I just refer to the Governance and Administration Committee’s report where they do have some of the things that happened during that time when New Zealand administered and controlled Samoa from 1914 to 1962.

In November 1918, passengers from a New Zealand passenger ship carrying the Spanish flu were allowed to disembark in Apia, Samoa with no quarantine measures. The effect of that basically saw close to 25 percent of Samoa’s total population at that time—over 8,500 Samoans—die. They were killed. Many of the people that were killed that were inclusive of this number were parliamentarians—so the leaders of the country at the time, the leaders of the country. If you can imagine that many of our parliamentarians dying from something that could have been prevented, and this was done under our administration and it was one of our ships.

Another: on 28 December 1929, the events known as Black Saturday when New Zealand police fired into a crowd of Mau supporters. Eleven Samoans were killed on that day, including Tupua Tamasese Lealofi III, one of the leaders of Samoa at the time; he passed away. Now, the Prime Minister at that time, the Rt Hon Helen Clark has apologised to the Samoan people for that event. Then there was the Dawn Raids, and then there was this bill in 1982 which basically stripped citizenship that was rightfully—you know, Samoans actually were New Zealand citizens according to the Privy Council.

We are saying in this bill—and I’m really grateful that it is unanimously supported in this House—“Yes, we will restore the citizenship for you; you have to first of all apply.”, which is also a barrier for some of these 76- to 100-year-old Samoans who are not so good on the internet. They will have to get someone to write that application for them, and in addition, pay for the restoration of this justice. So my appeal to my Government members: please do consider supporting Amendment Paper 140 by Teanau Tuiono. Fa‘afetai tele lava, manuia le aso.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to quickly respond to the Hon Jenny Salesa and thank her for her advocacy on this bill. I know that she has been quietly, in her way, talking with members and talking with Ministers to try to get that shared understanding, and so the consensus that we achieved on the second reading was in no small part due to her work.

I actually was in the select committee room with a number of us when the Hon Jenny Salesa’s daughter gave a submission, and it was powerful—it was powerful. It was very emotive and many of our young people were emotive, and I think I saw a few hardened National Party members actually shed a few tears, as well.

I think it’s important for us to acknowledge the role of young people—and I acknowledge the role of Esmae and her work—and I saw that right across the country, as well. For me, it shows that our future is bright for Pasifika peoples. There are strong, capable hands and strong, capable minds that are following in our footsteps.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Madam Chair, thank you. I want to start off by acknowledging the sponsor of this member’s bill, Teanau Tuiono, and the work that he’s put in it and the ability that he’s shown to work across the aisle with all parties across this House here in support of this. However, the sponsor did make the comment when he presented these Amendment Papers that, if you don’t ask, you don’t get, which is fair enough. I also put to you, on these Amendment Papers: be careful what you wish for.

We as a select committee—and I ask the committee and the wider public to take our word across the House, as has been reinforced, that we have looked at this in an exhaustive manner. The report back from the Governance and Administration Committee repeatedly—and explicitly, Mr Costley—puts out that cohort from 1924 to 1 January 1949. That wasn’t just something that we kind of went around the room and worked out what dates should be eligible. That was something that, as Mr Costley has said, the Privy Council hung its hat on.

There was a comment earlier by Te Pāti Māori that it was all about Mr Muldoon. Well, let’s also remember as we go into these Amendment Papers and whether we support them or not that this was a unanimous decision made across the House in 1982 after the Privy Council decision, effectively for those Samoans in New Zealand to be able to get citizenship and those elsewhere not—unanimous as in Bill Rowling’s Labour Party, and unanimous as in Bruce Beetham’s Social Credit. I know there’s one man in this House, a former Prime Minister, that seems to leave a long tail in this House, but at the end of the day, it was a unanimous decision.

That cohort was one that we looked at carefully. We got Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) officials in, we got Ministry for Pacific Peoples, we had Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) officials, we had academics through with the submission process, and we had a lot of submissions that we saw, both in Wellington and in Auckland, too. We didn’t arrive at these decisions quickly. It took from about 10 April, when we had the first reading, which the National Party didn’t support, as is well known, because we had some genuine concerns.

As my colleague Tom Rutherford said, we worked collectively and effectively across the political aisle to see if we could come to some compromise and something workable. Frankly, 10 previous Prime Ministers couldn’t, and five previous Governments—three being Labour, two being National—didn’t. Let’s not look at this any other way than it being a progressive day for New Zealand as far as our ability to do something that no Parliament in New Zealand has done, to honour the commitment that the Privy Council gave back in 1982 that was revoked unanimously by the New Zealand Parliament.

With that in mind, we cannot support expanding the cohort, because of all the reasons that the Privy Council gave, as to those effective dates, and the report back. Again, our intent—of this select committee and, effectively, this House—is very, very clear. In fact, if you look through the report back, I think it’s mentioned 10 or 12 times as to who’s eligible, with even a very helpful question and answer in different scenarios. We cannot support Teanau Tuiono’s expansion of the cohort for those reasons.

As far as no fees, we cannot support that, because we had DIA officials panicking, talking about their cost recovery model, suggesting—[Time expired] Thank you, if I can have an extension?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Cameron Brewer.

CAMERON BREWER: Thank you, Madam Chair—talking about their cost recovery model, suggesting, I think the number was, $450, and we landed at that $204, including GST. One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is that for those that withdraw their application before initial processing is complete—Tom Rutherford, it’s two-thirds?

Tom Rutherford: Yep.

CAMERON BREWER: I think, from memory, it’s $136.30—about two-thirds. If they come in and think that they could be eligible, or their descendants think that nana and poppa could be eligible, and they have a quick look and it’s not, then they’ll get their money back. DIA will not be grabbing the money off them and holding on to it tightly regardless of eligibility. Again, we have made clear, on page 12 of the report back, that if potential applicants who think they’re eligible withdraw their application before that initial processing was complete, then the funding would be given back to them—the payment that they made, two-thirds of it: $136. Again, we looked at that as a committee and we listened to the DIA.

I think Mr Costley’s already said about the pressure that a no-fee structure would put on the DIA—and we know that, when there’s a no-fee structure, that does often see a lot of people putting their hands up to see if they’re genuinely eligible and not. But, if there is an ability to have a fee structure with a partial refund, people will check out their eligibility a bit more before they put their application in. In saying that, we’re very happy to support New Zealand First member Andy Foster’s amendment. That is, “The fee must be refunded to the applicant if their application is approved.” On balance of it, we think that that is in the spirit of a restoration and in the spirit of reconciliation that that offer should be put out there.

Frankly, in the big scheme of things, looking at the financial impacts and that, it’s not a big impost on the State. That is somewhere I think my good friend Arthur Anae over here, who’s been, as Jenny Salesa said, a strong advocate since 1905 on this—just kidding! Since probably 1982 at least, and brought that petition in 2003. Arthur, I hope you can see at committee stage that that is another win by this committee of the whole House, and in turn in the third reading, whenever we get to that, that the fee as the Government MPs agree to, must be refunded—that $204. Jenny Salesa made the point that that is a lot of money, particularly if you’re converting from Samoan dollars to New Zealand dollars. We’re not disputing that, and we agree to the amendment that the fee be refunded if the application is approved.

On the balance of it, I’m certainly happy to support that amendment by Mr Foster. Given the work and commitment and exploration and interrogation by the likes of Tom Rutherford, Tim Costley, Andy Foster, and of course led on the other side by Rachel Boyack, we believe that we, over six or seven months, have gone through this—man oh man we’ve gone through this every week and looked at it. Landing with a refund of fees for successful applicants is, I think, a good win out of this committee of the whole House, and it’s great news that the Government MPs are supporting that.

On the amendment, not repeal, I suppose that has been canvassed too as to why we, the committee, were keen to support the amendment and not the wholesale repeal, which would have had implications on the Treaty of Friendship. I’d like to put the question to the member as to if he’s comfortable now—[Time expired]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll grant you another call, but in the interests of—I saw Tim Costley get granted an extra little piece before, but can we keep this next piece short? Thank you.

CAMERON BREWER: OK. I just want to get some comfort from the sponsoring MP as to whether he’s comfortable—after listening to all that official advice from MFAT and the implications on the Treaty of Friendship—with it being an amendment bill, not the wholesale repeal bill that his initial bill proposed. Thank you.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the very considered contribution from Cameron Brewer. He can rest assured that I am comfortable. I guess for me the opportunity to do a hard repeal was at the second reading stage. As we’ve noted previously, justice delayed is justice denied, so helping to move that forward is important, I think, and there has been a lot of symbolism that we’ve had over the last few months, as well. Losing the battle to win something else is, I think, probably how I’d try to phrase it, so there is definitely comfort.

I think the Governance and Administration Committee itself gave it a better name, as well. It was quite long.

Tom Rutherford: Oh, I haven’t got to the title yet.

TEANAU TUIONO: We haven’t got to the title yet; there might be some other contributions. But—

Cameron Brewer: Some suggestions.

TEANAU TUIONO: Just a suggestion, yeah. I’m comfortable the title that we’ve got, as well. Thank you.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Fa‘afetai tele lava, Madam Chair. Can I also congratulate the member again for progressing this bill. I don’t intend to take a full call. My colleagues have identified our support for Amendment Papers 139 and 140. I do want to thank Dr Parmjeet Parmar for her contributions this evening. I think she’s right. She’s indicated that the select committee process is by far more important than the committee of the whole House process, which I think is a reason why we should listen to the overwhelming request from submitters to ensure that this is accessible, that there is no fee, and that there are no barriers. I do hope that some of the Government parties will come on board with that.

My question to the member is really around the importance of communications—this was raised in the second reading and through the committee: that it will be really, really important for Immigration New Zealand, for the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to ensure that there are comms channels in terms of what is appropriate, what is not, who is eligible, who is not—and whether he believes that a focus in that particular space is a way in which any concerns about the huge number of ineligible applicants, basically, flooding the system—that that won’t be the case. Is that the basis upon which he believes not just in rectifying this historical wrong but also that, if there are strong communications, it would make the no fee for an application that much easier as well, because we’re not talking about a huge amount of cost?

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Just quickly, to Mr Tangi Utikere, I think that is exactly right. If you craft your communications in a way that people understand and in the language that they understand, and make things incredibly clear—and I would encourage all Government departments to be able to do that—then that mitigates against any people who in this case were applying for citizenship who might not meet the specific requirements. I note also that this is something that’s had very strong contributions made by Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who helped to guide us in terms of Samoan communities and those perspectives as well. I just want to put on record my support for the sentiments of Mr Tangi Utikere and, of course, the contributions made by Lemauga Lydia Sosene.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a real pleasure to make a contribution. I had the privilege of subbing in for Tim Costley on the Governance and Administration Committee when it was being ably chaired by Rachel Boyack, and I took a number of lessons in how to chair a collegial and well-functioning committee at that point. Congratulations to the work of the Governance and Administration Committee in bringing the bill to this point.

When I was substituting on to that committee we were considering the issue of the fee, and I do understand the member has his amendment to remove the application fee. I recall at the time raising the question with officials as to whether or not the fee that they had originally set would actually keep pace with the cost of processing those applications. As a now former member of the Regulations Review Committee, we would often get fees brought to us that had had significant jumps because they hadn’t changed in 10 or 15 years. We asked the officials there: “When was the last time those citizenship fees had changed?” And it had been a while. I recall raising the issue: well, given that the fees are being set in legislation this time, to direct what the regulation should be—in future, they will be set by Ministers—there would be an issue if we came to a point where there were a significant number of applications, to the point where the cost recovery needed to increase. What happens with the fairness aspect of a fee being increased by a Minister to take account of that?

That would then disadvantage those who were unable to get an application in earlier—perhaps, those who were more distant or had to wait a while to gather the resources together, and we heard the Hon Jenny Salesa talk about some of the cost positions—and whether or not there are some safeguards to be put in place to make sure that fees aren’t significantly hiked one or two years after the process comes into place, at which point some of those who had taken longer to get their application together would be disadvantaged compared to those who were able to get their application in earlier. In essence, you’d be advantaging those with the resources and means now, and disadvantaging those who may not be able to do so as quickly. It might be those who are in slightly poorer communities or with fewer connections or who don’t have the resources or capacity to put the applications in place.

I had a question to the member about whether there were reflections on that, about whether there is anything in the bill or anything that could be done or signals that could be sent to Ministers who would be considering fees and requests to increase the fees for cost recovery purposes, to make sure that that inequity or that unfairness wasn’t played out and to make sure that you can protect those individuals who might take longer to make these applications in the future. That was really my only question for the member. I wanted to commend him for the work done on the bill. Obviously, with the support around the House, you can see what can happen at a select committee when strong arguments are made and compromise can be reached.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. While we’re on the topic of fees, raised by my colleague James Meager and raised previously by my other colleague Cameron Brewer, I do want to ask the member around—he’s got a particular Amendment Paper on the Table around withdrawing the application fee from the get-go. Will he be supporting the Amendment Paper in the name of Andy Foster if his Amendment Paper is not to be successful? Will he be supporting Mr Foster’s amendment, which says that the clause clarifies that the application fee for grant of citizenship under new section 7A will be refunded to the applicant upon successful application rather than no fee being set at the get-go? I’d just like to ask the member that question.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you to the member. Thank you to both members—James Meager as well. You have sent the signal to the Government Ministers as well; they can redo it at the secondary legislation, so well done. To answer Tom Rutherford: yes. I want to thank, again, the member Andy Foster for a very considered Amendment Paper.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that—

Tim Costley: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, too late—I’ve started voting. The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 139 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 140 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Andy Foster’s tabled amendment to clause 15 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

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

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The House is now suspended until 7.30 p.m. Congratulations, Mr Tuiono.

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

Bills

Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 October.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The House is resumed. Members, we’re on the second reading of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to be able to support the second reading of our good colleague Rima Nakhle’s member’s bill here, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill.

Tom Rutherford: Call her Tina Turner!

CAMERON BREWER: In short, just to recap—Tom Rutherford, because it has been a week or two—this bill would amend the Corrections Act by creating an obligation on the chief executive and prison managers to protect victims from unwanted contact.

Frankly, this is the right sponsor for the right bill; it’s one of those scenarios, because there’s no stronger advocate for victims than Rima Nakhle. The Nakhle family have got a great reputation in South Auckland for the support that your in-laws have given, the likes of Sir Barry Curtis, in basically building Manukau City, in Takanini. Rima and Roger live in the heart of Takanini. They’ve also got considerable experience with transitional and emergency housing. We salute you, Rima. Not only are you a Western Sydney University lawyer, a Sydneysider that’s over here, but you’ve got that on-the-ground experience as well. It’s great that you’ve been able to pick up this bill and develop it further.

As we’ve said, and I think it’s a favourite term of James Meager’s—is he here? James Meager—can’t comment, but it codifies what the Corrections management CEO and others are expected to do in the protection of victims. As you’re seeing here, we looked at it, as to how effective it would be and whether it was doable across those 26,000 people doing services in the community—community service; 9,500 serving custodial sentences, 26,000 in the community on community-based sentences, orders, or parole. Corrections said that will be difficult—that will be difficult to maintain, to protect those victims all the time from the correspondence and phone calls, unwanted correspondence and phone calls, from prisoners.

Ms Nakhle, as is reported in the report-back, requested, and she made it explicit—she made it explicit—that the relevant agencies continue to monitor the safeguards available to serve the protection of victims where offenders are serving community-based sentences, orders, and parole. She’s codified—through you, Mr Speaker; the sponsor, Rima Nakhle, MP for Takanini, has codified—that requirement not just for custodial sentences, for chief executives and prison managers to manage the correspondence and the likes of phone calls between prisoners and their victims, but also for those that are serving beyond the walls of the prison in community-based sentences, orders, and parole.

This is a big part of our Government agenda, I’d like to think, where we are refocusing the justice system to being victim-centric, if you like, and as I said, there’s no one that fights harder for victims’ rights and ensuring victims’ rights are upheld than our colleague Rima Nakhle. In fact, I would argue that it sits in with the Government’s Public Service target 4—and I know Tom Rutherford recites, most nights, the nine Public Service targets. I might even give my colleague from Northcote here the opportunity to recite Public Service target 4, but he might miss out a word or two, so I’ll give it to you. The Public Service target, the Government target number four, is that we are working already—with the help of this, too—to ensure 20,000 fewer victims of serious assault, robbery, and sexual assault. That is the overall Public Service target when it comes to reducing the number of victims, and it’s, again, part of the Government’s agenda on cracking down on law and order, whether that’s serious assaults, youth offending, retail crime, cracking down on burglaries and robberies.

This bill has come a long way, and the member, through the Justice Committee, has been very compliant, if you like, with new ideas, with ideas from officials and from the Opposition and from the chair and from her colleagues, as to how we can make this workable. Actually, like a lot of legislation, and members’ bills in particular, it is about sometimes codifying what might arguably be in practice in part, but we legislate for the ability to ensure that it can be achieved and that there is a responsibility on the Chief Executive of Corrections and those prison managers to protect those victims and for a process to be in place. The “proposed new section 77(5A) would require Corrections to take into account the interests of victims—in particular, being free from unwanted contact—when deciding what conditions to impose on prisoners regarding [the likes of] outgoing telephone calls.”, says the report-back from the Justice Committee.

The committee has also recommended amending clause 4 with a new section to place a different obligation on the chief executive. The chief executive would be required to “establish and maintain processes to inform visitors of prisoners and recipients of prisoner communications about measures they can take if they do not want to be contacted by a prisoner. We think [that] this”—in the end, the Justice Committee concluded in its report-back, page 2—“approach would support victims to control what contact they receive from prisoners, and make clear”—the other side; control for victims but also make clear—“the department’s obligations to victims.” Look, this is not to diminish all the good work that the Corrections staff do up and down the country, the thousands of them. They are doing their best to protect the victims of crime all the time. This is just to put in practice as a member’s bill to codify the responsibilities on the chief executive and prison managers and the expectations that victims can have, too—so they can go back to the statute, they can seek advice, and say, “What are my actual rights here? Where do I stand with this unwanted communication?” and it will all be explicitly written down in statute and passed through the third reading in a matter of days, if not weeks.

We’re very happy to support the second reading. I commend the sponsor of the bill, Rima Nakhle, for the work that she has done across the committee, across the political aisle, to knock this into shape so it’s actually workable. Initially, Corrections kind of said, “Oh, geez, this is going to be hard.” but through your persistence and doggedness and just commitment to getting it through and protecting victims, we’re now getting to a piece of legislation that’s going to pass its second reading tonight and head towards third reading and, as I said, codifies the responsibilities on prison managers and the Corrections chief of staff when it comes to protecting victims from unwanted correspondence and the likes of phone calls by prisoners.

At the same time, it also identifies that massive section of those people that have offended and are serving sentences in the community: 26,000 people. Twenty-six thousand people, the size of a small New Zealand city, are serving community-based sentences, orders, or on parole. This gives some protection to those victims and expectations around extra protection around where the Corrections management and chief executive can step in for the interests of victims. I commend the bill and I look forward to the third reading. Thank you, sir.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): A five-minute split call—Reuben Davidson.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. The previous speaker, Cameron Brewer, referred to there being 26,000 sentences in our community. It felt like his speech went for 26,000 sentences on that matter as well. But I would like to acknowledge, as did the previous speaker, the work of Rima Nakhle on bringing this bill to the House.

I had the pleasure of a tour through Australia with Rima Nakhle. I can say that name because that’s the name we said every morning when we were about to get in the van and we would go, “Where’s Rima? Where’s Rima Nakhle?” My experience is that she is not the most punctual on the trip, but if you want poetry, Rima is the person to go to. On a more serious note—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): What happens on the trip, Mr Davidson!

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Ha, ha! Victims of crime deserve to feel safe and supported—I think we all believe that. I think we can be very, very proud—I am very, very proud—of Labour’s history in this area of ensuring that victims of crime feel safe and feel supported; also proud of Labour’s work to create a justice system that serves all New Zealanders.

We do play the blame game in this House. It’s a lame game, but it’s a game that gets played, where we in Opposition get blamed for all manner of things by this current Government. I thought I’d just give you three things you can add to that list. You can add to that list that you can blame us for the largest ever financial commitment for victims—we’ll happily take the blame for that. To 93,000 more people being able to access legal aid—we’ll happily take the blame for that. And for banning the ability to charge interest on legal aid debt—we will also happily take the blame for that. Please feel free to blame us for that any time you like in this House.

Coming back to the central point—which is that victims of crime deserve to feel safe and supported—victims of crime often have ongoing fears, valid ongoing fears, for their safety and for their security. To this bill’s credit, it will go some way to protect victims from further contact and from future contact, and from the unwanted contact or communication from prisoners or from people who have perpetrated those crimes against them. If we believe that victims of crime deserve to feel safe and supported—and we do, I believe, all believe that—then we would support the actions of this bill. But that’s not without some reservations and without some other points that I think we need to stop and take note of. Whilst we support this bill, I think it’s important to also put on the record the cuts that will negatively impact victims of crime.

Section 27 reports, which were a pathway for victims to get their views into the courtroom, have been cut—you chose to cut that. A 6.5 percent cut to the Crown Law Office—a choice that was made which erodes the resource available to the victims of crime. It doesn’t stop there. There were further cuts made to the Department of Corrections, to the Ministry of Justice, and to Police. If we truly all believe that victims of crime deserve to feel safe and supported—if we truly all believe that—none of us would be doing that. None of us would be making those cuts; would be carving those resources, those people, those support networks out of our justice system, but that is what’s happened. Whilst I can stand and speak in support of this bill and give you some insight to what life on the road with Rima Nakhle is like, what I can’t do is say that we should lose sight of the cuts that have been made and of the very real impacts that will have across New Zealand.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I stand in support of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill at its second reading. I am privileged to be a part of the Justice Committee—

Hon Member: Hard-working.

PAULO GARCIA: —under a super - hard-working chair, and, of course, our colleagues Cameron Brewer and Rima Nakhle, who has been determined and persistent in her position of concern for victims of crime. That is such an amazing determination and focus.

The amendment bill aims to protect victims of crime and to protect people under protection orders from unwanted contact by prisoners. It amends the Corrections Act 2004 in establishing an obligation on the Chief Executive of Corrections to implement processes to protect victims from unwanted contacts. It’s section 8 that is amended, ensuring that processes are established and maintained to inform visitors and victims of prisoners, and recipients of prisoner contact, that they have the opportunity to request measures that they can use to ensure that they do not receive unwanted contact by a prisoner. In deciding what these conditions are to be imposed and ensuring that no unwanted contact is placed upon victims, the chief executive and also the Commissioner of Police places the victim and the interests of victims, their wellbeing, at the forefront of these imposed conditions.

The amendment bill is actually a very simple and pragmatic way to ensure that victims are not re-victimised by persistent intimidation through contact that they receive from prisoners. The corrections system is well aware of the many instances where prisoners have continued to intimidate and instil fear in their victims and in the victims’ families through repeated contact. While one would assume that this is not happening, or shouldn’t be happening, it does happen quite a lot. I’d like to mention the many instances where prisoners have contacted victims over 93 times, over 100 times, over 102 times, and these are prisoners who have committed grievous injury on their victims—many times, physical injury, like rape; they have intentionally beaten victims with extreme brutality. It is these prisoners themselves who have sought ways around the non-contact system and through other prisoners who they may know, or who through their own ways have continued to contact the victims, intimidating them and making them want to change whatever positions they may have, if there is a persecution still ongoing.

The amendment bill also provides for a new offence for people to continue to try and breach the contact prohibition. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s good to stand in support of this bill, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. What this bill does is create an obligation on the chief executive and on prison managers in order to protect the rights of victims and also those who are subject to a protection order and victims of crime so that they can’t be contacted by prisoners.

I think it is important to note that, while we support this bill, when a piece of legislation is creating an obligation on the chief executive, as a policy analyst in a former life, you always want to ask the question whether legislation is necessary in order to do that. There is a little bit of a question for me as to whether we need a bill in order to create an obligation on a chief executive. That would be something potentially a Minister of the Crown would be able to do without a bill. Nevertheless, it’s got a good intent in it. Initially it wanted to do it quite a lot; it was going to be operationally difficult to implement because it would have also included monitoring the communications of people on community-based sentences—which is 26,000, potentially—and on parole. That would have been a huge effort.

The Justice Committee worked quite constructively together in order to make it workable. Corrections staff were great: they worked quite closely with the committee in ways that we could practically make this work in the way of the intent of the member who has carried it forward. The select committee requested that the relevant agencies continue to monitor the safeguards that are practically available and proposed a range of amendments which have been specified. We’ve introduced a new offence of making unwanted contact by amending section 128 to make an offence against prison discipline for a prisoner to contact someone who the prisoner knows or reasonably ought to know does not want to be contacted, and the Act provides a range of punishments for prisoners who are found guilty of their offence against prison discipline.

It’s got good intent, it continues to make sure that victims’ rights are looked after, and I commend it to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to speak as the final speaker on the second reading of the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill in the name of my great friend Rima Nakhle. As well canvassed previously by—

Hon Scott Simpson: Which electorate does she represent?

TOM RUTHERFORD: She represents Takanini. As regarded to by my colleague Cameron Brewer from Upper Harbour—he sort of heaped the praise on Rima for her advocacy for those who are victims of crime, those who have experienced crime, whether firsthand or in support of family members or friends. For me, it’s disappointing to know that we’ve allowed for this to happen for so long, that there’s been a loophole and it’s taken this piece of legislation to amend it. I commend my colleague for picking up the baton from Minister Louise Upston but I’m disappointed also that we’ve had to come to this place to do it. I’m pleased that we’re doing it, but—that we have allowed for something like this to happen in New Zealand.

I had a read through around some examples. One stood out to me. In 2016, a man severely beat his victim for 15 minutes, breaking five ribs, fracturing their spine, and causing severe internal injuries. Sadly, the story didn’t end there. While they were in custody awaiting trial, that offender made 102 phone calls to the victim—102 phone calls pressuring that person to simply not testify in court against them. Now, imagine how that makes you feel as the victim of that crime. Experiencing the crime itself is bad enough, let alone being re-traumatised again and again and again by the exact person who committed that crime against you. For many victims, going through the court process is intimidating enough as it is, let alone to have that contact from the person who committed those crimes against you is just disgusting—it’s absolutely disgusting.

Just reading on: when the person didn’t quite get through that the 102 phone calls weren’t working, what did they do? Manipulated the system. They got another inmate to add the victim’s number to their approved phone call list to continue the harassment. It wasn’t just bad enough for the offender to do it themselves, but they now got old mate from the cell next door to be the one to then start ringing that victim as well and harassing them.

That’s not an isolated incident—it’s not an isolated incident. We’ve seen cases of paedophiles writing to their victims from behind bars. We’ve seen prisoners orchestrate stalking through third parties. Each of these cases simply represents a fundamental failure of our justice system to protect those who have already suffered enough. Number one: in this country, we put the victims first; they have experienced enough. Yet, we’ve created a loophole that allows them to be contacted and harassed by those that have committed the crime against them. I’m pleased that we are fixing this loophole, because it’s simply going to mean a massive amount of change for those who most need all the support they possibly can.

Ruth Money, a prominent victim advocate, said it perfectly when she stated—and I quote—“That everybody was always shocked to learn that this was possible.” She called it “beyond belief” that this detail hasn’t been addressed before now. I read through the report the Justice Committee prepared after considering it through the select committee process. I wasn’t fortunate enough to listen to the submissions. My colleague Rima Nakhle told me there were 12 submissions on it, probably all genuinely heartfelt, probably some people who were firsthand victims themselves and sharing their experiences and sharing why changing this legislation is so important.

The committee carefully considered how to make the bill both effective and practical. The initial draft—and my colleague Rima and I were just talking about it before—would have initially covered about the 26,000 people under Corrections’ supervision and including those beyond the Corrections facilities themselves out in the community. Based on the operational advice that the select committee received, they agreed to redefine the legislation. They brought it back from the initial 26,000 to about 9,500 who are held in Corrections facilities as prisoners, and that ensures that the bill can effectively be implemented with current resources.

Then I had a look through and I saw some of the recommendations and amendments that were made by the Justice Committee and I thought, “Hey, they’re making some really reasoned arguments and points here.” Clause 4 of the bill as introduced would introduce a new section 8(1) into the Act: “This would place an obligation on the chief executive to establish and maintain processes that would protect victims and [protected] persons from unwanted contact from any person under the control or supervision [of Corrections]”. I thought: that makes sense, it’s an amended aspect to the responsibility of the chief executive.

I listened to Reuben Davidson’s contribution previously where he spoke in support of the legislation, but he talked about “cuts here” and “cuts there”. I thought back to Budget 2024 and I thought about the funding we as a Government have put into the corrections space. Don’t forget the $1.9 billion in new funding to deliver 810 extra beds, deliver new front-line staff—

Hon David Parker: You’d be better to spend it on a hospital in Dunedin.

TOM RUTHERFORD: —increase pay for Corrections employees, and extend rehabilitation programmes for prisoners. It’s really disappointing to be heckled from across the House from the Hon David Parker. This is actually a really serious moment and he goes, “Let’s talk about Dunedin Hospital”—let’s talk about Dunedin Hospital. Well, do you know what, Mr Parker? I actually want to talk about the victims who are affected by this legislation. I want to talk about those victims who have had firsthand experience of violent crime in New Zealand, and now we’re fixing the loophole, and you want to talk about Dunedin Hospital.

Hon David Parker: Yeah, I do.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Well, why don’t you actually remember about those victims in New Zealand who have experienced firsthand violent crime and are now being harassed by those prisoners in jail who committed the crime and are now harassing the victims every single day?

One victim received 102 phone calls—102 phone calls and he continues to heckle. That victim received 102 phone calls and yet he’s heckling and saying, “Let’s talk about Dunedin Hospital, let’s talk about Dunedin Hospital.” Do you know what, Mr Parker? I’m talking about 102 phone calls that that victim received and were harassed by the offender who committed those crimes against them. It’s really disappointing. It’s really disappointing that that has to happen. But, do you know what? My colleague Cameron Brewer spoke earlier and he talked about the nine Public Service targets and there’s one in particular that I’m really focused on and it’s about our commitment to reduce 20,000 victims of violent crime—20,000 fewer victims of violent crime by 2029 and reducing serious young offending by 15 percent.

I see my colleague Karen Chhour in the House, a Minister leading that work around giving those children and young people another opportunity at life. Not saying that we’re just going to give up on you. We’re giving you a second shot at life and we’re going to put some investment into you so we know you can turn your life around and you can make better decisions moving forward rather than putting them in the too-hard basket. I just think that’s fantastic.

As I come to the conclusion, I think I really want to reiterate that all these measures around what we’re doing in the law and order space—banning gang patches, young military-style academies, everything else under the front line of bringing in more front-line police officers—means little if we can’t protect victims from offenders behind bars. It means nothing, it doesn’t stand for anything if we can’t protect those who have been the victims of crime. Prison should mean safety and peace of mind for our victims in New Zealand. It should mean safety and peace of mind, not continued harassment and intimidation. This bill represents a return to common sense in our justice system. It puts victims first; it closes a loophole that should have never existed; and, most importantly, it sends a really clear message: we will no longer tolerate a justice system that allows offenders to continue victimising people from behind bars. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): I move, That the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

The Family Court now sees a large number of parties alleging family harm and domestic violence, including sexual violence. This harm and this violence are seen, for example, in protection order hearings and in Care of Children Act hearings.

This bill is a straightforward yet important means by which to achieve two fundamental aims. The first aim is to protect vulnerable people who appear in the Family Court, and the second aim is to improve the quality of evidence given at the Family Court. It does so by adding a presumption in favour of using alternative ways of giving evidence in the Family Court—for instance, using an audiovisual link or CCTV to avoid an open courtroom, which means evidence-in-chief and cross-examination could be recorded beforehand, or the ability to use screens to prevent direct visual contact.

I note for members that these alternative ways are automatically available for witnesses in criminal proceedings, but there is no statutory presumption in the Family Court. The alternative ways exist in criminal proceedings, as they should in the Family Court, fundamentally to reduce the stress on victims and to reduce the stress on witnesses.

I’d like to take a step back and provide some background to show why these measures are important. In doing so, I’d like to acknowledge and reference Dr Emily Henderson, who is the author of this bill, a passionate academic, advocate for improvements in the justice and Family Court settings, and an experienced practitioner with many years’ service to the Family Court. When I spoke to Dr Henderson and asked her more about the impetus of this bill, she said, as a starting point, “Trying to get lawyers to use alternatives in the Family Court isn’t always easy. People don’t know what they don’t know, but creating a presumption should make things easier.”, and this is what this bill does.

We then went on to talk about how New Zealand had become one of the first countries in 1989, if I remember correctly, to enact some, or at least a couple, of the innovations from what was a large international conference the year before. Since then, the dial hasn’t really moved much to protect vulnerable people.

Courtrooms in the Family Court are typically smaller. They are less formal by design. They often are in a room with one long set of benches on the same level, and they are like that specifically to remove formality. They typically have less physical distancing between parties and between witnesses. I think it’s fair to say that Family Court courtrooms are designed for people who are at loggerheads. While that might be the case for some proceedings, the majority of cases that make it to the Family Court are about interpersonal violence, not dispute resolution. In reality, it is the top tier of intractable issues being heard, often involving violence of all sorts, and parties are there because all else has failed.

The civil parties, as seen in the Family Court, are often doubly vulnerable because they not only give evidence but they also must take the lead role in prosecuting or defending their cases and instructing their own counsel, rather than having the protection of a prosecutor leading the case. In this setting, in this physical environment, and under these circumstances, that very informality found in the Family Court can actually be very intimidating, and protections are needed to help alleviate fear and stress and to help remove barriers to ensure that witnesses simply don’t fold, because they were too scared to tell their stories, and are able to give their evidence.

This bill amends section 107 of the Evidence Act 2006 to extend the range of possible protections for parties and witnesses giving evidence of sexual assault or family harm in the Family Court to mirror those available to similarly vulnerable complainants and witnesses in criminal proceedings. Existing protections in criminal proceedings include automatic entitlement for children witnesses to give evidence in alternative ways instead of more stressful, normal methods. Sections 15 and section 16 of the Sexual Violence Legislation Act 2021 will also amend the Evidence Act 2006, extending that presumption as found in criminal proceedings to sexual-case complainants, to sexual-case propensity witnesses, and to adult family-harm complainants.

It should also be noted that in certain narrow circumstances, the witnesses can choose to, or the judge can order the witness to, give the evidence in an ordinary way, but the presumption in favour of alternative ways of giving evidence is an important protection for this particular very vulnerable group. It prompts judges and lawyers to actually use the tools that we know work well to level the playing field, to limit the intimidation that we know happens on a daily basis, and to protect these parties while they are giving evidence.

In conclusion, this bill represents a simple legislative change but an important one. I thank Dr Emily Henderson for being so passionate about this issue and for drafting this bill. I, in her stead, will look forward hopefully to progressing this through the House. I invite members across the House to support these protections and to vote for this bill.

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

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I begin tonight’s contribution just by acknowledging Dr McLellan for her work and good fortune in having this bill drawn from the ballot. I know it’s taken a while to get here. We’ve been through many members’ days where the member has probably sat waiting, hoping that it would pop up, and finally it’s arrived—so, congratulations. I know that you had a member’s bill go through earlier this year and didn’t quite get that one across the line, but we’re hopeful for this one. I know the member has nominated the Justice Committee for consideration of this bill, and we gladfully accept that nomination and look forward to considering bill No. 24 for this committee. I understand Greg Fleming may be tempted to seek leave to rush through the rest of the bills tonight to get his bill to the Justice Committee as well, but I’m sure that there’ll be objections to that across the House.

I won’t leave the member hanging. The National Party will be supporting this bill through to select committee so that it can have some robust discussion and consideration. While we do broadly support the policy intentions behind the bill, there are some fish-hooks that we do want to carefully consider when it comes to looking at the traditional way that we uphold rights in the justice system in New Zealand and in the Westminster system of justice and how this bill may impact them. But this legislation does represent a potential step forward in protecting our most vulnerable New Zealanders. We just had the passage of the second reading of a bill focused on protecting victims, and that’s exactly what this bill intends to do as well. It intends to ensure our justice system better serves those affected by family violence.

This bill does affect the giving of evidence in the Family Court, and the Family Court, of course, deals with some of the most sensitive and challenging cases in our justice system. Every day in that court, New Zealanders—everyday New Zealanders—must stand before the court to recount traumatic experiences of family violence, and not only do they do so as witnesses but often as parties who must take an active role in their own cases, instructing counsel and prosecuting or defending their positions. This double burden places immense stress on those who have already endured significant trauma, and currently, while the Family Court technically has access to these alternative ways of giving evidence, the protections—we have found—are very rarely used. This bill seeks to change that by creating a presumption in favour of the alternative evidence-giving methods, mirroring those protections already available in the criminal courts in the wider justice system.

I wanted to talk about a number of reasons why we believe the bill should proceed through to select committee for consideration. First of all, one of those issues is the current challenges that we have in the Family Court. The physical environment of our Family Court does present some challenges. Typically, those courtrooms are smaller and less formal than criminal courts, with minimal physical distance between parties, often parties who are intimately connected with one another. For someone who has experienced family violence, being in proximity to their alleged abuser can be quite traumatic and overwhelming in those settings. There is, of course, a possibility that those environments can significantly impact the quality of evidence being given when you are confronted with someone so close to you.

The second thing is that this legislation will hopefully align practice with what happens currently in the criminal courts as well. Under section 107, I believe, of the Evidence Act, child witnesses in criminal proceedings are automatically entitled to give evidence in alternative ways. This is a logical and perhaps necessary step to extend these same protections to the Family Court, where those victims of family violence are often required to give evidence in even more challenging circumstances. I understand the bill includes several procedural safeguards: parties must give 28 days’ notice of their intention to use alternative ways of giving evidence, other parties can apply for a direction that evidence be given in an ordinary way, and judges always retain the discretion to make appropriate directions based on the interests of justice.

We believe that the legislation will deliver four key benefits overall to the justice system. First, we believe it will improve the quality of evidence provided to the court. As I mentioned before, the stress of giving evidence before those in close proximity who you are very, very intimately related to can affect things like memory recall and how you express yourself in court, and so alternative methods can help those witnesses provide clearer, more effective evidence. Secondly, we believe it will increase access to justice. Many victims currently hesitate to seek Family Court intervention out of fear of facing their abusers. These provisions providing extra protections may encourage more people to seek the court’s protection and to come forward. Thirdly, we understand and believe there will be efficiency gains for the courts. Where witnesses are less traumatised, proceedings go more smoothly, and there are fewer interruptions and fewer issues, benefiting all court users. Fourthly, as mentioned by the previous speaker, Tracey McLellan, we understand there will be better outcomes for children in this case; for all cases involving children, these provisions can help ensure their voices are heard while minimising the potential trauma.

At the top of my speech, I indicated that there were some potential negative consequences that we are aware of, on this side, and that we’ll be interested in looking into in the select committee. First of all, one of those is around administrative and resource requirements. This does add an additional element, technology-wise, into the court system. The 28-day notice requirement for alternative methods could delay proceedings, the courts will need to invest in the appropriate technical equipment and training, additional staff may be needed, and remote testimony and small courthouses may struggle to provide the appropriate facilities. Those are things during the select committee process that we hope to be able to tease out and to try and mitigate and minimise any impact. Secondly, there may be some additional procedural complexities as we introduce new ways of operating in the Family Courts. The process of applying for, and contesting, these alternative evidence methods could lengthen proceedings, managing the technical equipment during hearings could disrupt the court flow, and remote testimony may complicate cross-examination and the assessment of witness credibility.

Thirdly, the bill does impact the rights of respondents under our justice system—and before Duncan Webb quite rudely interrupts my speech and accuses me of reading—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t mean to rudely interrupt Mr Meager’s speech, but you seem to have mistaken the time clock, Mr Speaker, because under Appendix A, members’ bills have five minutes for the second speech. That’s what I’m reading in Appendix A of the Standing Orders.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, the first two are 10 minutes.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, we’ve got some advice then.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, we’ll take the clock back a minute.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: I apologise to the member.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): We’ll give the member another minute, thanks.

JAMES MEAGER: I’ll just regather my thoughts and find where I was, Mr Speaker. No, look, I—

Hon Scott Simpson: Start at the beginning.

JAMES MEAGER: I’ll start right from the top. It’s a pleasure to be speaking on Tracey McLellan’s member’s bill.

No, look, there are some important rights and issues to be considered in this. The bill does change and amend some of the procedures around giving evidence, which may impact on a respondent’s right to be heard and to face their accuser. So changing the way we practise in the courts will result in a reduced ability to directly confront accusations. It could affect the defence rights. Video evidence might not capture some of those important non-verbal cues that judges and counsel pick up on. You’ve got technical issues which could impact the ability and the effectiveness of cross-examination of defence counsel. And, of course, remote testimony might of course affect the respondent’s ability to instruct counsel during proceedings. Those are some of the potential issues that we will be looking into in the select committee in terms of affecting the rights of the respondents, but, of course, our focus in this bill and in supporting this bill is to maintain concentration at all times on victims of crime and on the ability for victims to access justice, not only the respondents.

Finally, in the two-odd minutes I have remaining, unless there are further suggestions from members as to how I should deliver this speech, there are some practical implementation challenges. As someone who comes from a rural and regional electorate, I can envisage some challenges for people giving testimony remotely, whether that’s access to the technology, whether that’s access to the connectivity, and whether that’s the need to travel somewhere that has those facilities. The ability to roll this out across the country will be something that we’ll look into in the committee, as well as some of the resource constraints. Also, what do you do when those technical failures do exist for some of those areas? What are the back-up options available for victims of crime in rural and regional New Zealand? I know many of my colleagues will be interested in that, given how many rural and regional electorates they do take charge over.

Mr Speaker, the clock appears to be increasing in time the longer I speak, so I’m not entirely sure what happens here.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): A moment has been added on.

JAMES MEAGER: Very good. OK, I’ve had the moment. Well, then I will go to—some of the other challenges that may well exist in this bill are some of the professional practice requirements. Of course, lawyers who practise in the Family Court will need to adjust their practice. If you practise predominantly in the Family Court, you may not be as familiar with the cross-examination of remote testimony and remote cross-examination. New skills may need to be required for managing client interactions, and, of course, different approaches may need to be taken in order to prepare witnesses. There are some potential challenges in that area. Then, of course, you’ve got issues around client confidentiality and how the court can be assured that those giving testimony remotely are doing so without coercion and without undue influence in the room as well. That is something that you can control when you are in person in court, but something which is a little bit harder to control when you are doing so remotely.

Finally, just in terms of our friends in the judiciary, the Family Court judges, there may need to be some increased training for managing the technology. There may be increased complexity in managing hearings when doing things remotely. As chair of a committee which manages a number of hearings mixed by Zoom and in-person, I can imagine some of the issues that might face some judges when faced with technological issues. And, of course, there is the potential for misuse of these processes by nefarious actors, in particular people who are upset about being brought before the Family Court and want to use some of these processes as a way to harass or as leverage against their victims. Of course, we have other legislation that’s been seen to deal with litigant abuse, which may go some way to dealing with those issues too.

In conclusion, this side of the House—and I think all members in the House—are committed to protecting vulnerable New Zealanders. This bill acknowledges that the way we gather evidence can be improved in a way which balances the rights of victims and access to justice with those rights of the defendants or the respondents, the rights to fair trial. Family violence casts a long shadow over our society, and I’m hopeful that many members in this House will support the bill, at least through to select committee, so we can give it a thorough, thorough examination. I congratulate the member, and I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): As you are such an infrequent speaker in the House, I thought you might appreciate that extra minute, Mr Meager.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I begin by congratulating and acknowledging the member Tracey McLellan, to my right, for her work and for bringing this bill to the House. I think a debate on this issue is really long overdue, and I just want to acknowledge that I think everybody here will stand up and acknowledge that we want to prevent family and sexual violence from happening. But I think, at the core, it’s about the actions that we take to protect survivors and to work to address the drivers that lead to family and sexual violence in the first place. To me, members’ bills that have practical effect and improve the ability for survivors to be able to go through the justice system in a way that honours their experiences are a really good and practical way we can take those visions and values on board.

I also want to acknowledge that this bill aims to support the use of alternative methods for presenting evidence, such as video recordings or other accommodations in the Family Court. I think it’s worth noting, and I know others have acknowledged, that these provisions in theory exist, but they’re so infrequently used that that, in and of itself, acts as a deterrent. By establishing this presumption, we’re basically breaking down barriers for survivors to be able to have other means of presenting evidence in a way that also acknowledges their own experiences and, I think, in a way that also acknowledges diversity that exists in our communities—for example, for people for whom English is a second language, or for disabled people. Having these alternative methods is a really important way of breaking down the barrier to really fulsome participation through the Family Court, a way that decreases the risk of harm to them, and a way that doesn’t deter people from participating in these proceedings.

I want to acknowledge that this bill doesn’t exist within a vacuum. I want to mihi to the Hon Marama Davidson, our co-leader, for her work in establishing Te Aorerekura, and that Te Aorerekura, in and of itself, will exist as part of an ecosystem that aims to eliminate sexual and family violence and to put the means of preventing it across all Government agencies. It was highlighted by the Chief Victims Advisor that our current adversarial system often leaves victims/survivors without true justice, perpetuating a cycle of winners and losers. To me, this bill will help address some of that in terms of breaking down the adversarial nature of our justice system so it ends up being one about healing and ensuring that we don’t perpetuate cycles of violence, as our carceral system often tends to do.

I also want to touch on some of the remarks from the National Party, particularly the concerns that they noted around the admin requirements and resource requirements that they presented as, I guess, issues of concern and needing further evaluation. I want to remind those members that, at the end of the day, they hold the power to resource those entities adequately so that those things do not actually become barriers to having this bill becoming law and functioning, and that resourcing the courts to ensure that we can address these potential concerns is a worthwhile investment to make. I don’t want their austerity politics to be barriers to actually having these alternative methods of presenting evidence from working in practice. We should not set this bill up to fail by pre-empting potential resource constraints when, actually, we’ve got a Government that is very much choosing to give millions and millions of dollars in tax breaks to landlords and to tobacco companies. Therefore, when they speak of these resource constraints, we’ve got to put it in the context of the broader Government objectives.

We look forward to evaluating this bill at the select committee stage. No doubt, our members on the Justice Committee will do due diligence and receive the voices of submitters with care. I do expect that we will be hearing from people who will have really, really delicate stories to tell, and I just want to uphold the mana of future submitters because those voices will be critical when it comes to ensuring that we have something that works for survivors and honours those experiences in a system that, so far, hasn’t uplifted them. Once again, I commend the member for bringing this bill to the House for us to debate, and I hope that it goes through all stages in a way that honours the voices of our broader communities.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Dr Webb will be happy to know I only get five minutes—I was hoping it would be longer, but it won’t be—but, again, I also rise to speak, on behalf of ACT, on the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill, brought to the House by Dr Tracey McLellan. I do want to also add my congratulations on having this bill drawn, Dr McLellan, and having it, hopefully, considered by the Justice Committee. Well, ACT is going to support it, so I think there’s a good chance it’s going to be supported by the Justice Committee.

I’m going to talk about the bill in a second, but I just also—you know, we’re talking a lot about victims tonight, and it’s actually very timely that during the dinner break, myself and my colleague the Minister Karen Chhour and my other colleague Laura Trask popped down to the opening of Men and Trauma New Zealand’s new office here in Wellington. They’re a specialty service that actually deals, really, with men, who are often victims of sexual assault, and they’re also dealing with suicide prevention. It was really a timely reminder that we do need to do more to protect victims and to also address people who are victims and help them actually get on with their lives and heal.

I think this bill—we carefully considered it, the ACT caucus, we looked at it, and we do think it’s worthy of going to select committee and having a discussion, because it does actually put in place a presumption that does support victims. Dr McLellan mentioned the actual author of the bill, Emily Henderson, and, again, I want to just acknowledge her work, as I know Dr McLellan would, in actually getting this bill into shape and bringing it before the House.

On this side of the House and in ACT, we actually do think about victims’ rights and how vulnerable people are going to have to give evidence within our justice system. As has been spoken about tonight, the Family Court does try to be a bit more informal, but it is still a court, there are still formal processes, and it can actually still be quite intimidating. It is set up in a particular way. I think—again, as Dr McLellan talked about—when things get to the Family Court, they are usually very difficult and intractable issues. I know from my own short experience of practising at the bar that the Family Court cases I was involved in were extremely difficult ones, where the parties had been going at it for years and years. In fact, in the case I was involved in, the mother had gone on the run and refused to come to court. These are the kinds of very difficult situations we’re dealing with.

Dr McLellan, tonight, pointed out that you are then adding in the process and the drama and the set-up of a court. I think putting in place the types of measures that this bill does around being able to give evidence in different ways, through audiovisual links, video—and changing the presumption, I think, is a sensible one, definitely worthy of discussion. I think it does align with some of the things that this Government is trying to do. I want to assure Mr Menéndez March that, obviously, we are investing in new things in the court. Again, recently, the Justice Committee looked at audiovisual links and how we’re going to use new technology. While there have been some concerns raised, those are things that the Government is actively working on, and, hopefully, that new technology and new way of doing things will be able to be utilised by the changes that Dr McLellan’s talking about here in this bill. I think there are some things that can be tied together.

I also want to say that I think we work very constructively in the Justice Committee on members’ bills. We have some tensions around some of the many, many pieces of legislation that are coming through our committee, but I do think that on members’ bills we are a very constructive committee. We’re willing to have a constructive discussion, and I think we can get this bill into a shape that will be worthy of further discussion in this House. I do want to thank the member for getting this in front of us, for actually thinking about victims and how we can actually accommodate their needs in the Family Court in these extremely difficult situations, and for moving this forward. ACT will be supporting this, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge Dr Tracey McLellan for her work in bringing this bill to the House. New Zealand First will also be supporting this bill through the first reading, but we do so with some considerations that have already been reflected on in the House today.

The process of the Family Court is often very sensitive and volatile, and we acknowledge that there are sensitivities that need to be addressed, but I think we also need to consider the basic fundamentals of a system that requires us to be able to test the veracity of information and to be able to understand the nuances of the information that’s being provided. The concern is that we are rushing too quickly to create these additional steps without looking at the ways in which we can fix and modify the existing systems to afford the protections.

The fact is that the Family Court is not always victim and offender. The fact is that we are dealing with broken families and bad situations on all sides, and so when we enter into a court process it’s very hard to say that there is cleanly and clearly one victim and one offender in those situations. Yes, there are vulnerable people, and we absolutely need to ensure there are some protections, but I still think that we need to be careful that we’re not rushing down a path to put systems in place when we’re just not fixing the existing environment.

We’ve talked a lot about the courtroom environment, particularly for the Family Court, being smaller, more intimate, but that is for a purpose, and that purpose is to have a less formal environment so that we can have very full and frank discussions, that we can open up and look each other in the eye and talk about things and hopefully come to some fair resolutions. This is the part that New Zealand First has some considerations on. We want to ensure that we’re balancing protection with justice and that we’re not overruling the fact that perhaps sometimes the information exchanged needs to be tested and needs to be challenged.

I think that there is opportunity to look at alternative solutions. We talked a lot about these things and how we need to ensure there are protections, but if the system is failing and not protecting people who are vulnerable, then perhaps we need to look at the way we’re allowing these situations. We’ve talked already about how that criteria to allow alternative evidence exists but isn’t being applied, and how rushing to legislation sometimes seems to be a quick fix which doesn’t necessarily end up being the quick fix we hoped it would be.

We’ve touched on the idea that when you have these 28-day notification periods and we have these extra technologies, we’ve got to consider all of the courtrooms around this country, and we’ve got to consider the resources available in all those courtrooms. Contrary to public opinion, there isn’t a magic money bucket with from we can just start throwing money at every new initiative that we have, so we have to really be careful about what we’re putting in place and the expectations we’re creating. It may be that sometimes we need to work with the resources we’ve got and make sure the courts are applying what already exists and doing it well before we rush to legislation.

By no means are we saying that there isn’t perhaps a necessity for some further protections to be put in place, but I hope that through the select committee process, we will fully test the expectations of what we’re putting in place here, and that we fully test that we’re not allowing a broken system to remain broken and putting in additional steps, because we haven’t got the energy or motivation or understanding to fix a broken system. I hope that we don’t end up with an unintended consequence of having a less fair system, that we recognise that the Family Courts have delicate situations, that there isn’t always the offender and the victim, that there isn’t always a good guy and a bad guy, and that sometimes it’s just a broken family who needs to sit in a room together and work out how they’re going to move forward and how they’re going to put systems in place to protect everyone. I do commend the bill to the House, and I hope that the talented Justice Committee will work through all of those issues. Thank you.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te katoa. E tautoko ana mātou te pāti ki tēnei whakaaro [Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hello to everyone. We, the party, support this idea], and in saying that, supporting this bill and this idea, the idea behind it, so e mihi atu ana ki a koe [I acknowledge you], Dr Tracey McLellan. E mihi atu ana ki a Dr Emily Henderson. So e mōhio ana ahau ki tērā wahine, ka mahi tahi māua ki Whangārei, me wōna whānau katoa, so e mihi atu ana ki a ia. [I acknowledge Dr Emily Henderson. So now that woman, we work together in Whangārei, and all of her whānau, so I acknowledge her.] It doesn’t surprise me at all, her work with you to bring this to this point, so I’ll mention that to her when I see her next.

I’m taking this call on behalf of the party to speak in support of the bill. The sad reality, though, is that 58 percent of wāhine Māori are affected by family violence over a lifetime. That’s kind of what I mean. There are a lot of reasons why those sorts of things happen, but I want to make that comment because as well, as being the victims of harm, there is also a number growing that are the solutions of their own liberation. Too many have been in harm’s way and have been affected and find themselves in front of Family Courts.

Unfortunately, we know that that does not work well, generally, for all, particularly for wāhine Māori. Wāhine Māori are more likely to experience these forms of assault than anyone else in Aotearoa. We are also the least likely to seek justice. This is not just due to inherent discrimination in our justice system but because of how difficult it can be to navigate it. Currently, people who experience family violence in Aotearoa are treated differently by our justice system, depending on where they turn for help.

The same special protections that are guaranteed to victims in the criminal justice system are not guaranteed in the Family Court. These protections include being able to pre-record evidence and testify remotely. While the Family Court can apply these protections, the actual rate that they do is not great. This makes seeking justice an intimidating prospect for a lot of wāhine and their families and for other victims of domestic abuse—whether it is from the fear of repercussion, not wanting to go through the criminal system, not wanting to see the perpetrator or the abuser sitting in front of you, or not knowing how to deal with all of that emotion when you’re sitting in such a place like a courtroom.

We need to eliminate all barriers to justice and extend protections to everyone who needs them. It shouldn’t matter which door you knock on to seek help. You should be entitled to safe and consistent support wherever you are and wherever you need it from. Whānau Ora is one of those places that is for Māori, by Māori, designed with kaupapa Māori beginnings and ends and everything in the middle of it. Unfortunately, that’s not getting the support that it needs, but that’s a very, very good—and evidenced so—way to support wāhine Māori that are in situations where they’re having to be in court. Unfortunately, that’s not going to be the case in the next 12 months.

This bill is a good step towards improving the system and the problems that I’ve outlined, but I recognise that a lot more needs to be done to protect our whānau from violence, from whakamā, and from repercussions when seeking justice. Māori didn’t sign the Treaty so we could end up in this state. There’s a lot of work to do, and I look forward to 19 November when this whole place will be receiving many, many Māori—wāhine Māori, children, whānau, hapū, iwi—to come and show their disappointment at what’s going on in the House. But, Tracey, to you and this bill: good for you. We tautoko. Kia ora tātou.

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 10 to Minister, 22 October

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to an oral question on 22 October.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: On 22 October, in question time, I stated that the Ministry of Education had advised me that it considered it was acting outside its appropriation for school transport assistance and that, as a result, the ministry may be in breach of the Public Finance Act. What I should have said is that the ministry had advised me that not undertaking its planned route reviews could put it in breach of the requirements of the Public Finance Act. The ministry has today clarified for me that, because they are currently undertaking reviews, they are acting within the appropriation.

Bills

Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill, in the name of Dr Tracey McLellan. I’d like to commend Tracey on bringing this bill to the House, which is a good bill, and it’s encouraging to see that it’s receiving support from across the House. It’s always good when we agree on things.

First, I would like to acknowledge the work of Dr Emily Henderson, who was a former member of the Justice Committee in the previous 53rd Parliament. Emily, as already mentioned, was a staunch advocate for improving our justice system and an active local MP for Whangārei. It was through her that we paid a visit to the Whangārei sexual violence trial court there, which was made permanent in 2019 under the previous Government, both in Whangārei and Auckland. This is another example of where we can look at our court processes to make sure we get better outcomes not only for victims but for justice as well. This is a great bill that seeks to, I guess, make our courts more receptive to families and some of the trauma they’re experiencing when going through them.

Existing protections in the criminal proceedings include automatic entitlement for child witnesses to give evidence in alternative ways, instead of more stressful normal methods of being on the cross-examination stand, and extending that presumption, as found in criminal proceedings, to sexual-case complaints, sexual-case propensity witnesses, and to adult family-harm complaints. While the same protections that are automatically available for witnesses in criminal proceedings are technically available in the Family Court, that often in practice does not happen at all.

This bill adds a presumption in favour of alternative ways of giving evidence in those cases in order to reduce distress on victims and witnesses and to increase the quality of evidence that is given in our courts. If we can increase the quality of evidence, then it is easier for court cases to play out. If it’s a clear case, then a prosecution is able to result. That is a quicker way of proceeding through the system without people being further retraumatised and revictimised through the justice process itself.

Some of the findings from the evaluation of the trial sexual-violence court, using different ways of cross-examining, showed that victims were less traumatised at the end of the case and that better outcomes were made. I truly hope that the same outcomes can be made through this piece of legislation. We know that courtrooms in a Family Court, as has been mentioned, are typically less formal and smaller, with little physical distancing between parties. They can be very close to each other. This increases the stress on victims and witnesses, and it can be really hard for children, particularly in a marriage separation where mum and dad or both their parents are in the same room and things are heated and children are present or even giving evidence in those situations.

Having the ability for someone to be in a separate area and to have evidence that’s done through video in a way that’s able to minimise the impact on people who are young or vulnerable has got to be a good thing for our justice system. It is important that there is clear carriage of justice and there’s a way of making sure that we do that well, but that does not have to be at the expense of victims and of victims being retraumatised.

Also, I’d like to wind up: we’ve done a lot of work, as already mentioned, on making sure that family violence and also victims’ rights are strengthened. We want to keep that work going by having good bills like this proceeding. I welcome it to the Justice Committee, and I really look forward to the submissions we receive, particularly in this area when we get submissions from families who have been through the Family Court. That is a really informative way for our committee to get firsthand experience of where we can improve the system. We know from previous bills on this area that the Family Court has got a lot of improvements that can be made.

Hopefully this bill will be one of those things to improve experiences of people going through our Family Court. I commend the bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I too rise in support of this member’s bill that we are considering here, today, in the first reading, the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill. It’s a member’s bill in the name of Dr Tracey McLellan. I feel privileged that I get to sit on the Justice Committee opposite Dr Tracey, who often has quite deep and insightful additions to make to the conversations that we have when we’re considering the now 24—well, this is the 24th bill that will come before the Justice Committee, very ably chaired by my friend and colleague James Meager.

Now, this bill was introduced to the House on 5 March 2024, this year. As mentioned earlier, it was drafted by former member of Parliament for the Labour Party Dr Emily Henderson. This bill seeks to amend the principal Act, the Evidence Act 2006. Essentially, if we were to put it in a nutshell, it aims to make it easier and safer for victims of family violence to provide evidence in court.

When we talk about victims and when we talk about victims’ rights, it’s interesting what Dr Tracey mentioned in her speech earlier tonight on this bill. She said we want to ensure that victims—that witnesses, rather—don’t fold. I found that quite compelling, that comment that Dr Tracey made, because my mind drifted back to when I was studying law in Sydney and simultaneously working in the local courts arena over there. I recall very vividly, many a time, when witnesses nearly did fold because of the fear of giving evidence in the face, in the presence, of the alleged perpetrator of the crimes against them. That’s why, Dr Tracey, those words that you said really, really struck me and resonated as to why bills like this are so important. We need to consider the witnesses who are the victims.

I feel that James made this point quite comprehensively, as he usually does, but we have to be mindful of the rights of the other party as well, and this other party is the defendant. We’re looking at how we balance these rights—the rights of the victims vis-à-vis the rights of the defendants.

My mind went back to another situation when I worked in the courts, where I realised that the officer in charge of a case had disappeared from court for quite some time. I went outside to look for her to see if she was OK, and I found her telling witnesses that hadn’t been in court yet what to say in light of what she had heard being said in the courtroom, because the doors were closed to witnesses that hadn’t come in yet. I found that quite disturbing, and I went and informed the magistrate, and the magistrate had to shut down the court straight away—that courtroom. Indeed, I was, later on, cross-examined by a police prosecutor as to what I saw, because that was an interference in the course of justice.

I am very honoured to hear my colleagues say that they find me to be someone that stands up for the rights of victims, but I don’t forget about this right of people that have not been convicted yet. This is the balance that I am sure we will strike in the Justice Committee as this this bill goes towards submissions and conversations about how we mitigate those situations so that we ensure that that balance is met. For now, I look forward to perusing over, and conversing about, this, as do my colleagues, and I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Now, I’m just going to call the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, but we’re just resetting this clock—mine’s working and that one’s working but this one’s not. I can assure you that you have longer than 49 seconds, the Hon Willow-Jean Prime.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a brief call on the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill. Can I join with others in acknowledging and congratulating my colleague Dr Tracey McLellan for shepherding through this bill. It is wonderful to hear that there is support around the House for the bill to go to select committee. I acknowledge that the Justice Committee will be undertaking the submission process and doing this work on everybody’s behalf.

I do want to speak as Labour’s spokesperson for children and add my support to the bill because this bill is proposing to extend a range of protections for parties and witnesses giving evidence on sexual assaults or family harm in the Family Court to mirror those that are currently available to similarly vulnerable complainants and witnesses in criminal proceedings. In particular, the highlight here is the automatic entitlement for child witnesses to give evidence in alternative ways, instead of more stressful, normal methods. As others have pointed out tonight, while this is something that is already available in the Family Court, the court doesn’t often use them. By flipping that, with the presumption being that this will be the preferred approach, I want to add my support to it.

I was a neighbour and flatmate of Dr Emily Henderson, and we often talked about the Family Court and improvements that could be made in the Family Court. I am pleased that this bill is here tonight and that there is support in the House for it. I’m sure she will be delighted to see this proceeding to the select committee. I encourage the public to make submissions on this, and I acknowledge the select committee who will be doing that work on our behalf. I commend the bill to the House.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Like others, I welcome this member’s bill, the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill, in its first reading in the name of Dr Tracey McLellan. I congratulate her for the work that’s been done this far and for the good fortune of having it drawn out of the biscuit tin.

I think it’s important just to step back a bit on this bill and reflect on what we’re dealing with in New Zealand as far as family violence and the statistics and the abhorrentness of it and the horrendousness of it. These are, in fact, at many levels, the worst in the OECD.

Playing into this member’s bill here is the fact that only 33 percent of family violence cases are reported. Family violence events have increased by 60 percent in the last five years. Children are present at nearly two-thirds of all family violence incidents police respond to. And just to wind up on these horrific numbers, according to New Zealand Police’s 2022-23 annual report, 177,452 family harm investigations were recorded by the New Zealand Police in the year to June 2023, a 49 percent increase from 2017—so a 49 percent increase in family harm investigations by police from 2017 to the end of June 2023.

I commend the member for bringing this to the House and for us now in the hard-working Justice Committee to be able to go explore it, interrogate it, bring in the officials, seek more advice, and deal with those that advise in and around our court system as to how it will work and how we can get best effect out of it.

Again, as others have said, it seeks to extend protections for parties and witnesses in the Family Court when giving evidence of family harm or sexual assaults. I said earlier, and I’m going to say it again, that this is a focus not just for this member and for that side of the House, but you’ve got to think that this Government, 12 months old, is turning it around as far as making the justice system more victim-centric and victim-prioritised.

We’ve got a Government Public Service target—target number four, which is on the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet website—where the aspiration is for 20,000 fewer victims of sexual assault, robbery, and serious assault by 2029.

When talking to the Secretary for Justice when he came before the Justice Committee for one of our scrutiny sessions, I asked him if these targets, particularly that target, would be helpful in their cross-agency, inter-departmental attack on, and final addressing of, our criminal levels of family violence, and he said that those Public Service targets will be critical and will be important and will really focus the mind, as will the Social Investment Agency, which is now under way and which featured in Budget 2024 as a small allocation. That investment by Nicola Willis as our finance Minister and Public Service Minister is going to deliver dividends as well.

Again, this is great news for this side of the House. This side of the House, this Government, is focused on the victims. This side of the House is committed to reducing family violence and family harm, and so I commend the bill and look forward to hearing submissions and seeing more evidence. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dr Tracey McLellan, in reply.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker—thank you for the opportunity. I’d like to acknowledge all parties across the House and commend them for recognising the value of this bill and for agreeing to support it to select committee.

As has been said on several occasions tonight across all of those parties, at the heart of this bill is the intentionality to do something that’s simple and practical and that actually makes a material difference to the lives of people who, by definition, are probably experiencing, if not their worst day, one of their worst days whilst they negotiate and whilst they navigate through a process that is, by definition, again, largely unpleasant and that signifies, generally, the end of something that possibly was never anticipated to be so and that is fraught with all of the things that human beings bring to any occasion when they are in distress and when things break down.

I appreciate the fact that members have identified some concerns and some things that they intend to look out for, and to ventilate on, and to think more deeply about, during the select committee process, which, of course, is exactly the right place to do that. I welcome the airing of those issues because at the heart, again, of this bill is the fact that we want to get to the end of this process having something that works well for people.

I note that some of the considerations and some of the potential issues that have been raised are around resource—whether that be administrative resource, technological resource, or basic logistics and practicalities. I’m a firm believer that all of those things can be worked out, particularly when they’re backed up and when the scaffolding behind them is the intentionality to look out for vulnerable people and for victims. I look forward to hearing some of the creative and some of the practical and sensible solutions that arise through this process.

I also want to acknowledge the fact that another theme of the contributions tonight was about the need to balance the protection that can be afforded to people within the considerations of justice. Again, I’d like to acknowledge that those are considerations and those are balances that exist throughout all of our systems, particularly our criminal justice system. There is no reason to assume that we would wish for less, in the Family Court, than achieving those balances and to achieving them in a way that is fair and also protective. I look forward to working on that as well.

The many submitters mentioned the fact that when we go to select committee, it is time for the public to make their submissions, and I certainly encourage people to do so. There have been several organisations and several groups and individuals who have reached out to me since March, when this bill was first pulled from the biscuit tin. It sat for quite some time waiting for its airing, but it has, therefore, had the opportunity to garner some interest and to excite people, with the potential of submissions, who have worked a long time in this area or have just recently afforded themselves the opportunity to learn more about this area or have found themselves in the unfortunate position of having to navigate it. I really do encourage everybody who has some lived experience or some professional experience to lend that to the select committee process, and we look forward to hearing those stories.

In conclusion, I’d like to, again, acknowledge the support across the House. I’d like to, again, take the opportunity to thank Dr Emily Henderson, who I know almost certainly will be watching and will feel amongst her many, many achievements throughout her professional career that this is yet another way in which she can make a difference, in the system that she is so passionate about, for the people that she has always worked so hard on behalf of. In conclusion, again, may I just provide one small anecdote that Emily also told me in preparation for this bill, and that was of many stories of her and her colleagues literally having to hold people’s hands to walk them across the road when they thought about turning away from seeking their justice and of having to put their bodies in between parties in an informal setting to preserve the sanctity of that courtroom. I look forward to the process. I’m very pleased with the results tonight. Thank you very much to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill

First Reading

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): I move, That the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill.

It’s an honour to be able to stand here and give the first reading speech on this bill, which has been a long time coming. This bill is a small step towards greater transparency in pay. The reason that this is important is that for too long in New Zealand—and indeed around the world—we’ve had persistent and unexplained discrimination in our pay, and that’s especially so for women and especially so for Māori and Pacific workers. Where there is discrimination, sunlight is often the best disinfectant. This bill brings sunlight to pay. Being secretive about pay often fuels gender and ethnic pay gaps, and can lead to discrimination.

The origins of this bill arose out of a briefing that was started under the 53rd Parliament by the Education and Workforce Committee, which I was a member of. I want to acknowledge members of that committee in the last Parliament, who were really pivotal in that particular briefing—including Marja Lubeck, who was our chair of the Education and Workforce Committee during the 53rd Parliament; and also Jan Logie, who did a lot of work in this area and worked closely with me and other members of that committee on that piece of work. The committee recommended a mandatory pay transparency regime for large businesses in New Zealand to report gender pay gaps and ethnic pay gaps within their organisations, and there was also strong support for disability pay gaps to be also reported. Another one of the recommendations from that committee was to end pay secrecy, and this is the recommendation that resulted in the bill before us today. There were some other worthy recommendations from that report, such as making pay rates mandatory on job ads, but that’s perhaps another member’s bill for another members’ day.

What does this bill do? It does something quite simple. It allows you—and when I say you, Madam Speaker, I mean individuals in New Zealand—to talk about their own pay. It means that people can talk about their own pay without fear of discipline, without fear of action taken by their employer, regardless of what their contract says. My hope is that it will make taking bigger claims like pay equity claims and equal pay claims and it will make it easier for people to do those types of claims which remedy larger discrimination within the employment system in New Zealand. It means that conversations about pay can be freely held.

Many people in New Zealand might not realise that if you have a clause in your contract that states that you cannot talk about your pay, even talking to your spouse or a family member will technically put you in breach of your contract. Now, that’s not practical. It’s also not just, and not fair, and not right. In a bigger sense, it means that conversations about pay that would lead to discrimination being addressed at an earlier stage are not happening in New Zealand. This bill addresses that problem. It provides a small step towards easier conversations, more transparent pay, and, I hope, less discrimination.

Technically, this bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000. It introduces the term “adverse conduct for a remuneration disclosure reason”. If you disclose your own pay or inquire into someone else’s pay and you are then disadvantaged or dismissed as a result of those actions, then you can take a personal grievance under the bill. It’s quite simple and it’s quite fair. It is an individual’s pay and they should be able to talk to their colleagues about it if they wish, and their partner and their family. Importantly, this bill does not compel or force anyone to disclose anything about their own pay. It is just the ability for them to be able to share that information voluntarily if they want to.

This is important because of our persistent pay gaps in New Zealand. At the moment, the Ministry for Women notes that our gender pay gap in New Zealand is 8.2 percent, but recently, we’ve had another biannual report by Strategic Pay that looks at pay more widely and also includes things like bonuses, parking allowances, and cars to measure the gender pay gap within not only the public sector but also the private sector. Very disappointingly, this has shown that the pay gap in the private sector has actually got wider for men and women. This means that we need to take action. It means that we can’t keep doing the same thing that we have been doing, to date, and small steps like this, in voting for this bill tonight—and I would ask colleagues around the House to consider doing so—will help to address some of those inequities.

All of the literature on this recognises that pay gaps are a complex problem. There isn’t one specific cause or one specific reason that gender pay gaps, or ethnicity pay gaps, or disability pay gaps exist. A complex problem requires a complex response, and one of those small steps towards addressing it can be supporting this bill. Interestingly, the study conducted by Strategic Pay also found that females were still being paid less than males for the same-sized job. This is in New Zealand today—quite shocking for us to be still facing that.

In relation to people being disciplined for discussing their pay, some people may wonder if this is an issue in New Zealand—and it is; there have been a number of cases that I’ve been able to find. One was a case called Kar v Bakers Magnum Ltd. In this particular case, this particular worker was off work on ACC. He then showed his payslip to another worker, and then was called up and reprimanded by his employer for doing so. It wasn’t directly as a result—well, it’s not clear that it was directly as a result of that interaction that his employment ended, but that was the result. You can see that there is evidence that this occurs in New Zealand.

Additionally, the Privacy Commissioner has the following advice on their website: essentially, it’s a matter of employment law. It’s not something covered by the Privacy Act, and it actually says to people if they want to look at discussing their own pay, they should actually get legal advice on that—and that’s not the situation we want. We want people to be able to talk about their pay and be able to recognise when there’s discrepancies in pay, without having to get legal advice. A conversation between colleagues should not depend on getting legal advice to be able to talk about something so simple. That’s what this bill would do.

Other countries have done this; this is not an unusual type of law to have. Australia has it as part of their fair work legislation. Ontario in Canada has a law which prohibits employers from taking reprisals against employees. The United Kingdom has a law banning reprisals for discussing pay if it’s about discovering discrimination. Nineteen states in the United States have this particular prohibition, and the European Union also banned pay secrecy clauses from 6 June 2023.

It also has support among experts. A very well-known employment lawyer, Susan Hornsby-Geluk, wrote in March 2024 that salary concealment frequently helps only the most skilled employees in negotiation and that pay transparency, on the other hand, requires that each person’s compensation be reasonable in light of all the factors.

You can see that this is a needed bill. It’s not a bill that is going to fix the fact that we do have gender pay gaps or ethnicity pay gaps or disability pay gaps in New Zealand, but is a strong signal towards continued work and will help with the other laws which remedy discrimination and work.

In closing at this first reading, I want to acknowledge the work done by the Human Rights Commission, specifically the Pacific pay gap inquiry. There’s a lot more information that I could read from this, including a lot of Pacific workers who reflect on working their entire working life on the minimum wage and not feeling that they could ask about their colleagues’ pay. I want to acknowledge especially the outgoing Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, Saunoamaali’i Karanina Sumeo. I also want to acknowledge her for her advocacy and thus her particular strength in advocating for the Pacific pay gap to be addressed. I hope that this bill is one small step. I also want to acknowledge Dellwyn Stuart and Mind the Gap for their advocacy and support of this bill, and the CTU—the Council of Trade Unions—for their work in trying to close the gender pay gaps and their work towards pay transparency.

This is a small bill, but it provides a stepping stone towards further work which, I hope, for the sake of my daughters, this House decides to take.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, this is helpfully a very simple bill—and I’ll cut to the chase: we are going to support this to select committee—but there’s some really interesting things that I’d like to talk to about this. I have been an employee in private sector, I’ve been an employee in the public sector, and I’ve been an employer—and there are so many different circumstances where this plays out both negatively and potentially positively. For that reason, I am really interested to see where this goes in terms of public response at select committee.

One of the points is there are a lot of people out there that have been brought up to not talk about money. It’s one of those things—you don’t talk about politics, religion, and money in some people’s upbringings. It goes against people’s grain to have those conversations, and so for some that’s just taboo. As the member opposite—and to congratulate Camilla on another member’s bill out of the biscuit tin; some just have that luck to have this be coming through in the first reading and then hopefully going to select committee to be discussed.

Look, some people are in a position where there is a disadvantage. They don’t work in an organisation where there are grades; where the grades are really structured; they are really transparent in themselves, you know where you are on the grade, you know why you’re there, you know where your steps are, and you could almost make the guess. In some organisations, that’s not the case at all. In some organisations, you are sworn to secrecy as your employment agreement might stipulate, but I have very rarely seen an organisation utilise that.

The problem is you’ve got one side where you have, obviously, women being able to make an advance to get ahead. I’ve seen examples where women just don’t ask for as much as men, and that’s another issue we have to deal with altogether. When we’re talking about the gender pay gap, women understanding their worth and asking for it is something we’ve really got to work on—breaking down that stigma of, “Actually, I am worth this much and I can aim higher and have that sort of ambition that some of our male counterparts have.” It’s really important that we have this opportunity to hear that out and see how this might impact that opportunity.

I’ve also seen examples where people do use discussing their pay—and, as I say, even though this isn’t a legal thing to make this a “not-allowed-to-be”, in employment terms, people do still discuss their pay as it stands. Some people do it to cause trouble, some people do it inadvertently—they have no idea it’s a term in their contract. It is a good opportunity for us to explore how removing that from terms and conditions and people’s employment agreements can iron some of that out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just—sorry to interrupt the member: just letting you know there’s seven minutes left. We’re having awful problems with our clocks all night, but mine’s fine. I’ll give you a five-minute bell and a two-minute bell.

KATIE NIMON: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m happy to talk for 90 minutes 46 for ever, but I’m sure we’ll be here too late.

I think, ultimately, when it comes to what we want to get from the select committee process, it is to genuinely hear the voices, because, as the member intends, this is to help expose that pay gap and put the sunlight as the disinfectant—which is a really great metaphor—but just acknowledging that there would inadvertently be perverse outcomes. In my experience, what I have seen is that in organisations where there are really large skill gaps people don’t necessarily see that, in terms of their experience, in terms of their—you know, maybe it’s reliability; maybe it’s commitment; maybe it’s all sorts of things that are a reason that somebody has an additional dollar or so an hour, thank you very much.

Like I was saying before our little time debacle, there are occasions where people use that as a trouble-making tool—so to create dissent, to stir the pot. Then there are some people that absolutely inadvertently and for very good intention will talk to their colleagues about what they’re earning to understand whether they’re getting paid what they think they’re worth; and comparing and contrasting based on experience, based on skill, based on roles, and based on workload.

There are really two sides to this. Like I say, I’m really excited to hear from people and do implore, when we go through the select committee process and this gets opened—and I’m sure that will be in the sort of coming days or weeks—that we do get a good, broad number of contributions because we don’t just want to hear from businesses, we don’t just want to hear from the unions, and we don’t just want to hear from women, we don’t just want to hear from Pasifika. We want to hear from a really good representation of all those that will be impacted, because, ultimately, at the end of the day, this is a term that may be in people’s agreements for archaic reasons—absolutely, like I acknowledged in the beginning of my contribution. It is a very old-school terminology to say, “We don’t talk about money. You don’t talk about politics. We don’t talk about religion.”, but what would happen if we did talk about it? I am really interested to see that.

Look, I think one of the things we need to consider is why it is that we don’t share our pay, our salary, or our hourly wage? What is that in people’s employment agreements for? We’ve seen so many organisations going towards having pay grades, having stepped approaches, having a really structured rule, having internal policies as to gender and ethnicity and those salaries. That is a voluntary commitment from organisations. Would this see more people going towards that? Obviously, you’re being proactive rather than reactive, waiting for someone to come to you as an employee to raise their remuneration with you in an unfair way, perhaps, in comparison to your colleagues, but it’s not to take away from independent negotiation, and that’s something I do want to mention. Of course, we do believe in in the power of the independent employment agreement, so there still needs to be the ability for employees and employers to negotiate. I think that what we will hear from contributors—and I don’t want to speculate, but I’m sure there will be confidence that that can still be achieved through this process.

Look, I think, from my perspective—having employed, having been employed, having been in the public sector, and having been in the private sector—it really does come down to the culture of the workplace; it comes down to the structure of the remuneration; it comes down to whether you have an HR department or whether you’re an owner-operator. All of these things do make every business different. While sometimes having legislation that sort of makes blanket rules isn’t always the best approach, I think in some cases, like I say, we have some archaic rules and regulations that have just been in place. Culture has changed; times have changed. I just hope that there won’t be sort of perverse outcomes that come from this, but, again, that’s what we hopefully will draw out.

I think we have a good amount of opportunity as a House, if there is enough support, to push out to our communities, to the people we know, to really make sure their voice is heard on this. There will be some people who might be afraid of the pressure that they might feel to share their salary or their wage with their colleagues and what that might look like in terms of competition or judgment. I think these are the things that we’ve got to consider. It will be sensitive for some people, but it will be an amazing opportunity for others.

I know, obviously, as a woman, you do have a big battle to convince people of your worth in some places and occasions, and particular industries can be very difficult. I myself have worked in the transport industry—it’s predominantly a man’s world. There are all sorts of things that women do feel that they have to do to make themselves on that same level, or at least feel on the same level, whether it’s additional study or more hours or whatever else it might be that you feel gives you those credentials. If this becomes that levelling tool, then that’s a wonderful thing.

I do really look forward to, like I said, hearing from businesses and hearing from employers, in all different sectors, in all different spaces, whether it’s public sector or private sector—if that’s something that we can achieve—and employees as well, both those on independent agreements and those on collective agreements. I’m sure—and I can’t speak for collective agreements to the same that I can independent—that there is a bit more understanding of what some colleagues are earning, given that those are collective in some respects. Of course, we do have some industries where they have particular rates of pay that do exist under arrangement. Look, I’m sure that we will iron that out in due course.

As I said, as a party, we’re looking forward to supporting this to select committee and really hearing those voices. I do hope that we get considerable contribution from the public so that we can really see how this stands up and what people’s views are. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The clocks are currently working—we’ll keep an eye on it. I call Teanau Tuiono.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens if the clock’s working—oh, I rise anyway if the clocks aren’t working—to speak on the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill, and just to signal for the House that we will be supporting this bill. It’s great to hear that bill looks like it’s destined to be heard at the select committee where it can have that more precise looking-over, which will involve submitters coming to the select committee to really give their perspectives on this bill.

This bill amends the Employment Relations Act to ensure that employees who discuss or disclose remuneration cannot be subjected to detrimental repercussions from their employer. I note that, currently, employment contracts may include firms prohibiting employees from discussing or disclosing their remuneration—tongue-twister tonight—to third parties, including other employees. Breaching this may be considered a breach of good faith, or a disciplinary matter, which could subject individuals to action from their employer.

I want to align myself with the comments that have been made around the need for people to be able to share what they’re getting paid and the importance of that transparency as well, and also to acknowledge—as the member Camilla Belich did—the work of Saunoamaali’i Karanina Sumeo. While the member was speaking, I actually had a copy of the Voices of Pacific Peoples: Eliminating pay gaps, and I was at the launch of that—it was just over there in 2022.

Noting, as others have mentioned, that the gender pay gap in Aotearoa is 8.6 percent as of 2023—and I believe the member might have had even more up-to-date data which says that that gap is getting larger—and the ethnic pay gap is also quite large as well when you compare it to Pākehā incomes. The Pacific pay gap for men and women was 24 percent and 15 percent, respectively. Asian men and women also have a pay gap of 86c and 83c to every dollar earned by Pākehā men. Also noting, compared with Pākehā incomes, the Māori pay gap was 19 percent and 12 percent for men and women.

One of the reasons for having this inquiry, thinking back to 2022, was that a lot of the voices of Pacific peoples had been talking about the importance of pay transparency for some time. In this inquiry, they mentioned the Polynesian Panthers, who, in the 1970s, called for better working conditions and equal pay for Pacific workers. That highlights that this is not a new kaupapa; the pay gap, particularly in this example for Pacific peoples, has been a generational issue.

Within this inquiry, there were a number of recommendations that I think this House should pay attention to—for example, including implementing the recommendations of the tripartite working group on better protections for contractors; establishing a national pay equity task force to ensure Pacific, Māori, and ethnic pay gaps are closed by 2042; I like this one: raise the minimum wage to the same level as the living wage to ensure that increases over time remain adequate to meet people’s living costs; and this is where this bill comes in, and it’s a recommendation from this report: to urgently introduce pay transparency legislation. I get that this is a small step, but it is a significant step.

That falls in line completely, I feel, with the recommendations out of the Voices of Pacific Peoples. I look forward to supporting the member and to listening to our communities at the select committee who, I’m sure, will be able to share with members of Parliament their particular experiences to the select committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to start by congratulating the member in charge, Camilla Belich, for bringing this bill to the House. I know it’s always exciting when a bill is drawn for any member whose bill is drawn. In the start, I just want to state this: that the ACT Party will not be supporting this bill, because we do not believe that this bill is going to deliver what it says it is going to deliver.

The intention is good behind this bill—the gender pay gap is a real issue—but the mechanism that this bill uses, thinking that it is going to address that issue, is not going to do that. We know that this bill is to amend the Employment Relations Act 2000, and this is to protect employees if they disclose their remuneration by prohibiting the clause of not disclosing in their employment agreement. We believe that an employment agreement is an agreement between an employer and an employee. We should not take that right away from them—what to include in the employment agreement or not to include in the employment agreement. Yes, of course we want to see that the basic labour laws are upheld—and we have really good labour laws here in New Zealand, in our country, and we do not want too much legislative intervention in each and everything that happens at workplaces.

Just to give two scenarios as examples here, Madam Speaker, if you look at the current scenario. I meet with a lot of people, like my other colleagues here, meet with so many people on a daily basis, and I know that people don’t go around sharing their remuneration because it’s a private matter. This doesn’t mean that each and every individual that I meet with has that prohibition clause in their employment agreement, but it’s a private matter. They don’t disclose it; we don’t discuss it. That’s totally fine. Now, if somebody reaches out to them, a colleague reaches out to them, and asks for what their remuneration is, and if it is disclosed and is different from the person who has asked—more than the person who has asked—that is going to create friction at workplace.

Now look at the other scenario: if this bill goes through, then, in that case, the employers will not be able to put this clause in the employment agreement—that means everybody will know that there is no prohibition from the employer. A colleague goes to another colleague and asks what their remuneration is and they say, “Nah, I’m not disclosing that to you.”, then, again, it’s going to create friction amongst those colleagues, because they will ask that in good faith—that, yep, because there is no prohibition clause, they might disclose it for transparency, for reducing that discriminatory outcome that the member has talked about. And it won’t result in what actually the member thinks it’s going to result in.

We really think that it’s the ability of the employee to negotiate, on the basis of their skills, what they earn, and we should not take that right away from the employee. Also, it is a mechanism for the employer to incentivise employees, those who deliver more. There might be people working at the same position, but there will be people—those who come with unique skillsets—who are able to contribute more to the workplace and the employer might want to incentivise them. What will happen if this bill goes through? Then employers will stop incentivising their employees on the basis of the contribution that they make, and that will take away that motivation from employees as well to work harder at their workplaces.

It’s very important that we support our economy and we support, too, productivity, because we know that the state of the economy that is left by the previous Labour Government is causing a lot of suffering. What we should be doing is actually supporting the growth of the economy. We should be supporting increasing productivity and we should be actually supporting that people are able to invest. We should be creating environment where people feel confident about investing, not just in starting a new business but also growing their business, employing more people. These are the things we need to do to actually help people earn more, help people reach their potential where they think that they are earning that they deserve.

Everybody’s circumstances are different, skills are different, and this is a relationship between an employer and employee that should remain intact. It is a relationship of trust and respect that we should not take away by intervening. As I said before, of course we want to see that all agreements are upholding basic labour laws—and our labour laws are good. We do not support this bill.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First on this Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. I do like members’ day; it’s a great day for members to bring forward pieces of legislation. I have noticed, though, the times I’ve got up to speak on members’ day, it’s always a bill being put forward by Camilla Belich. It’s a bit like you’re running a parallel Government over there, Camilla, some sort of guerilla outfit—

Hon Phil Twyford: She’s a machine!

Hon MARK PATTERSON: A legislative machine, Camilla Belich. In terms of this bill, New Zealand First always takes employment relations legislation very seriously, and we have supported your previous bill to select committee, so we have had a good look at this bill and we do think the intentions are good. However, like the previous speaker in the ACT Party, Parmjeet Parmar, said, it has not crossed our threshold for support. This time, you do not need our support, so it’s still going through to the select committee and I do congratulate you on that.

I guess, from our perspective, we’re very much, like Parmjeet Parmar articulated—pay should be merit based. This is not about equity of outcome in terms of at an individual level. I know what you’re trying to address here, bridging the gender pay gap; I’m not sure that this bill does it. It potentially might, and the select committee might tease some of that out, but for us, we could not see this as being a major plank in that platform, in terms of our response to that as a Parliament.

We do think there could be some unintended consequences for this. As Katie Nimon pointed out, we don’t talk about salary or pay. Talking about money is up there with politics and religion, and we’ve failed at most of those in this House. But there is good reason for that, and for, I guess, the camaraderie of the workplace and the functioning of a workplace or an office or a farm or orchard or wherever you might be. If there’s a sense that someone may be getting something more than you—you know, if that sort of pervades around, it can be quite destabilising. I think that everyone has the ability to negotiate if they don’t think they’re getting a fair deal. If my wife’s workplace is anything to go by, she seems to have a pretty good idea of what she’s being paid compared to other people—I hope she doesn’t get arrested over this now I know that could be against the law; that wouldn’t end well for me.

I guess what I’m trying to say is I think it’s possibly a solution to something that’s not really a problem. I think people do have a sense of what they’re worth for their experience that they bring to a role, the merit, how they line up with others in the workplace. If you are good at your job, even in these times of tightened financial times, there is still a skill shortage, so if you are good at your job—and we hear it all the time from employers, that they’re really screaming out for good employees.

I guess that is the basis of our position, that we just did not think that this is a solution to the problem that it’s setting out to address. We do believe in merit-based performance pay as opposed to just straight equity of outcome. We do worry that if an employer would like to perhaps remunerate one worker that’s doing better than others or a group of workers that are doing better than others, that might have a chilling effect on this, that they may feel that disrupting the workplace would not be—you know, it’s not worth disrupting the workplace and the collegiality that may exist in there. There is just that feel that this is not a solution to the problem that it’s trying to fix, that it could cause unintended consequences, and, as such, we will not be voting for this bill during this reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): It is an absolute pleasure to take a call. This is not usually my subject or profession, but I do have the pleasure of standing and rising in this House to support yet another bill. Camilla Belich, congratulations, and I think this is an important issue for us to talk about. I just want to draw on a whakatauki in te iwi Māori: He wāhine, he whenua, ka mate te tangata—without women and without land, the people will perish—and that is a very pre-colonial perspective of te iwi Māori.

I’ve just heard speeches from the ACT Party and New Zealand First. In their dream world, because women are still reeling from the very toxic white masculinity of women being chattels and property—[Interruption] Absolutely. Do your research—do your research. We’re still reeling from that, and let’s break that down: for every $1 a Pākehā man makes, a Māori woman makes 81c; a Pacific woman makes 79c; an Asian woman makes 88c; and Middle Eastern, Latin American, and African women make 88c—as opposed to every $1 a Pākehā man makes. You haven’t done your research. What world are you living in—what world are you living in? Over a lifetime, taking inflation into consideration, Māori women have earned over $400,000 less than a Pākehā man. That’s the reality. I don’t know what reality you’re living in. Do some research, do your due diligence, so you can come here and debate the actual essence of what this bill is trying to achieve—pay parity—and not exploit women in and around jobs here in Aotearoa.

This illustrates the intergenerational impact of pay discrimination on whānau. These aren’t just numbers; these are families, these are tamariki, these are mokopuna. Financial instruments are key drivers in the oppression and the colonisation of my people and other minority cultures, yet inattention to this oppressive tool—

Hon Members: Rubbish!

RAWIRI WAITITI: Listen, you might learn something—

Suze Redmayne: I think he’s speaking on the wrong bill.

RAWIRI WAITITI: —has enabled the greater exclusion of us from these conversations. Again, congratulations, Camilla Belich, on this particular kaupapa. We absolutely support this kaupapa. We have many conversations with wāhine-heavy industries—and we’re talking about early childhood education (ECE), we’re talking about kōhanga reo—that don’t have the same pay parity—

Laura Trask: They do.

RAWIRI WAITITI: —and we always have those conversations. How many kōhanga reo have you spoken to? None. The problem is you profess to be the party that protects the property rights and interests and employment rights of people. I’m absolutely—

Hon Phil Twyford: Only some people’s property.

RAWIRI WAITITI: Oh, only some people. Yes, only some people. I am absolutely on the right legislation here, and this is absolutely the right speech and it’s absolutely the right data that needs to be expressed in this House tonight.

We will continue to advocate for our wāhine who don’t have the same opportunities—because they don’t—and employers need to do better. They need to do better to ensure pay parity. They need to do better to ensure that wāhine are getting the due acknowledgment of their hard work and their merit. I’ve heard that kōrero: based on their merit—absolutely—because, actually, that’s an actual fact. They probably do it a lot better—they probably do it a lot better. Actually, they do do it a lot better, and I say that, if wāhine were in charge, I think the world would do a lot better. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe, Camilla Belich, ki tō pāti hoki mō tēnei pire. [Thanks to you, Camilla Belich, and your party also for this bill.]

I think this is a critical bill that will be supported by Te Pāti Māori, and we will continue to stand up for those who are less fortunate and those who are discriminated against across all spheres, even in the employment arena. We will continue to listen to our kōhanga reo kaiako, our ECE kaiako, and many of our other women in businesses that are discriminated against, and we commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): I rise in support of this bill, and I congratulate Camilla Belich on the bill. I also just want to give a contribution to this discussion which is not the same as my colleagues’. I worked in this area for a long time in New Zealand—25 years—and I saw a lot of employees who did not have unions. That would probably be the majority of what I was doing with my days. Ones that have unions have a collective agreement, and the collective agreement is lodged and we actually all know what the pay rates are for those workers. The ones that came to my office who didn’t have a union, and that’s about 80 percent of workers—it’s slightly different from that, but it’s a lot of workers—don’t have the benefit of any kind of knowledge of what their colleagues have got in their agreements.

You can like it or not, but the reality is that when an employer gives an employment agreement to an employee, it’s only really the very highly paid that argue about the terms of that agreement. What happens is that there are fashions, so you get particular things come into the contracts by precedent, because that is what is in the employers and manufacturers’ precedent or it’s in the builders’ precedent, etc. You see the same clauses over and over again, and they’re not necessarily in the best interests of New Zealanders. They are often a fashion from overseas or they’re a fashion within a particular industry or they’re a fashion just out there in terms of plain legal community. You do see clauses that we would rather not have. This clause, I didn’t see a lot of, and it’s probably come in since I was practising, because it’s come in from Australia. Australia has had to deal with this because it’s been happening, so I urge the select committee to actually examine what’s happening in other places. We aren’t just here to solve the biggest problems that have already happened and that have a lot of the victims; we’re also here to stop problems occurring.

Now, the reason we want this is because this is sunshine. This is a chance, not for someone—let’s just dispel the myth: this is not people being forced to tell their salary to anyone. This is a matter of if they want to tell another worker what they they’re earning, they’re allowed to without being punished by their employer. It’s not a breach of their employment agreement; they can’t be dismissed for it. That’s what it is. Let’s just get it in proportion. That’s all that’s happening here. It allows people to share information that’s actually very personal to them. Who does it matter more to, the employee whose salary it is and who has earned that? Is that a right of that person in terms of autonomy to tell somebody else what they’re earning and to compare those things and make sure that they feel it’s justified, or does that right belong to an employer who’s putting it in the agreement at the beginning?

Why would an employer put that in an agreement? The reason an employer would put it in the agreement is because they don’t want employees to share that information, because they want to do whatever they want to do. Sometimes, unfortunately, what they want to do isn’t very fair. Now, if the employer has got good reasons for the difference in pay, that will out; that will actually show up in those discussions. Somebody might get a little bit of a kick that they’re not earning as much and they might actually buy in and strive for more. That’s actually one outcome of that conversation. But if, in fact, the Pacific Island, Māori woman is getting a whole lot less—in this case, I think the number given was 79c to every dollar that her colleague doing exactly the same job is getting—then actually it’s good that we know that. It’s good that they know that and they can make a decision. Their decision might be to go get a different job. Their decision might be to have a very brave conversation with the employer about earning more. They’ll learn their own worth.

Now, I just want to return to my experience being a lawyer in this area. It is only anecdotal, but I did work in the area for a very long time and I continually saw that there was almost no correlation between how hard you worked and how competent you were and what you got paid. Women, even in very senior positions, tended to think that they had to earn the right to the pay and that it would be recognised, whereas men were really good at advocating for themselves and getting better money, particularly ones at higher levels. So these are issues that are important, not just to women but to all workers who may lack a little bit of confidence. These issues are really important to get these settings right, because workers who aren’t necessarily the ones—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I just commend Camilla Belich for getting this bill to the House and for taking it from the last Parliament and into this one. As a member of the Petitions Committee, it’s really pleasing to see something come through the Petitions Committee, come in through the select committee, and, ultimately, come to the House.

As a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, I’m also looking forward to deliberating on this subject. I think that of particular interest to me is going to be the submissions that we get from both employers and employees. I’m particularly interested when they come in, and I encourage small employers and employees to actually submit. Often on bills like this, we get the form submissions from those that say they speak for all—like some of the unions—and I think that they’re not necessarily helpful to understanding the challenges that business will face and employees will face in the process. I’m looking forward to that in the select committee, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): This bill is about pay gaps, fundamentally. It identifies secrecy about pay, in particular the prohibitions for employment contracts, mostly of people talking about their pay rates as an enabler of discrimination and unfairness in the workplace. It makes sense. If you can’t talk about it, how can you know and how can your workmates know if pay rates, in fact, are fair and consistent or arbitrary and discriminatory?

I wanted to respond to a couple of things that colleagues in the House have said tonight. Pay secrecy has nothing to do with the quaint and annoying New Zealand and British custom of not discussing politics, religion, or money. It’s not a matter of manners when discussing one’s pay is prohibited by contract. There’s only one reason for that to happen, and that is because it strengthens the negotiating position of the employer. Is there any other reason? I haven’t heard it. Is there any good reason to prohibit employees talking about their own rates of pay? Maybe we’ll find out at select committee.

If ACT was a proper libertarian party, it would support this bill on the grounds that it is based on freedom of expression. Why would you support the right of employers to impose a gagging order on employees? It beggars belief. Mark Patterson said that people are free to negotiate what they think is a fair rate of pay. How would you know? If no one can discuss what their pay rate is and everyone’s on an individual contract, how would you know what’s fair? Like the other members, I want to acknowledge the queen of members’ bills—particularly those about workers’ rights—Camilla Belich, and I look forward to discussing this bill at select committee.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tom Rutherford: Bring it home, Butterick!

MIKE BUTTERICK: Bring it—ha ha! As the father of one adult son and three adult daughters, I would find it indefensible and abhorrent if I was to find that our daughters were being paid less than someone of equal skill, work ethic, and experience just because they were female. In fact, I wouldn’t mind betting that they’re actually more competent than a whole lot of the opposite sex in the job that they do, and that’s despite them working in industries that are typically male-dominated.

There is still plenty to do, but simply, in 2024, there’s no excuse for someone to be paid less as a result of their gender or their ethnicity and/or both. I really look forward to what we’ll hear in the select committee process, and I commend this bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to start by thanking everyone in all the parties around the House for their consideration on this bill. I want to especially acknowledge the National Party for their support of this bill and from the members of the Education and Workforce Committee who’ve expressed an interest in seeing this bill debated and discussed at select committee—I intend to do that. I also want to acknowledge the Green Party and Te Pāti Māori for their support as well: thank you for your considered words, especially referencing the Pacific pay gap, as Teanau Tuiono did; and also the intergenerational impact of pay gaps that was mentioned by Rawiri Waititi. Thank you, e hoa, for that reflection.

For those parties who have decided not to support this bill, I welcome your reconsideration after the select committee process. I think, unfortunately, this problem of us not being able to have transparency around pay does lead to quite a few different issues, and I hope that some of the outcomes that you are worried about may be able to be addressed and overcome during the select committee process or with further evidence. Please, continue to have an open mind in relation to this particular bill.

There were some comments that this bill will not solve all of the problems it’s seeking to achieve, and I agree with that. This bill will not solve the problem of gender and ethnic pay gaps in New Zealand—that is a very complex problem that will require consideration and work by this House moving forward—but I do see this bill as creating a stepping stone, as I said, towards looking at pay transparency regimes that have been discussed by this House in the past and, I think, would help to close the gender pay gap and ethnic pay gaps more effectively than this bill but are probably not the appropriate type of bill for a members’ day. I hope the House will look to those other policies that may help to address some of these problems which are entrenched.

It was good, though, to see all parties in the House recognise that this problem does exist, the problem of gender pay gaps. As I said, it is a complex problem that will require lots of different solutions. This is one part of a puzzle piece that will, I think, assist in addressing some of those issues. I think there will be, hopefully, a very valuable select committee process that we will be able to go through, and I hope that it will lead to continued discussions about what more we can do as a Parliament and as a House and as political parties to address some of the systemic inequities that are ongoing within our society.

We can’t wait for the pay gaps to close themselves—that will be beyond the time of our children—and as a parent I share the concerns of many other parents in this House: that we don’t want to wait another generation for these issues to be solved. I think this bill is a good starting point to having those discussions and making active steps to make sure that our children face fairer workplaces based on who they are as people and not where they come from or what gender they are. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 104

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 19

ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, thank you for your tolerance of the clocks tonight. At least one or two out of the four of them were working at any one stage, and, hopefully, by tomorrow they will be going again. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.