Wednesday, 13 November 2024

WEDNESDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 2024

WEDNESDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

SPEAKER: Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

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

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

SPEAKER: Three petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Ihorangi Reweti Peters requesting that the House implement all recommendations made to the Government in the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care reports

petition of Ross Hoole requesting that the House raise the maximum age of a child in section 132 of the Crimes Act 1961 from under 12 years to under 14 years of age

petition of Kenneth Mulholland requesting that the House urge the Minister of Local Government to appoint a commission to replace Wellington City Council.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Six papers have been delivered by Ministers.

CLERK:

2024 annual reports for:

Health Research Council of New Zealand

Herenga ā Nuku Aotearoa, the Outdoor Access Commission

New Zealand Trade and Enterprise

Tourism New Zealand

2024-28 statement of intent for the Health Research Council of New Zealand

2024-25 statement of performance expectations for the Health Research Council of New Zealand.

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

CLERK:

Report of the Environment Committee on the review briefing on the 2022-23 annual review of Predator Free 2050 Ltd

report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Making infrastructure investment decisions quickly

report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the petition of Rajeev Nair

report of the Justice Committee on the inquiry into the 2023 General Election, Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, General Election 2023: Independent review of counting errors, and petition of Daniel Bond

reports of the Petitions Committee on the:

petition of Alison White, and the

petition of Captain William Stafford.

SPEAKER: The inquiry on the 2023 election, the review briefings, and the report of the Auditor-General are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Obituaries

Sir Robert “Bom” Gillies KNZM

Sir Robert “Bom” Gillies KNZM.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Veterans): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice acknowledging the passing of

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

Sir Robert Gillies KNZM, affectionately known to all and sundry as “Bom”, the last surviving member of the 28th Māori Battalion, and extend its sincere condolences to his whānau and the wider community.

Hon CHRIS PENK: I move, That this House pay tribute to

Tā Robert was born in 1925, and, falsifying his age in order to be able to enlist, he sailed as a reinforcement for the 28th Māori Battalion in July 1943. Although wounded in action during the battle of Orsogna in 1943, he continued serving throughout the Italian campaign. Over the last two decades, Sir Robert, expressing great humility as he did so, took on the mantle of being one of the few surviving members of the 28th Māori Battalion and, in due course, its final surviving member. A generation has passed.

In July 1923, he opened the claimant hearings for the Waitangi Tribunal’s consideration of the Māori Military Veterans Kaupapa Inquiry. He talked of the loss of his mates in a generation of Māori leaders and the difficulties and, indeed, discrimination that many of them faced when they returned home. He was appointed as a knight not only by the Italian Republic but, of course, of New Zealand in 2022. Tā Bom wanted it to be known that these awards were not for himself but for all those who served in the battalion.

The mana of the man was well remembered at his tangi, which has been conducted in recent days, and was very much in evidence on Sunday when various Government Ministers were honoured to be able to attend that. I was pleased to do so alongside the Hon Erica Stanford; the Hon Judith Collins, of course, in her capacity as Minister of Defence; along with Tama Potaka, who spoke movingly on behalf of the Government, as did the Hon Shane Jones. It was an honour for all of us to be able to attend, and I know that other members of this House across the political aisle have also had that opportunity.

To Sir Robert’s whānau, then, we offer our sincere condolences and our appreciation of a life lived in the service of his family, his brothers in arms, and his community. We will remember them; we will remember him. We say to Tā Bom: rest in peace, thank you for your service, lest we forget.

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

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):

Tomo mai e tama mā ki roto

I ngā ringa kua tuwhera atu nei

Ki ngā mōrehu o te Kiwi e

Ki ngā tama toa o tēnei riri nui

[Come in, young men, into

These outstretched arms

To the survivors of the New Zealand contingent

To the brave sons of this great war]

E te tipua o ngā tama toa o Aotearoa, e Tā Robert “Bom” Gillies, koinei te waiata i te wā i hoki mai koutou i te Pakanga Nui o te Ao.

[To the champion of the brave boys of Aotearoa, Sir Robert “Bom” Gillies, this is the song at the time that you all returned from World War I.]

It’s indeed my honour to stand on behalf of the Labour Party to pay tribute to Tā Robert “Bom” Gillies. Our generation are blessed to have experienced the reserved heroism of our Māori Battalion—a rōpū who have become synonymous with pride, purpose, and courage instilled in whakapapa across Aotearoa. Though reluctantly, Tā Bom took the responsibility of being the last man standing seriously. The uri of Ngāti Kahungunu and Te Arawa, who went to war as a very young man, left us life lessons extremely pertinent today. He spoke out against the perils of war: “Karekau he take o te pakanga. Pakanga, pakanga, pakanga. Kei te haere tonu. Karekau he rongo, moumou tāngata.”—“There’s no point to fighting. Fighting, battles, war. It still carries on. There’s no peace, it is a waste of human life.”

Tā Bom rose from the rank of private to being the last bastion of an entity dear to all our hearts, demonstrating that, when called upon, we can all rise to meet the needs of our generation. A lesson—again, I repeat—so pertinent in this very time.

Kei te tautoko anō awau i ngā mihi a te Minita Penk ki a ia, me te whānau e noho pani ana i tēnei wā.

[I support the acknowledgments made by Minister Penk to him, and the family, who have been bereft at this time.]

Heoi anō, Tā Bom, we will enjoy a rum coffee for you and all your mates at the next Anzac Day. When you were last together, you said, “Last man standing, turn out the lights.” E te iwi whānui, he rangi pōuri rawa atu. Kua kāpō ngā raiti.

[To the wider people, this is a very sad day. The lights have gone out.]

Kei te kapakapa mai te haki, te haki

O Ingarangi runga o Tiamana e

[Flying is the flag, the flag

Of England over Germany.]

Tēnā rawa atu tātou.

[Many thanks to us all.]

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ko te kupu te kupu, ko te Atua te Atua. Ko Ranginui ki runga, ko Papatūānuku ki raro, ka mate ai te tangata. Ka pō, ka ao, ka awatea. Mauri ora.

[The word is the word, God is God. As Ranginui is above, so Papatūānuku below, as inevitable as people will pass away. From the darkness, dawn breaks, the day is born. Wellbeing to all.]

Today, I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa to honour the life and service of Tā Robert Gillies—Tā “Bom”. Tā Bom was the last standing member of the Māori Battalion, who not only fought for our country but also for his brothers, the servicemen who returned from war, so that they would be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserved, not as second-class citizens. Young Māori men grew up with the struggles that colonisation inflicts—poverty, and the dispossession of culture and land and mātauranga—but having that deep connection to Aotearoa, to te ao Māori, and to our whenua. Tā was relentless, over his life, in the pursuit of justice for all the soldiers from the Māori Battalion. The act of raising the battalion was seen as an offering and a chance for young Māori to prove the worth of Māoridom and to secure the long-term goal of Māori autonomy—things that are really relevant today.

Born in Hawke’s Bay on 14 February 1925—meaning he was 99 years old at his death—to pāpā Ture Gillies, Ngāti Kahungunu; and to his māmā, Maata Horomona, from Te Arawa. The whānau then moved to Rotorua, where Tā Bom attended school and was raised.

At only 17, Tā Bom successfully enlisted in the 28th Māori Battalion going to World War II. This was actually his third attempt to enlist and he was only successful after giving a false date of birth. This showed his complete passion and dedication to Aotearoa and to the service to the country that he called home.

Now, I have a 17-year-old son and it really brings home for me the mana and kaha of Tā, but also his whānau, to literally go, at 17, and put yourself in the firing line. That is something that I think the young people and all of us here can hold on to and really see Tā Bom as that tōtara tree. The tōtara is our tallest tree and we can look up to Tā Bom and so can our tamariki. When I think of those attributes, I know my son and other rangatahi can look to them for guidance. It makes me feel calm and it makes me feel tau that we have such an amazing pillar to look to for our future, because it is our past and our present that informs the future, and I want all of the tamariki and rangatahi of Aotearoa to have everything that is their birthright, living in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Tā Bom exemplified the humility and kaha of the 28th Māori Battalion. Now, he was the last surviving member, and, actually, in 2022, he was finally honoured with a knighthood. This is something that he had actually turned down multiple times before this. That just shows that he was here to do the mahi; he didn’t need the credit. He was happy to just see the work happen and for the changes to happen within our society, but when he did accept it, he said that this honour of a knighthood was on behalf of all the men and women he served, showing again that deep humility that he had.

Over his lifetime, he came back and represented the Māori Battalion around Aotearoa New Zealand as well as the world. He was able to take those values that he had lived by and then bring the Wai 2500 claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. That was for the military veterans inquiry of the Waitangi Tribunal to explore the treatment of our Māori soldiers. I would put a wero to the House: has anything changed, have we done well enough, and will New Zealand honour us in our service? That is the wero—for all of those soldiers who fought so hard for us and then came back to be second-class citizens. Our legacy will be honouring Tā Bom’s Wai claim, and I look forward to seeing how that progresses.

Tā Bom was about the mahi and the kaupapa and the dedication that our soldiers had to ensure that Māori and te ao Māori and our mātauranga Māori had a place in protecting New Zealand and te ao Māori. Tā Bom over this last week was laid to rest at Te in Ōhinemutu in Rotorua. It has been an emotional week—not being able to be there but seeing the footage coming through and the words of so many New Zealanders. I think that the kōrero went on to about 3 a.m., and all of the speakers talked of his humility, his strength, and how we can look to Tā Bom in the future for ourselves and for every other generation. In fact, his grandson noted that people thought of him as a window to the past, linking them to their own koros and nannies, and it is so important that we recognise that whakapapa because it is our tīpuna that give us strength. We can look to them to learn the ways that they did things and also the way that they improved and empowered other people around them so that we can look to our tīpuna in the future and give us that strength. Really, that is what I want all of our rangatahi to think, including my own children.

I do want to take a moment to reflect on the hīkoi activations across the motu this week, where tens of thousands are marching to Pāremata in a peaceful protest—

SPEAKER: No, I think that steps well outside the motion. The member will resume her seat—the member will resume her seat.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this day. Tā Robert “Bom” was an amazing human being. The final tōtara of the great 28th Māori Battalion has been laid to rest with the grandeur he so desperately deserved. He has been finally laid to rest with the grandeur that so many of the rangatiratanga he was alongside in the 28th tried so desperately to avoid. He lived his life with a great strength and courage, never wanting to steal the limelight from the achievements of his battalion. He was quoted as saying, “The lowest of the low, a private—that’s me, a non-entity.” He wanted all the honours that were offered to him to go back to his brothers, the men that he fought alongside.

Tā Robert “Bom” Gillies was a national treasure for all of us to celebrate, and he will be greatly missed. He was first awarded the Order of Merit by the Italian Government in 2019, which is our country’s equivalent of a knighthood. He rejected multiple offers of a knighthood here in New Zealand and he was adamant that he would not accept those recognitions for himself. As previously mentioned, he would only accept them for the sacrifices known to all his brothers—those sacrifices made by the men that he served alongside. The Māori Battalion made together those kinds of sacrifices. He served in Northern Africa and Italy during World War II in B Company from 1942 to 1945.

He was a great man, a loving man, a loving husband, and a dedicated koro. He was a living link to our time—a time that, on reflection, we look at the trials and tribulations of connecting all New Zealanders with the difficulty of reconciling what war looked like in their lives. He faced the many challenges when returning home as a vocal advocate for both veterans’ rights and recognition of Māori and the Māori Battalion soldiers. He was the last standing member of the great Māori Battalion. He believed we all had a duty in ensuring the legacy of the Māori Battalion endured, and he will forever be remembered as a taonga, a national treasure.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): E kara, e Tā, kua tangi te tētere mutunga mōu. Kua pakū te pū mutunga mōu. Kua rangona te tangi a te rūrū, a te koukou mōu. Hoki ai ki te tini, ki te rahi, ki ngā hoa nā rātou te marae o Tūmatauenga i tū. Ko rātou i kite i te toto e maringi ana. Ko rātou i kite i te taotūtanga. Ko rātou noki i whakamahue i wā rātou hoa ki whenua kē, mokemoke ai, okioki ai.

Nā reira, ngākau nui, whakaiti, hūmārire, tangata ngū. Kua omakia e koe te omanga roa. Kua whawhaitia e koe te whawhai pai. Kua pau tō wā.

Waiho ko tō atarangi hei mātakitaki, hei kōrerotanga mā mātou me ā mātou mokopuna tamariki, kei rite koe ki te rau e puhia ana e te matangi, ka ngaro, ka ngaro. Kahore.

Waiho ko ngā mahi i oti i a koe e rite ki te tauira hei amohanga, hei waha mā ngā uri whakatupu.

Nā reira e moe, e moe, moe oti atu e.

[Dear friend, Sir, the final bugle has sounded for you. The last firearm has been fired for you. The song of the morepork, of the owl, for you has been heard. Return to the many, to the multitudes, to your companions who established the marae of Tūmatauenga. They who saw blood being spilt. They who saw dire injury. And they who left their friends behind in foreign lands, lonely in their resting places.

And so, enthusiastic, humble, gentle, a man of few words. You have run the long run. You have fought the good fight. Your time has expired.

Leave your shadow for us to see, and to speak about with our grandchildren and children so that you are not like a leaf blown by the wind, gone and lost. Never.

Leave your endeavours that you achieved to be like an example to be carried by your descendants.

And so, sleep, rest in peace always.]

I make a few brief remarks to support mostly what has already been said—a man who saw genuine action. A man who never sought to be the last surviving member of that magisterial row of soldiers. A man who said, “I’m only a private. I am no Charles Bennett, leader of the Māori Battalion. I am no Haane Manahi, denied the Victoria Cross despite the best efforts of earlier Governments—both powerful leaders from Te Arawa tribe. I am no Te Okanga Huata. I am no Wī Te Tau Huata, two leading lights of the Ngāti Kahungunu tribe, who saw service during the Second World War.”

So we acknowledge what he represents and he embodied, and we offer prayers and aroha to his whānau as they move forward without the presence of their matua and their tupuna. Tā “Bom”, we Kiwis salute you for the ethic of service that you embodied. Haere atu rā. [Rest in peace.]

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Te tai rā, e pari ana te tai ki ‘hea? E pari ana te tai he kau’eke, he kaumātua. He tai w’akarewa koe ki te tonga, ki te ao wairua.

Te mōtoi o Ngāti W’akaue me Ngāti Kahungunu, e Tā Robert “Bom” Gillies, e kore e warewaretia, e koro, te mōrehu o te kaitā o Te Hokowhitu Toa.

Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. The tide there, the tide rises where? The tide rises, the seniors, the elders. You are a tide that flows to the South, to the spiritual world.

The cherished one of Ngāti W’akaue and Ngāti Kahungunu, Sir Robert “Bom” Gillies, you will not be forgotten, Sir, the survivor of the great Māori Battalion.

We will remember them.]

It’s an honour on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to stand here in recognition of Tā Bom. We hold the 28th Māori Battalion in the absolute highest regard. I tautoko all the mihi, all the wisdom, all the knowledge shared about Tā Bom, but also share and reflect on the unimaginable loss and violence that he witnessed and still returned humble, experienced and lived, and to share that medium on platforms that never existed in his youth. For 82 years, from 17 years to 99, Tā Bom shared with us the humility and the cost of citizenship. He was staunch in fighting and advocating for fairness, for recognition of those he saw fall and those he hasn’t seen yet fall.

Matua Bom—Tā Bom—paid the cost of citizenship. He actually shared recently, “had I known as much as I know now, I would have stayed home. … We lost those fellas for nothing. We’re no better off. We are still fighting for a place in our country.”

I’m a preacher and a supporter of passiveness. It’s a deliberate commitment to entering the battle in a posture of aroha and peace, and it’s my dearest hope that the falling of our Tā, the falling of the last standing soldier, isn’t for nothing, but that we remember our place and the lessons that he shared with everyone—rangatahi, tamariki—and that we work harder in our leadership to pay respect to his legacy and to pay respect to the many 3,600 men who enlisted in the 28th Māori Battalion during World War II. We remember the strength and the resilience of not only them but the loss and the impact on their whānau and their communities, and we work better and harder in valuing the cost of citizenship from the Māori perspective.

We pay homage to those today and we carry the wairua of our tūpuna like Tā Bom, who have paved the way for our mana Motuhake and our absolute desire for kotahitanga, which is what we see in the hīkoi today. Nō reira i te āhuatanga, e te rangatira, e te ika a Whiro o Te Hokowhitu a Tū, e moe, e oki. E te mārire mārie e o te Atua, moe mai.

[And so in this circumstance, noble leader, veteran of the Māori Battalion, sleep well, take your rest. To the truly peaceful one of God, rest in peace.]

Motion agreed to.

Ministerial Statements

Defence Act 1990—Authorisations Made Under Section 9

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to make a ministerial statement about authorisations made under section 9 of the Defence Act 1990. The ministerial statement is made under Standing Order 364 in relation to the use of the armed forces to perform a public service in connection with an industrial dispute. Section 9 of the Defence Act 1990 states that I, as Minister of Defence, need to inform the House that this authority has been given and why.

On 5 November, the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) received an official notice from the New Zealand Public Service Association that strike action will take place from 6 November to 31 January. Security guard services and firefighting services are among the key areas impacted by the strike action. As a result, and to ensure our defence areas are kept secure and safe, I have authorised the use of appropriately trained members of the armed forces to provide security guard services at a number of NZDF sites, and for appropriately trained members of the armed forces to provide aircraft rescue, firefighting service at Base Auckland.

It is in the public interest that security of defence areas can be maintained throughout the industrial dispute, to ensure public safety and national security. Likewise, it is important that firefighting services are continued throughout the industrial dispute to ensure the preservation of life and the protection of infrastructure and assets. My approval of this matter was provided to the Chief of Defence Force on 5 November, and I have tabled those letters in the House.

The current industrial action dispute is an operational matter for the New Zealand Defence Force and I have full faith in the Chief of Defence Force and the wider New Zealand Defence Force leadership team to make the right decisions in the current fiscal environment. These are hard decisions and are not made lightly. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The New Zealand Labour Party supports the right of all private and public sector workers, including Defence Force civilian staff, to seek meaningful and reasonable pay increases. Civilian staff work in important roles, as the Minister of Defence has said, across our Defence Force, including for firefighting and security services for military bases and the likes of Defence House and Pipitea House.

Invoking section 9(2) of the Defence Act is unusual and should only occur in exceptional circumstances. In the opinion of the New Zealand Labour Party, the circumstances we are facing here today are of the Government’s making. They chose to underfund parts of the Defence budget, which resulted in the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) offering nothing of substance to civilian workers. It will not surprise many New Zealanders that faced with an offer of zero increase, they chose to instead issue a strike notice. Rather than addressing the root cause of this strike by enabling the New Zealand Defence Force to make a realistic offer to civilian staff, the Minister has instead escalated this dispute by invoking section 9(2) of the Defence Act.

This must be worsening the capacity problem within the NZDF. The NZDF are down at least 1,200 staff and, of course, are dealing with the sinking of the HMNZS Manawanui. Labour encourages the Government to financially support the NZDF to enable them to go back to the bargaining table with a real offer in order to avoid the long-term deployment of Defence Force members to tasks that are not part of their core roles.

I have a number of brief questions for the Minister, the first of which is: is it correct that the wage offer made prior to the strike notice was zero, and, if so, is the Minister able to inform the House of any prior instance of section 9(2) of the Defence Act having been utilised after a zero offer was made, leading to strike action?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Mr Speaker, thank you. I note the comments made by the Hon David Parker. The Defence Force was massively underfunded and massively under stress when we became the Government. We were able to secure, despite the very difficult fiscal circumstances, well over $450 million extra of operating costs in the Budget just passed. I am appalled that the former Minister does not understand what a shocking state we were left with.

What I can say is that the Defence Force has been able to cut the massive attrition rates it has had. It is clear that this is an industrial dispute. The Defence Force is taking full responsibility to be able to deal with this situation. I will never leave Defence to be defenceless, like that previous Government did.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. The structures surrounding ministerial statements are quite clear, and Speaker’s ruling 150/1 clearly states that a Minister’s responsibility when asked a question is to address that question. It is not an opportunity to make another speech or to make a political comment.

SPEAKER: That is true, but that was a very politically motivated question, with all due respect, and I think it would be hard to say that the question was not addressed, given that it was funding that was mentioned straight up in the start of the question.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I ask again whether the Minister can inform the House as to whether there is any prior instance where this section has been used in the light of a strike notice after a zero percent wage offer.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Well, I’m not responsible for what that previous Government might have done with its resources or what was done under previous Ministers. What I can say is that I’ve been the Minister for a year and I have not had to use this power before, but I am certainly doing it now.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Has the Minister been advised by the Chief of Defence or the State Services Commission when the last wage increase was received by these workers and what the effect of inflation since has been in terms of their real wages?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): No, I have not been informed of that, but I can say that I’m happy to say that after some excellent work done by the Minister of Finance, the inflation rate is dropping.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Are any of the roles that the New Zealand Defence Force will be filling vacancies or the consequence of voluntary redundancies, or are they all as a consequence of the strike notice?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Well, I don’t have the full details of who is on strike, but I can say that it’s hard for people to be on strike if they’ve already made themselves redundant. I’d expect that they will all be people who are currently employed by Defence Force doing valuable work, but it is work that needs to be done. Whether it’s by people who are civilians or it’s people in uniform, it will be done.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Supplementary—it’s probably not a supplementary, is it, sir? Another question to the Minister, if I may, sir, is: has the Minister sought any advice from the State Services Commission as to whether the negotiations with the civilian workforce are proceeding in a manner that the State Services Commission would have thought is normal?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): No. It’s now the Public Service Commission and, no, this is an operational matter. I have full confidence in the Chief of the Defence Force and his leadership team. I expect them to get on with their job.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Is the Minister confident that she has followed all of the relevant provisions in the Employment Relations Act on when and how employers can replace striking workers when she invokes section 9(2) of the Defence Act?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Yes, I’m fully aware that we have followed the law. In fact, I’ve had advice on that and, as one would expect, I have read my advice and taken it on board.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Is she surprised that the workers issued a strike notice after a zero percent wage increase?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): It’s not for me to be surprised or not. It’s simply a fact, and my job is to make sure that Defence is not left defenceless.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I echo the comments from the previous speaker, the Hon David Parker, in relation to just how extraordinary the circumstances we’re in are. Using armed forces for civilian functions is a significant decision and should not be taken lightly and it requires adequate scrutiny. As has been noted, we want to reflect and put this into context that this is coming from civilians that have been offered a pay cut, effectively, because if you’re offered a zero percent increase and you put that and match it with inflation, you’re, effectively, asking civilian staff to perform their same duties with less resources in real time, because of inflationary pressures on things like housing.

We echo the comments from the PSA—I note from Duane Leo, the national secretary for the Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi—“The zero wage increase NZDF tabled in bargaining is insulting to all civilian workers, so our members are left with no choice but show the depth of their feelings by taking this action”. I think the life-saving and critical role that the civilian staff play has already been reflected in the Minister’s comment. She referred to how the civilian staff had a role in the preservation of life, and the fact that these workers have to be replaced by someone else shows the importance of the mahi that they do, particularly in responding to emergencies. I hope we can all value the work that civilian workers do but also understand why they would have taken this sort of action and why they feel so insulted in doing so.

I also want to contextualise that while the Minister may have noted that this is an operational issue, it cannot be separated from decisions that the executive has taken in terms of how they choose to resource Public Service entities, because, at the end of the day, those operational issues play out reflecting the austerity politics or otherwise that we’re seeing right now.

My first question to the Minister is whether she has sought any alternative solutions that did not include using armed forces personnel to cover the striking civilian defence workers. I’m asking relating to whether she has sought any advice or whether she considered any other options.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Well, thank you for the question. I’m pleased that the member’s clearly going to support any increase in the Defence budget. It’s really important that this work is done. We’re talking about firefighting around air crew. I’m not ever going to say, “Let’s get a few casuals in.”

It’s very important for people to understand and the House to understand that the New Zealand Defence Force has trained firefighters. Some people will be very aware that they actually assisted, recently, from Burnham Military Camp for the Port Hills fires. They are fully trained people, including at Linton as well. When it comes to security guards, I think that they can do that work very well.

The point is that we cannot simply not have these jobs undertaken; they are critical to the safety of the New Zealand Defence Force. Also, I’m not going to ever say, “Bring planes in without firefighters being there.” That would be totally irresponsible. Actually, this work has to be done. We’ve done what we can do and that is to be able to fill the roles with suitably qualified people who are otherwise in uniform. I note that there’s going to be unanimous support for any increases in the Defence budget from the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I’m just going to reflect on the answer and note that I think the Minister’s comments talk about the disconnect between how we value our public servant workers and then how they’re resourced. Just reflecting on those comments, I didn’t really feel like I got a question in, so I’m going to ask again and then ask my second question about whether she sought any alternative solutions and whether she was presented with options, and, if so, what were those options.

My second question is: what are the implications in regards to section 97 of the Employment Relations Act around performance of duties of striking or locked-out employees, in particular section 97(3)(c), which means that this is only permitted if employees agree to perform the work? How does this work for Defence Force personnel, who have limited ability to refuse orders?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Point of order. Sir, Speaker’s rulings 150/1-3 are very clear. This is an announcement that pertains to the security role that military personnel are playing. It’s got nothing to do with the ebb and flow of politics around the rights of workers, equity, and labour. That question should be ruled out of place.

SPEAKER: Well, it’s not a question as such; it’s an exchange that’s permitted under Standing Orders between a Minister making a ministerial statement and those representatives of parties in the House who are seeking greater clarification of what is behind that statement. That is perfectly reasonable, but I do take your point that once you get into some of the extremely detailed aspects of the question that has just been asked, it does go a little bit beyond the purpose of the motion itself, but the Minister may choose to respond.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Thank you. Look, I’ll deal with the second question first, which was asking for a legal opinion. That’s not my role in this House. The member should ask somebody that he wishes to, but that’s not what I do here.

The first question was about advice. Well, of course, I have full advice from the Defence Force and they have their own legal team as well. This action is not taken lightly, but I cannot leave pilots bringing in planes and others unprotected should there be a need to have firefighters, and I cannot leave our bases un-crewed at the security gates because people are having morning tea or afternoon tea and are choosing when they take that. It is simply not acceptable. This is too important to be left to somebody hopefully coming back from morning tea break.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Is it her view that budgetary decisions have led us to this debate?

SPEAKER: Well, I think the problem you’ve got there is that if this is because of a budgetary decision, that would be an operational matter for Defence. You need to confine your questions to the ministerial statement, which is about the notices that have been issued as of today.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Well, that’s exactly what I’m asking—I’m asking whether previous—

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll tell you what: say it more clearly. Don’t say it in a way that confuses poor souls like me. Make it very, very clear, please, that your question is directly related to the motion.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: What actions is she taking to ensure that we don’t find ourselves having to discuss this ministerial statement again?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Well, it’s an operational matter, of course, for the Chief of Defence Force. But I’d say, too, that I’m very pleased that at the last Budget—which the member did not support—Defence was able to get close to half a billion dollars for operational costs. Everybody understands that we live in a really difficult world and Defence cannot allow their bases to not have security at the gates or for their planes and others to operate without fire crew. We wouldn’t do it for civilian airplanes; why should we do it for Defence airplanes?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hadn’t intended to quiz the Minister on this, but as I sat and listened to the debate, I couldn’t help but wonder at Opposition members who, until recently, were part of a Government that put half the New Zealand Defence Force as de facto guards of hotel rooms for two years while the other half were lost to attrition, who drove Defence Force capability into the ground while inflation went through the roof and they crashed the economy, and are now trying to play politics out of this difficult circumstance. This Government, by putting half a billion into Defence this year, is doing everything it can to fix the problem. I wasn’t going to make a contribution, but that just came to my mind.

SPEAKER: I’m not actually sure there was a question—that was a contribution.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): I found a question in there, and, of course, the answer is—

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll tell you what—[Interruption] Does the Minister now wish to make a reply to all the statements?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, yes, thank you—yes, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the contributions in the House. I also particularly liked that last contribution, I have to say—that was very apt. The point is that Governments, successive Governments, have asked Defence to do all sorts of jobs, some of which have not been to Defence’s liking. Whether it’s COVID hotels, managed isolation and quarantine hotels, or whether it’s occasionally something like a prison situation, Defence are there to defend this country and I am not, as the Minister of Defence, ever going to say I don’t care if there’s no fire crew when an Air Force plane is landing. I expect the same quality of service and the same rights that anyone else would expect when they’re flying in on a plane into Wellington out of Auckland.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. 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, I do, especially our efforts to restore law and order, ensuring that Kiwis feel safe in their homes, their businesses, and in their community. As part of that objective, on Sunday the Government announced that legislation will be introduced this year, making stalking illegal, with a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison. The new offence comes as a part of a wider package of changes to actually keep Kiwis safe, including a change to prevent those convicted of a stalking offence from holding a firearms licence, and a recognition of the Family Violence Act that stalking is a form of psychological violence. Our message is very simple: if you are perpetrating a culture of fear in your community—whether that’s breaking into a shop or stalking and intimidating someone—we are coming after you. This is a Government focused on restoring law and order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the Waitangi Tribunal that, if enacted, the Treaty principles bill would “be the worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty in modern times.”, and that if it isn’t repealed it would constitute the “end of the Treaty”; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Unless Opposition parties support the bill, it won’t be enacted.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t ask the Prime Minister whether or not the Opposition parties were going to support the bill. I asked him whether he agreed with the Waitangi Tribunal.

SPEAKER: You did. You also asked him to comment on the circumstances that might exist if the bill were passed. I think for that reason the question’s certainly been addressed.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he aware that the Waitangi Tribunal has determined that principle 2, as contained in the bill, would “abrogate rights of Māori that article 2 guaranteed and protected, and revoke the promises and guarantees the Queen made to Māori in 1840.”, and that principle 3, as contained in the bill, “bears no resemblance to the texts and meaning of article 3.”; if so, how can he support the bill in good conscience?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I explained to the member last week, we are supporting the bill through first reading. But the Government parties in the coalition are free not to support it after that point in time.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the reason why his Ministers have consistently sought to undermine the Waitangi Tribunal without any censure from him, even calling for its disestablishment, because the tribunal has brought attention to the profoundly negative impacts the Treaty principles bill is having on the Crown’s relationship with Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say to that member is that many commentators have said in a post-Treaty settlement world it’s quite a legitimate question to ask what the role of the Waitangi Tribunal is going forward. That is something that we as a coalition Government will explore in due course.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can he claim that the National Party’s support of the bill ending before the second reading will address the widespread concerns, when the mere introduction of the bill will, according to the Waitangi Tribunal, “prejudice Māori” and there is a risk that the select committee process will be hijacked by racists and purveyors of misinformation for six months?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree with the characterisation of that question. As I explained to the member last week, we live in an MMP world. Parties in this Parliament have different views and different constituents they represent here in Parliament. We didn’t get what we wanted; the ACT Party didn’t get what they wanted. We came to a sensible compromise. We’re supporting it at first reading, not beyond that. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Before the member goes into his next question, I just remind the House that a sort of general barrage is not acceptable and that all questions are heard in silence.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What responsibility does he take as Prime Minister for the fact that, as former National Minister Christopher Finlayson has said, “there is too much division and hurt in New Zealand caused by, among other things, pernicious nonsense like the Treaty Principles Bill.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I don’t take responsibility for Chris Finlayson.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When he told New Zealanders before the election that he thought the Treaty principles bill was divisive and that National would not support it, why didn’t he tell them that commitment was something he was willing to trade away in coalition negotiations?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’re not supporting the bill into law; we’re not supporting the bill out to a national referendum. We’ve been very clear about that from the get-go.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Every fortnight, on its website, Treasury publishes a summary of economic data and events. The most recent of these contains a number of data points that suggest the New Zealand economy is recovering after a long recession. The number of building consents is beginning to rise. New Zealand’s goods export prices, particularly dairy, are continuing to climb. On Monday—and Grant McCallum was pleased to tell me all about it—Fonterra lifted its forecast milk price from a mid-point of $9 a kilogram to $9.50, and business confidence, firms’ expected activity, and employment intentions have all risen.

Nancy Lu: When will the next Treasury forecasts be released?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Treasury will release a full set of economic and fiscal forecasts in the half-year update on 17 December. I expect those forecasts will show a strengthening economy, lower interest rates, and reducing unemployment over the next few years. That’s not just me; that’s what almost all economic commentators anticipate. What will also be of interest, though, is how the economic and fiscal forecasts compare to previous expectations.

Nancy Lu: How have the economic forecasts changed in recent years?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Economic forecasts have generally changed for the worse over successive updates, as it became clear that the current recession started earlier, was deeper, and persisted for longer than was earlier understood. With the benefit of hindsight, earlier forecasts attributed too much weight to an apparent pick-up in productivity over the COVID period. This pick-up proved to be illusory. Earlier forecasts were therefore too optimistic. So, incrementally, Treasury has been lowering its assumptions around labour productivity.

Nancy Lu: How have these economic forecasts flowed through to the fiscal forecasts?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Economic forecasts flow through to the fiscal forecasts in several ways, especially through the impact of nominal GDP on tax revenue, which subsequently impacts on debt and the operating balance. Steadily deteriorating economic forecasts, plus some big spending increases in Budgets 2022 and 2023 have led to a series of downgrades in the fiscal forecasts. For example, since the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2021, every forecast for the return to operating balance before gains and losses surplus has been revised downwards.

Question No. 3—Justice

3. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice: What recent statements has he seen about the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Justice): Many and varied but overwhelmingly positive. To take just three that I received in the hour leading up to question time: “I never thought I’d see a politician take on the Treaty grift in my lifetime, especially not a Māori politician. I support redress in the tribunal but I know you’re right to wonder if the expansion of the organs of State for us becomes more a crutch than a helping hand. It’s patronising to hear TPM argue we need special treatment to compete. I worry the next generation might hear that and start believing it. Kia kaha, bro.” Another—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. There’s misrepresentation of our views—point 111. And also the reference to us—I think the Minister has misinterpreted the quote.

SPEAKER: How has that happened?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Because he’s got it wrong.

SPEAKER: Well, that is a debating point, not a point of order.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. If the Minister is going to use “TPM” in his excuse, then the quote should be correct; otherwise, he’s misrepresenting us in the House.

SPEAKER: There are avenues open to you if there has been misrepresentation. It’s not something I can rule on at the present time—or in the present time. The Hon David Seymour—who is going to be brief with his answers.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, since there’s such interest, I can share more of that statement. “It’s perhaps even more frustrating to see them using State finances funnelled through Te Whānau o Waipareira to promote messaging that aims to destabilise the State by rewriting—or, as they’d call it, reimagining—what our founding document actually says.”

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. So, first of all, there were two references made there—again, misrepresented—and there is an assumption from that Minister that they have used Government funds that cannot be validated. We should not be having those accusations in the House; it’s grossly misrepresentative.

SPEAKER: That point is correct. It’s also inappropriate to use question time to attack other parties or people outside of the House. I ask the Hon David Seymour to confine his answers to the substance of the question that was asked.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Further statements I’ve seen just in that hour leading up to question time: “I hope this message finds you well. I’m a year 11 student and I wanted to reach out to express my appreciation for your work on the recent bill. As a young New Zealander, I find it encouraging to see efforts like yours that support positive dialogue around the Treaty of Waitangi.” And, finally, just in that short time: “Keep up the great work, David. There is enormous tacit support for your Treaty principles bill (people feel they can’t speak up, though).” That is just a small selection of recent statements I’ve seen and they’re part of a theme. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the House to calm itself down. I can’t be expected to judge the content of an answer within the rules of the Standing Orders when there is so much other noise going on in the House.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What statements has he seen from school principals opposing the Treaty principles bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I’ve seen statements from school principals to their community, urging people to oppose the Treaty principles bill and to even be absent from school to participate in hīkoi activations. I can’t miss the opportunity to say to those principals that they have a duty to adhere to political neutrality, and there is nothing in the Treaty principles bill that will disadvantage any student even one iota. However, students are disadvantaged by missing school. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: All right. That’s enough. We’ll hear the rest of this question in silence—answers to questions in silence. I’ve told the House many times: no barrage.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. I just make the point, while you were standing, that while the Treaty principles bill will not disadvantage one young person in this country, missing out on education because they’re not at school or because their school leadership team is misfocused—i.e., not focused on reading and writing and mathematics and science and the skills that allow them to access the knowledge of the world—that does disadvantage students.

SPEAKER: I have also repeatedly suggested that Ministers keep their answers as concise as the questions themselves. I’d ask all Ministers to reflect on that and to respond to that today.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Will the Treaty principles bill affect Māori language and culture?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Kāhore—or no. As I said at Waitangi last year, one of my goals is ki a maimoatia te reo me te ahurea Māori—that is, to cherish the Māori language and culture. The Treaty principles bill protects the rights of hapū and iwi Māori as they stood in 1840. It also ensures that those basic rights of tino rangatiratanga and self-determination extend to all New Zealanders.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Will the Treaty principles bill affect Treaty settlements?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The Treaty principles bill is very clear that in clause 8 it says it should not be used in interpreting any statute in relation to a Treaty settlement. What I say to people who have these fears or anxieties about the bill—and I know that there are some—or anyone saying “Kill the bill”, my advice is to read the bill because you will find such details as that that often show you there’s nothing to worry about.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: With New Zealand First making a stand to not support the bill, at a certain point, and the same with National, doing the same, where does that leave your bill—all alone with you?

SPEAKER: It’s not with me.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I meant with the Minister.

SPEAKER: I do know what was intended; I’m sure the Minister does as well.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What I’d say to the member is that being all alone with me is not that bad! However, that is not where this bill is. This bill is opposed by people who say it won’t go anywhere—desperate, ironically, to stop it going anywhere. And the reason that they want to do that is that they know that even sending this bill to a select committee and having a select committee hearing on it, even if it turns out—and I don’t believe for a moment—it goes no further than that, it will have democratised the debate on the Treaty of Waitangi. It will have ensured that each person gets to have a say. And when I hear people say Māori haven’t been consulted, well, actually every person will be consulted. Every person will be able to have a view on our founding document. I think that is why so many people are so worried about this bill, because it shows—

Hon Member: Because of the divisiveness—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —that actually everyone else is going to have a say too. And there’s the Green Party member saying, “What about the divisiveness?” It hasn’t created any divisiveness. What it has done has revealed the divisiveness of people—

SPEAKER: Look, that’s far too long for an answer. So we can use up the time by cutting out questions.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What will the Treaty principles bill mean for the rights of New Zealanders and our future as a country?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Most importantly, it will fill in the blanks that this House left in 1975 when it said that there were Treaty principles but failed to define what they were. It will give us a conception of our founding document that is based upon equal rights for all and that, in turn, enables us to solve together the many challenges we face with health and housing and jobs, education and the economy, and that, in short, will allow New Zealanders to overcome our real and tangible challenges with a shared and equal understanding of our citizenship and our rights in this country.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is the Minister implying that tino rangatiratanga is derived from Kāwanatanga and reducing indigenous rights to the set of ordinary rights?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It’s a very interesting question. I’m cognisant of your requirement to be brief in what is a 184-year debate, but what I make very clear is that under the Treaty principles bill, the rights of hapū and iwi Māori as of 1840 are protected. However, those are rights that anyone should be able to respect. And, yes, that means the right to look after your language, your culture, to self-determine, to live in the way that you choose. A very good example of that is charter schools. A very good example of that is Whānau Ora—

SPEAKER: OK, yep, good; I think we got the point.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, please. My question was specific: does the Minister believe that tino rangatiratanga is derived from Kāwanatanga? He hasn’t addressed anywhere near the answer, please.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Happy to have another go.

SPEAKER: I’m sure the Minister would be happy to have another go, but the point I’d make is that the question was addressed. It may not have been addressed satisfactorily, but it was certainly addressed. We come now to question No. 4—only four?—today.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m put in a difficult position by the Te Pāti Māori member, who continually says that I don’t have the answer, but you’ve actually ruled that I have addressed the question, and therefore she’s undermining your ruling but you won’t let me give you any further answer.

SPEAKER: No, look—I’m just cutting the question off, because it’s had plenty of airtime. You have already heard my somewhat exasperation that at 5 past 3 we’re only just getting to question No. 4.

Question No. 4—Social Development and Employment

4. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with Opposition leader Christopher Luxon, who said, “I can tell you we’re going to be straight with the New Zealand people, tell it as it is—the good, the bad and the ugly”; if so, why has the weekly reporting of income support and hardship figures stopped?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Of course. Our Government is committed to having 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker benefit by 2030. Monthly and quarterly data is a better decision-making tool to achieve this and it’s my intention to continue this reporting. I was advised that weekly reporting was originally produced in response to demand for more timely information as required during COVID. That period, of course, has now passed. Like many things, we are simply returning to the pre-COVID reporting. We want our department’s resources to be focused on the analysis that we need to get more people into work, not on unnecessary reporting.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was the weekly reporting cancelled at the request of the Ministry for Social Development and Employment, or at the Minister’s request?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I had looked at the different reporting mechanisms. The weekly reporting is very volatile and the more detailed analysis that’s provided in the monthly and quarterly report provides us the ability to do what we want to do, which is to support more people into work.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Would the Minister have cancelled weekly reporting had jobseeker numbers been going down?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, weekly reporting was introduced during COVID. We’re not during those times. The weekly reporting wasn’t as accurate—very volatile. We want to make sure we’re using data that is more meaningful in terms of making decisions to actually achieve our Government’s target to reduce the number of people on jobseeker benefit by 50,000.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Has the weekly reporting been stopped because it shows that jobseeker numbers have risen by over 22,000 since she took office, as unemployment continues to climb to record heights?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. Unfortunately, as the Minister of Finance said, the economic climate that we took over, with a recession that was deeper and longer, has meant that unemployment has continued to rise. Treasury has forecast that, including a year ago, where the numbers have not yet peaked. For every single person that loses their job, I feel for them. Unfortunately, we are dealing with the circumstances we got from the last Government.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister acknowledge that unemployment figures, or the numbers of people on benefit, are now as high or higher than what they were during the height of the pandemic, and, if so, why does she think that now is the time to stop regular weekly reporting?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, monthly reporting and quarterly reporting provides us the level of analysis that we need to make decisions that actually support us to ensure that we are able to do more to support job seekers into work. What I’m really proud to say is the last quarterly report showed us that despite this very challenging economic time, we had 16,100 people in this quarter exit jobseeker benefit into work—2,400 more than the same quarter a year ago. What we’re doing is working.

Question No. 5—Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions

5. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions: Does she agree with the Whanaketia report that “The State failed to address the ongoing systemic impacts of colonisation that contributed to Māori being taken into care, in which Māori experienced abuse and neglect. This includes recognising the inherent mana motuhake of iwi and hapū, structural reform that would have enabled Māori to exercise rangatiratanga and mana motuhake”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions): I’m advised that this quote is not one of the over 500 findings in the royal commission’s final report. As such, it has not been reviewed or analysed in our work on responding to the royal commission. The royal commission considered hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence. Most of that material is now restricted under the Inquiries Act 2013. As the material that the commission relied on to form this view is not available to the Government, it’s not possible for me to either agree or disagree with the statement. However, as the Prime Minister reflected in his apology yesterday, it is clear that racism was a contributing factor to Māori tamariki and rangatahi being disproportionately taken into care, where many experienced abuse and neglect.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does the Minister agree that repealing section 7AA is doing the complete opposite of addressing the systemic impacts of colonisation and will, therefore, contribute to further abuse and neglect of tamariki Māori in the State system?

Hon Simeon Brown: Just say no.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the answer.

SPEAKER: But I did. Have you got another question?

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Oh, all right; I do, yes. When can survivors expect to see a clear time frame for a redress system to be put in place; how much longer will survivors need to wait just to be given a clear time frame for redress at all?

SPEAKER: Can I just say, look, the primary question is very explicit; the Minister has said that it doesn’t form part of the response that the Government has. It’s a bit hard to see how we now go on to something entirely different.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Sorry, Mr Speaker, from our information, we understand that the first question is in the information. I’m not sure why the Minister doesn’t know or recognise it, but I wouldn’t have put it if I didn’t think that it was valid. But we’re happy to check whether our details are absolutely so. In that regard, taking it to my second question and my third, I was following that flow and referring to section 7AA inside the context of the abuse in care work.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s fine, but it was the jumping to the compensation aspect that is the difficulty. Do you have a—[Interruption] Why are you standing?

Hon Simeon Brown: No, no, no—I don’t know if there’s much that I can add—

SPEAKER: No—well, then don’t bother, because you haven’t taken a point of order. If you’ve got another supplementary, go for it.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: All right, I do. Does she agree that legislation which seeks to undermine Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the mana motuhake of te iwi Māori, such as the Treaty Principles Bill and the section 7AA repeal, contributes to the culture of harm described in Whanaketia and goes completely against the spirit of reconciliation and redress of yesterday’s apology?

Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order. I think all of those supplementary questions don’t relate to the specificity of the particular primary, which is in relation to a quote in the report, and are seeking to go outside of that. I think the supplementaries should be following the primary, and I think they are not actually anywhere near where it should be going.

SPEAKER: Yes, I know, but you need to be aware that the questions come in and are checked for their validity, etc. Regardless of what answer might be given, the questions come to me for approval on the basis that the authentication of them has been accepted. Once it’s accepted, then questions that might flow from that directly are OK. The last question is most certainly in order. Do you want to ask it again because I think it might be lost in the—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Yes, of course; I’m happy to. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she agree that legislation which seeks to undermine Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the mana motuhake of te iwi Māori, such as the Treaty Principles Bill and the section 7AA repeal, contributes to the culture of harm described in Whanaketia and goes completely against the spirit of reconciliation and redress of yesterday’s apology?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m not responsible for that legislation. I’m the coordinating Minister responsible for the recommendations in the report, of which this is not one.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s hard to know where the line is as to who is responsible for which piece of it, hence my question. Again, the question aligns with the primary question. It’s very clear; it’s very specific, and I don’t feel at all—whether that’s been either addressed or understood—

Hon Simeon Brown: Point of order.

SPEAKER: There’s a point of order going on. Are you speaking to the point of order?

Hon Simeon Brown: Yes, I’m speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Right—then just wait till the point of order has been delivered.

Hon Simeon Brown: Thank you. The point of order that she’s making is in relation to when she’s asking questions which are in relation to a whole range of other issues, when the primary question is whether she agrees with a particular quote in a report. She’s asking about other pieces of legislation which are not part of this question nor part of the Minister’s responsibility.

SPEAKER: But it’s hard to get away from the fact that the House took an enormous amount of time yesterday to make a public apology based on the report. To ask a question about some consequential actions and its relation to the apology is not out of order. Ask the question one more time. And if the Minister is not responsible for that, then that would be an answer to the House. But I will want to listen to the question so I can hear the answer.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does she agree the legislation which seeks to undermine Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the mana motuhake of te iwi Māori, such as the Treaty Principles Bill and the section 7AA repeal, contributes to the culture of harm described in Whanaketia and goes completely against the spirit of reconciliation and redress of yesterday’s apology?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Firstly, I reject the assertion in that question, and, secondly, I’m not the Minister responsible for the legislation that she speaks of.

Question No. 6—Children

6. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) to the Minister for Children: Does she accept that the State’s failures “to consider or recognise an ao Māori … view, tikanga, te reo and mātauranga Māori” were circumstances that led to abuse; if so, is she confident that the proposal to repeal section 7AA is not a continuation of this?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): In answer to the first part of the question, in the context of the findings of the royal commission of inquiry, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, yes, absolutely.

Kahurangi Carter: What empirical evidence can she name to justify the repeal of section 7AA when advice states that keeping it will help strengthen safety policy and guidelines, and Whanaketia found cultural safety to be a requirement of care safety?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have repeated this over many occasions that the core reason for looking at section 7AA was to bring clarity to the fact that we need to put the safety and the wellbeing of our young people at the forefront of every decision we’re making when it comes to placements and when it comes to removal of young people in care. So I have thought about the safety and wellbeing of children, and I repeat it over and over again that that should be the first thing we’re thinking about in every decision we make about our young people.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she believe that repealing section 7AA hinders the Government’s ability to implement Whanaketia recommendations and achieve its vision of holistic redress, which require the Government to partner with Māori and give effect to Te Tiriti, and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No. I’ve repeated over and over again that nothing will change when it comes to partnership agreements with hapū and iwi around the country, but I will wait for the select committee to finish their deliberation of this bill and will commit to carefully considering their report once it’s tabled in the House.

Kahurangi Carter: Why is she removing section 7AA and its requirement for reporting on outcomes and disparities for Māori when Whanaketia recommends—

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Think about your question, because repetition of questions is not generally appreciated by the House. The Minister has answered that. Just think about another way of asking that question.

Kahurangi Carter: Thank you. Why is the Minister removing its requirement for reporting on outcomes and disparities for Māori when Whanaketia recommends strengthening ethnicity-specific data collection to ensure better-informed decision-making?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Whilst I appreciate that question, we have spent years and years going back to when I was dealing with Child, Youth and Family Services over 20 years ago doing reports. I’m sick of reports that say the same thing over and over again from multiple spaces that take resources away from our young people, when we know what the problem is and we just need to get on with it and deliver for our children.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon David Seymour.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Well, we’ve got one more to come from here, sorry.

Kahurangi Carter: Why is she removing section 7AA when Whanaketia states that a minimum safeguard for protecting tamariki in care is ensuring Māori “are connected to their whānau, hapū, iwi, whakapapa, whenua, reo, and tikanga”?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’ve repeated this over and over again. Nothing will change when it comes to working with whānau, hapū, and iwi to make sure that they have a voice at the table. But we must make sure that safety and wellbeing are the forefront of all our decision making. If whānau is the right place for a young person to be placed, that’s what should happen. But, unfortunately, that’s not always appropriate and we need to make sure that the safety and wellbeing come first.

Hon David Seymour: Is it the case that not only tamariki Māori but actually children of all backgrounds value and benefit from their language, their culture, and their family connections, and the removal of section 7AA will not prevent Oranga Tamariki from partnering with a range of organisations, including iwi-based, to achieve just that for each and every child that comes into its care?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Absolutely, and I was quite humbled by something that was said to me by a staff member of Oranga Tamariki: “Every kid, or every young person, that comes to the attention of Oranga Tamariki, or is in the care of Oranga Tamariki, has a name. We know their names, and we must base it on their needs and every young person deserves the same level of care and protection no matter what their ancestry is.”

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she think that Whanaketia recommendations were wrong when they said, “To strengthen ethnicity-specific data-collection to ensure better-informed decision-making”; if not, why is she repealing section 7AA?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I say over and over again: whakapapa, working with whānau, hapū, and iwi is important, but the safety and wellbeing must be the first thing we think about in every decision we make about our young people. It’s very important that we make it clear what we’re referring to when we’re referring to children in care—these are children that come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki, often broken, often not been treated with the dignity and respect they should have been, and Oranga Tamariki has to pick up those pieces and make decisions for these young people. We need to make sure that they’re safe in care.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Sir, I would ask that you take some time to reflect on the questions that we’ve just had to endure for the last five minutes. It’s quite clear there is no scope for repetitive questioning going over the same ground all the time, and, more importantly, we’ve suffered enough harassment in terms of that side of the House of that Minister.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Shane Jones has just raised a point which you yourself raised around repetition of questions, and I wonder whether you could be very clear on that, because it has certainly been the case in the entire time I’ve been in the House that where a member is dissatisfied with an answer they can repeat the basic thrust of a question over and over and over again if they want to.

SPEAKER: That’s true, and I will take a look, and I will come back with a statement to the House.

Question No. 7—Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations

7. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he stand by his reported statement that previous National Governments had made good progress on Treaty settlements, and they hoped to restore some of that momentum; if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Yes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does introducing the Treaty Principles Bill “restore some of that momentum.” when the bill has been described by iwi leaders as “reckless”, “dishonourable”, and “callous”?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m sure there’s a wide variety of views amongst iwi leaders, but there are still plenty who are very keen to make progress on Treaty negotiations.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Paul Goldsmith that former ACT Party leader and current leader of Hobson’s Pledge, Don Brash, is a “true New Zealand patriot”, and, if so, will this help or hinder the momentum of Treaty settlements?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’m not sure it will make any difference whatsoever, but I did write a book about that particular fellow 20-odd years ago, and that’s on the record.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good—let’s come back to relevance to the primary question.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with Nicola Willis with regard to the Treaty Principles Bill, who said on Radio New Zealand: “The debate, I think, can be healthy, but if one party seeks to impose their view on the other without consent, I think that’s dangerous.”, and, if so, will this debate restore some of the momentum of the Treaty settlement process?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I think, again, that question is drawing a long bow from Treaty negotiations, which is work which is steadily working its way through the system. Now, it’s true that one year in, I have not yet concluded a settlement with Ngāpuhi, and that is challenging work and many Ministers in the past have worked in that way. Ultimately, it requires engagement on both sides, and that’s what we’re doing.

Hon Ginny Andersen: If the debate on the Treaty Principles Bill is considered dangerous, why are he and his Government choosing to ignore all the advice and warnings, and proceeding with a select committee process that is going to be one of the most divisive in Aotearoa’s history?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, clearly, the other side have woken up this morning and decided to have every question on this particular area today in the House, and so they’re straining to draw different bills into different ministerial responsibilities. In terms of making progress on Treaty settlements, we are very committed to continuing to make progress on those Treaty settlements. It’s been something that, across the House, Governments of all persuasions have worked together towards. We’ve got some progress, and we’ve got more progress yet to make.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister aware that the Minister responsible for the Treaty Principles Bill is also the Minister responsible for charter schools, and that that Minister’s own hapū have been in touch with him recently, asking about the possibility of running a kura hourua—

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s—

Hon David Seymour: —which goes to show that—

SPEAKER: No, no.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I point to Speakers’ ruling 197/6—

SPEAKER: In relation to what, sorry?

Ricardo Menéndez March: To the supplementary the member to my left just asked. The Speakers’ ruling states, “Questions commencing ‘Is the Minister aware’, … are generally not seeking elucidation but seeking to inject information or propaganda a member wishes to be heard.”, and I definitely think that that supplementary and other supplementaries most definitely fall in line with that Speakers’ ruling.

SPEAKER: Well, the supplementary was also very wide of the primary question, as well. But I’m sure the member can bring a question that is in line with the primary—very briefly—to the Minister.

Hon David Seymour: Your confidence is well placed, Mr Speaker. In light of the above facts, does it not show that maybe, actually, it is possible to advance some matters while disagreeing on others, and that is how mature people conduct business?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, I agree that people—

SPEAKER: Good.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —can disagree on many things.

SPEAKER: That’s excellent. We’ll move now to question No. 8.

Question No. 8—Justice

8. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to reduce the number of victims of crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The Government has agreed to introduce legislation this year which will make stalking an illegal and jailable offence for up to five years. It is often a precursor to more serious and violent crime—there are established links between stalking and intimate partner violence—which is increasing in prevalence. Every New Zealander deserves to feel safe, and this is another part of the Government’s plan to reduce the number of victims of crime.

James Meager: How will the new offence protect victims of stalking?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: A stalking offence will provide better recognition, more effective prosecution, and support greater prevention of stalking offences. The current legislation’s not adequately responding to the challenge. While some stalking behaviours can be prosecuted through existing laws, they do not cover modern stalking methods. Victim advocates have long called for the Government to create a bespoke offence and we have listened to them.

James Meager: What will be covered by the new offence?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the new offence will capture patterns of behaviour, being three specified acts occurring within a 12-month period that amount to stalking and harassment. It includes damaging reputation, recording, tracking, loitering, as well as the use of technology and modern stalking methods.

Hon Nicole McKee: Will a conviction of stalking and harassment disqualify someone from holding a firearms licence?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Stalking and harassment is often a precursor to more serious and violent crimes such as firearms violence and does not reflect the fit and proper standards that must be met to hold a firearms licence. So, yes, the Government’s decided that a stalking and harassment conviction will disqualify the offender from holding a firearms licence.

James Meager: What feedback, if any, has he seen on the Government’s proposal to make stalking an illegal and jailable offence?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s about time.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I’ve seen—I just heard one from the Leader of the Opposition: “about time”, and also from the Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children, who said, “This bill is a message that stalking is unacceptable [and] that it’s not OK”. They’ve called for change and this Government is delivering it.

Question No. 9—Children

9. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Children: Does she accept advice from officials that “New Zealand and international evidence indicates military academies have limited effectiveness in reducing offending”; if not, what evidence can she name that supports her approach to youth justice?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Yes, I do, which is why, when designing the pilot programme, we took on lessons from examples in New Zealand and internationally. In fact, in this process, over 75 formal lessons were identified and collated from these reviews of previous programmes, both in New Zealand and internationally. These lessons mean that the military-style academy pilot programme is different to what we have seen in the past. For example, each young person received a comprehensive assessment from a clinical psychologist prior to starting the programme.

Tamatha Paul: Does she see that the moral panic around youth delinquency that was used to justify the boot camps of the past, outlined in the abuse in care report, is the same moral panic around youth crime that she is whipping up today to justify her boot camps?

SPEAKER: Can I just say the last part of that is unacceptable in a question. I will ask the member to ask the question again without that last part to it.

Tamatha Paul: Does she see that the moral panic around youth delinquency that was used to justify the boot camps of the past, outlined in the abuse in care report, is similar to moral panic being whipped up to justify the boot camps?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: This Government and myself have committed to reducing youth crime within our communities, and to say that it’s just a moral panic—tell that to the people who have been attacked in their dairies and have been attacked doing their jobs every day and are left injured and traumatised by some of the crimes that these young people have committed. Our job is to make sure that these young people face consequences for that behaviour, but also make sure that we provide a rehabilitative programme on the other side.

Tamatha Paul: What evidence or experience would she need to see to make her pause and reflect on whether to proceed with boot camps or not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I think a 90 percent pass rate from the first part of the pilot programme shows that it’s actually done a pretty damn good job. Now our focus is down in the community making sure that the transition from residential to community is as smooth as possible. So I’m looking forward to seeing the positive results that these young people show for their future.

Tamatha Paul: Is she saying that children that have committed a crime in their lifetime are not deserving of safe environments and protection by the State because of the things that they have done?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I don’t recall saying that or even implying that. I think that young people deserve to be in a safe environment, which they call their home, which is why in response to the abuse in care inquiry and to that report, I have tabled, in the omnibus bill yesterday, ways to keep young people safe within these facilities—because I know the damage that can be done from being abused, neglected, and traumatised, and I will not oversee any situation where I’m not making my best efforts to make sure that that doesn’t happen.

Tamatha Paul: Does she accept that almost every time a new boot camp initiative has been launched for the last 60 years, Ministers have claimed that their boot camp is different to the ones in the past, but that the result has been the same?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: That’s why, when we were designing the pilot programme, we made sure that we looked at examples from New Zealand and internationally. That’s the reason why we found 75 formal lessons that were collated from this to make sure that we don’t repeat any mistakes from the past and make sure that we can add value to these young people’s lives.

Question No. 10—Health

10. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: How many Te Whatu Ora staff members have now expressed interest in accepting the voluntary redundancy first offered in August, and how many, if any, have had their request approved despite their local manager recommending against it?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Decisions about voluntary redundancies are an operational matter for Health New Zealand and applications will not necessarily be accepted. However, I’m advised that 863 expressions of interest have been received from staff. To the second part of the member’s question, I’m assured by Health New Zealand that a clear process was established for considering all applications. As at 8 November, Health New Zealand advises that 224 offers have been made to people whose applications were originally declined by their immediate managers.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that emergency doctors in Northland have been asked to fill out patient registration forms themselves and even reconsider whether they really need to put out 777 calls for in-hospital medical emergencies because of insufficient clerical staff in the department at night?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I’m assured by Health New Zealand that the net front line of clinical staff is safe, that patients are safe, and that outcomes will improve work.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: They’re doing paperwork. Does he stand by his statement “Local circumstances require local solutions rather than national bureaucracies.”; if so, why have the objections of local service managers in the Bay of Plenty been overridden in over 80 percent of voluntary redundancies that have been accepted?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I do agree with those statements—that reflected the previous Government’s position—and what I would say is that voluntary redundancies are an operational matter for Health New Zealand. But I’m assured that senior leaders take wider strategic matters, including the one the member raises, into account when they make their decisions.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he stand by his statement “We believe in decentralising as close to the home and hapū as possible.”, and, if so, how decentralised is the health system today when the deputy chief executive will only permit Bay of Plenty district to seek approval to recruit for 10 positions a week?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Yes. And we have decentralised the four regions, but that previous Government did not.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When will he admit the impact of his cuts has tied up clinicians and paperwork and will ultimately cost the system more in the long run?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I admit is that we’re fixing the botched reforms of the previous Government and looking to improve patient outcomes.

Question No. 11—Housing

11. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made about emergency housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): The Government has set a target of reducing the number of people in emergency housing by 75 percent by 2030. We established Priority One to focus on whānau with tamariki, and it had indicative progress—blue shoots—to 30 September in getting 726 households, including 1,452 tamariki, moved from emergency housing into social housing under Priority One. Now we are putting in place a new practical initiative to help those in emergency housing without tamariki to move into more permanent housing. Earlier today, I announced the social outcomes contracting trial aimed at singles and couples without tamariki in emergency housing. We will start those in emergency housing for over 12 months in Wellington—Te Upoko o Te Ika—and Hamilton—Kirikiriroa.

Paulo Garcia: Why are the trials in Wellington and Hamilton only?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As at end September 2024, Hamilton and Wellington had the most households in emergency housing. In Kirikiriroa, there were 225 households in emergency housing, and around two-thirds are singles or couples with no tamariki. In Te Upoko o Te Ika / Wellington, there were 216 households in emergency housing; the overwhelming majority were singles with no children.

Paulo Garcia: What outcome is being sought, and how is this different to other contracts?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: To the first part, the outcome being sought is improved housing stability. To the second part, the social outcomes contract will link some payments to the achievement of specified outcomes rather than most Government housing contracting, which ties funding to the delivery of specific services. Providers will have flexibility in how they tailor their wraparound tautoko for these clients and may receive incentive payments for getting the singles and couples out of emergency housing, supporting them to stay out of emergency housing for three, six, and 13 months.

Paulo Garcia: How many people are expected to participate in the trial, and how will you monitor the trial?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The trial’s expected to support between 50 and 100 people total across both regions over the two years. The trial will help us understand the particular needs of the eligible individuals and what it takes to tautoko them out of emergency housing and to stay out. Officials will use the Integrated Data Infrastructure from data received from providers and set up an evaluative process alongside the Social Investment Agency to inform future insights and actions.

Question No. 12—Education

12. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to Te Ahu o te Reo Māori; if so, why?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yes, in particular, my decision to reprioritise $30 million in funding to provide maths workbooks, guidebooks, resources to students across New Zealand, and as of today 400,000 primary and intermediate school students around New Zealand in schools and kura will receive these books. I also stand by my decision to ensure that these maths resources were created and made in te reo Māori to support tamariki and rangatahi to excel in Pāngarau mathematics using te reo Māori as their language of instruction.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she agree with University of Otago education professor Susan Sandretto, who said, “Minister Stanford is misleading the public into believing that the program was ineffective in raising student achievement when that was not within the scope of the evaluation.”, supported by Dr Hana Turner from the University of Auckland, and, if not, why?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Herein lies the problem. It should have been in the evaluation that we are making sure that tamariki Māori are doing well at school, and it wasn’t. It also said in the report that I said that “it was unable to be told whether or not tamariki Māori were having their achievement raised.”, and that is true. Now, I also said that one in five teachers involved in this dropped out of the programme, one in five were not involved in working with students, and 18 percent of all participants enrolled in courses were more likely to be doing it for personal interest and fulfilment rather than development of teaching practice—all things that were said in the evaluation report.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did she claim that “An evaluation of the programme found no evidence it directly impacted progress and achievement for students”, when an Australian Associated Press Factcheck said it was misleading because the evaluation didn’t look at the programme’s impact on student progress and achievement.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The evaluation said exactly that. There was no link between the course and student achievement. The fact is that’s what the report said and that was one of the things I asked the ministry very early on: “can we link, can we have a direct link between this course and student achievement?” And when 12 percent of tamariki Māori are at curriculum for maths, I’ve got decisions to make, and I made the decision to reprioritise that money to make sure that tamariki Māori—[Interruption]—have the ability to accelerate in maths in this country.

SPEAKER: Does the member really want an answer? There’s so much noise. I just perhaps thought the member didn’t want an answer.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Just an accurate one, kia ora. Does she agree with Bruce Jepsen, president of Māori principals’ group, Te Akatea, who said their members saw the move as a deliberate act of marginalising the language and, therefore, cultural suppression, and, if not, why?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No, because we in the Ministry of Education and under this Government invest a huge amount in te reo Māori. Not only have we made sure that every single resource that we are providing is also in te reo Māori for kura kaupapa and for Māori immersion units, we also have $43 million in Māori language programme funding for schools, teaching te reo Māori as a subject in any setting, and $3.5 million for Māori medium and kura professional learning and development in te reo language development.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why is she gloating today about the maths resources that have been funded by cutting $30 million from Te Ahu o te Reo Māori, a trade-off she should never have made?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I am immensely proud of the fact that 100,000 children, Māori children in New Zealand, in term 1 next year will receive a student workbook, a student guide, and mathematics resources because 12 percent of them are at curriculum for maths by the time they finish intermediate. Yes, there are trade-offs to be made. And I’ve already said that the reason that we’ve chosen not to carry on with that particular contract is because it was a poorly performing contract. I’ve also said that next year we will look to recontract that—

Hon Peeni Henare: Trading the Māoris away again.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Next year, we will—

SPEAKER: Just a minute, sorry—

Hon ERICA STANFORD: —but they should listen up, because it’s quite important, but they refuse—

SPEAKER: Excuse me. We’ll just have quiet for the last part of question time.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you. I have said on many occasions that next year we will look to recontract this to make sure that more than 60 percent of the teachers who take the course actually finish it, to make sure that there isn’t 20 percent of the people doing the course who aren’t actually in front of children, and to make sure that the course is actually at the level where it needs to be, and that it’s not 2.3 times more expensive than other similar courses. Because it’s important to us that teachers can—[Interruption] It’s important to us that teachers can pronounce Māori words correctly and use everyday phrases in their teaching.

SPEAKER: That concludes question time—oh, sorry, was there a supplementary from the Green Party? No, that concludes question time. Members, we’ll take 30 seconds while people exit the House quietly and without conversation.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

I’m proud to be part of a Government that is making real progress on its commitment to restore law and order and to reduce the number of victims of crime in our community so that New Zealanders can feel safer in their communities. We heard the message from the last election. People were, number one, concerned about the cost of living and trying to restore economic growth, and my colleague Nicola Willis is making great progress on that front—inflation down 2.2 percent. The second thing was restoring law and order. We made another step, last weekend, when we announced that this Government will finally be introducing legislation to criminalise stalking behaviour. I welcome all support from all corners of this House to reduce the number of victims of crime.

I did note there was also some fundamental disagreement in the House, particularly yesterday, around that. I want to quote the “Che Guevara of New Zealand’s Parliament” today, one Chlöe Swarbrick, who was talking yesterday on this topic. She said, “A criminal justice system that we all know only serves to produce more harm, more crime, and more victims didn’t just happen. It [was] designed by people in power in this Parliament, and in 2024 it is being upheld and perpetuated by people in this Parliament.” What a deeply cynical, extreme, and jaundiced view of the world expressed by that member, the leader of the Greens—“A justice system that we all know serves to produce more harm, more crime.”

We do not agree with that. Actually, I’d like to hear her tell that to the tens of thousands of New Zealanders working today in the justice system, in the courts, in the corrections, in the police, who—day in, day out—get up to work in the system that she so derides, to keep New Zealanders safe. I’d like to see her tell that to the victims of crime who look to the justice system for justice and for consequences for people who commit those crimes in our community. We didn’t hear any alternatives other than blather. We heard from her that “I believe that the people will win, that justice will win, that love will win.” Well, I’m sorry, we’ve got to do a bit better than that when people are the victims of serious violent crime. This Government is focused on bringing together—

Hon Member: What are you doing?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: What are we doing? Well, here we go. We’ve got news for you here. We’ve kept our commitment. The first task is to increase the chances of being caught and held to account. That is why, first and foremost, we removed the previous Government’s misguided and confused focus and goal of reducing the prison population by 30 percent, irrespective of what was going on in the community. That was the one that sent the signal that there were excuses for crime—that everybody else in the country is responsible for the crime, apart from the person who did it, and that is the thing that undermined the system.

We’ve restored the focus on reducing the victims of crime—that’s number one. Secondly, we’ve increased the number of police—an extra 500 police. Then we’ve given them the extra powers that they needed to reduce and to deal with gang harm, because a small number of New Zealanders who are part of gangs are the ones who are contributing most of the violent crime and mayhem that we see. Then, we have introduced stronger sentencing requirements by bringing back three strikes, which the previous Government got rid of, and also by toughening sentencing requirements so that we can reduce the number of discounts that are offered by judges to people who are convicted of serious crime. Everybody has seen examples of people convicted of serious violent crimes achieving a bit of time on PlayStation at home, and we have sent a very clear message and will be sending a clear message through legislation that we want real consequences for serious crime.

Secondly, we’re focusing on the areas where intervention is most needed. The retail advisory group that I set up has already sent advice on how we can strengthen the laws around retail people to look after their shops and their selves without the fear of being prosecuted themselves, and that’s a very important message.

We’ve got to deal with the situation that we’ve inherited where there was a higher level of violent crime; and then, secondly, of course, we need to break the cycle of violence, and that is why this Government has invested more in rehabilitation programmes, so that they’re available for prisoners awaiting trial. It’s why we’re making progress on real drivers like emergency housing. I want to acknowledge the work of Tama Potaka, who’s really had dramatic progress in reducing the number of people growing up in emergency housing, which is a training ground. Also, we’re dealing with truancy, because if you want to deal with youth crime, you’ve got to deal with getting the kids back to school. Those are the long-term drivers that we’re focused on. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): When I decided to do the general debate today, I didn’t realise that I’d be speaking immediately after Paul Goldsmith. To the three people at home who made it through that and are still watching, I give my warm greetings to all of you. Although, I must confess, I once did read that biography of Don Brash that was written by Paul Goldsmith. I have never had such a good sleep in my entire life! I want to thank Paul Goldsmith for that.

There were two words that were not mentioned in that speech by the Minister for Treaty negotiations, and I’ll just mention one of them: “Treaty”. The second was “principles”. No one in the National Party wants to talk about the Treaty principles. And why is that? It could be because they told New Zealanders before the election that they thought it was divisive. They told New Zealanders before the election that they would not support it. They told New Zealanders before the election that it was a distraction. They told New Zealanders before the election that it would take the country backwards, and yet here we are: now the National Party tomorrow voting in favour of the Treaty principles bill—a bill that takes race relations in New Zealand backwards, despite the fact that the National Party said they would not do that.

This week has been a week of contrasts. The Government doing the right thing, the principled thing, in apologising to those who were abused in State care; then, two days later, doing entirely the wrong thing in voting in favour of the Treaty principles legislation—plunging race relations in New Zealand back into a very dark space.

Let’s be clear: they have no mandate to do so. The National Party and New Zealand First said before the last election that they would not support this bill. Only one party in Parliament said they would support it, and yet they are getting their way. A majority of Parliament tomorrow will vote in favour of the Treaty principles bill. That is a betrayal of the people who voted for this Government. It is an absolute betrayal that says that the commitments they made to the electorate before the election mean nothing to them. They are merely things that can be traded away. Their principles and their values are up for sale on that side of the House, and I think New Zealanders have every right to be upset about that.

I think those National Party backbenchers who are running around the corridors of the House, shaking their heads and talking about what a disgrace they think it is, have an opportunity to do something about that tomorrow and vote against the bill. They have an opportunity to stand up for the principles that they believe in and vote against the bill. They are violating the spirit of the people who actually have done the National Party proud in this area. People like Jim Bolger, like Doug Graham, like John Key, like Bill English, like Christopher Finlayson, who sought to lead the country forward.

As a New Zealander, I am proud of the progress that we have made as a country during my lifetime on issues around Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is absolutely fair to say that New Zealanders’ attitudes towards Te Tiriti in the past have been disgraceful. The Treaty was breached, crime was committed against New Zealanders, the Treaty was not honoured, and we have done a lot in the last few decades to rectify that and to say sorry. And we’ve said “sorry” time and again in this House for breaches of the Treaty.

All of the good will that has been built up under that process is now being jeopardised by this Government voting in favour of something that they said they were going to vote against. It is destroying the good will that has been so painstakingly built up. The National Party can stop this. The National Party can honour the commitment they made to New Zealanders, rather than the commitment they made to David Seymour and the ACT Party. The commitment they made to New Zealanders is what they should be honouring; not the deal they reached with the ACT Party. Let’s be clear about this: this is Christopher Luxon, as our Prime Minister, prioritising his deal with David Seymour over the best interests of the New Zealand public. This bill will not be in the best interests of the New Zealand public, and the National Party should vote against it.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): This afternoon, we’ve witnessed the day of the Dons. That was, New Zealanders, a man affectionately known as “Chippy”—sadly, not a chip off the old block of Norman Kirk, David Lange, or indeed Helen Clark—a temporary occupant at the back of the waka. But I’ll let others deal with that. Of course, they don’t want to talk about the fact that in America, the election, another Don has put the tetrapod of wokeism to the sword. They don’t want to accept, as we do on this side of the House in New Zealand First, that if you spend more time talking about pronouns, if you spend more time obsessed with narrow marginal issues adversely related to the economic challenges of the day-to-day lives of Kiwis, you will never hold power—which is why this side of the House can look forward to a very rosy future.

The reality is that the campaign, the policy, the strategy that we’ve brought forward, New Zealanders, is sure to respect diversity, not cancel our history, and recognise there is a place for a debate about the Treaty of Waitangi. But it’s a contest of ideas. The Treaty of Waitangi is not a creed; it is not a basis for a separate sovereignty. It does not in any way at all uphold, mandate, 78 separate sovereignties from the Foveaux Strait to Te Rerenga Wairua. That is why, although you may not agree with the bill, although it may never see the light of day, parliamentarians are entitled to put ideas up for debate. This is a place—our House—where ideas should be respected. And it’s a very sad feature of yesterday’s apology where the idea of redress was politicised by the “Pumpkin Patch Kids” of the Green Party, distorted, sadly, by the Labour Party, and worsened by a lawyer who publicly attacked our Prime Minister and said that he had acted in a humiliating way, not hanging around for the apology.

We need to temper expectations as we move forward after the apology pertaining to the kura mōrehu—the people who have suffered through abuse. What we most certainly do not need are lawyers carrying on, boosting expectations, such as Sonja Cooper attacking our Prime Minister. You want to be a lawyer? Don’t try and hop in bed with the Labour Party unless you’re already there. And most certainly do not go around inflating the expectations of people who have a lifetime of misery as it is. Learn to stand up and adhere to the threshold of professionalism that we expect from lawyers, especially those who are operating in the space of representing vulnerable people. You will not guilt trip New Zealand First. You will most certainly not escape being called out when you come to Parliament and deal a low blow which disrespects the dignity of the position of the Prime Minister

I think I’m going to finish up this small contribution. Today, we will very soon be leading to the second reading of the fast-track legislation, and it came to me as a surprise, a great waste of money, that today, in The Post, Dominion, Stuff—whatever it’s called—Ngāti Ruanui, a tribe of Taranaki who should be using their money to educate their mokopunas, have tried to pay for the cost—and I presume it was them—in a full-pager advertisement that supporting ironsand mining is going to ruin the surf of Taranaki. Are jobs now not more important than surfing? More importantly, “It’s going to ruin the prospects of collecting crayfish and shellfish.” I know no hapū who goes 30 kilometres off the shoreline of our country to either get crayfish, either get shellfish—it’s that level of distortion worsened by the Māori Party, worsened by the falsehood merchants. That’s why the fast track is going to lay bare the falsehood, lay bare the actual hypocrisy which has been visited upon the mineral sector, and I, as the Matua of mining, am here to ensure that everyone gets a fair deal in that sector.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Veterans): Earlier this week was the 11th day of the 11th month, and at 11 a.m. a number of New Zealanders gathered around this nation to pay tribute to those who have fallen in previous wars and conflicts, and those who still serve today. Armistice Day is an important date in our nation’s calendar, even as we acknowledge other events in our past—our regrettable past in relation to abuse in State care—and mark for the first time and with subsequent anniversaries to be recalled on the 12th day of the 11th month going forward. It is important that we give due recognition to those who have served our country with distinction over the years, and that is a theme to which I’ll return soon.

I do also want to acknowledge, as I was pleased the House was able to earlier today, the passing of Sir Robert “Bom” Gillies. He was but one member of a proud tradition, represented by the 28th Battalion, the Māori Battalion, but he was a significant member. He was not only the last remaining link to that generation, within the greatest generation as they are often known, quite rightly, but also a great New Zealander in his own right as an advocate for veterans, including Māori veterans who faced difficult circumstances on their return to New Zealand; in many cases, to our nation’s shame. I do want to thank the House for the acknowledgment that was given all around the House of his service, of his sacrifice, and that which he represented among that signal and esteemed group.

We stand here exercising our freedom of speech in this general debate as a result of the actions, the courage, the comradeship, and the commitment of those who have served this nation previously, including those we remember, particularly in Armistice Day. At my left shoulder, I see names such as Crete; on my right, El Alamein. I look across the House and I see such names as Malaya; I see Palestine; I see in more modern times, Afghanistan; and I see Timor-Leste. In fact, in front of me, even, are living memorials, if I can use that contradiction in terms. I have veterans of Timor-Leste - New Zealand operations in Dr Vanessa Weenink and Mr Tim Costley. We are grateful to all those who have served.

We see, in addition, Gallipoli, of course, famously remembered in relation to Anzac Day. I want to say, in relation to Anzac Day, important as that particular commemoration is in relation to that particular conflict, that tragedy, that campaign—may it never be forgotten; may we always remember that, but also acknowledging that that’s the start of a tradition that grew up following those days and weeks and months as the full force of that tragedy and that horror became apparent to New Zealanders in the commemoration of other conflicts and other services as well. I was very pleased that the Prime Minister announced at the recent annual gathering of the RSA—that esteemed institution that remembers, supports, and advocates for our veterans—that the Anzac Day Act is to be amended so that all conflicts and operations undertaken by the New Zealand Defence Force will be recognised accordingly in law on 25 April every year. That’s an important task; as is commemorating supporting those who are our contemporary veterans.

Under the Veterans’ Support Act, those who have been engaged in qualifying operational service are entitled to certain things, having been injured or ill in the course of their duties. We have made considerable efforts, as the Government, to improve the conditions of those making those claims. We are processing those claims much more quickly. Justice delayed is justice denied. An entitlement not realised in a reasonable period of time is one therefore, effectively, denied. I’m very pleased to say that the trend is going in the right direction in terms of processing those claims. We gained additional resources in the last Budget, and I thank the Minister of Finance for providing those to Veterans’ Affairs, so that we can better look after those who have served us.

It’s a momentous week in New Zealand history. We acknowledge particularly that last living link, as I say, to the 28th Battalion, the Māori Battalion. We thank them for their service. We remember them, and we acknowledge particularly that their sacrifice has enabled us the freedom to stand here on behalf of the people of New Zealand to have the debates and the robust discussion that freedom and democracy entail, enable, and indeed require. We will remember them. Lest we forget.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): It’s right for the Minister for Veterans who has just resumed his seat to recall for the House the many milestones that are remembered around our walls, of those times when New Zealanders have defended the rights and freedoms of the citizens of this country. I’m thinking ahead here to the year 2040. On 6 February, I hope that everyone in this House will be celebrating a proud history of progress in New Zealand for all citizens. It’ll be 200 years since the anniversary of the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and I hope that we’re celebrating. I hope that we can then be proud of this country’s progress towards an inclusive democracy, strong institutions, and respect for the rule of law, and the can-do attitude that Kiwis have about getting on and doing things together and including everyone who is a citizen here and who calls Aotearoa home.

I want to be cheering on a generation of young New Zealanders who stand strong in their identity and are experts in not only English but te reo Māori too. I want to be celebrating a generation of New Zealand exporters and businesspeople who see Te Tiriti o Waitangi not as something which is in their way but something that affords them an advantage on the world stage, in our trade arrangements, in the way that we attract foreign direct investment, and in the way that our economy is designed to be inclusive of everyone.

In 2040, the Treaty principles bill being debated tomorrow will be remembered as an ugly mistake in an otherwise honourable record of a country that has always been proud of the way we have done right by our citizens. It should be remembered as a political stunt, because it is and it’s only that. It’s a creature of a coalition agreement because it will help a minor party drum up votes using the politics of fear. It is a political tool that is being proposed by the Government and a misuse of public power. They are the only ones who can propose legislation in this Parliament and they are using that public power to get it on the agenda and win votes from people who think they have something to fear.

Politicians around the world are enjoying a political moment where they are using the most disenfranchised as a political punching bag to be popular. Single mothers, poor migrants, trans women—they are villains in politicians’ stories about what is going wrong so that they can ignore the big issues that really affect working people, like low wages, like high rents, and like rising prices in supermarkets. Those are going unaddressed by people who gain from that situation, and we’re seeing it creep into our politics in New Zealand. It’s not right.

Now, in New Zealand, we have minor parties who have managed to hijack the legislative process to drum up fear about Māori rights. I ask them: what are they afraid of? What is there to be afraid of in a generation of young New Zealanders who are proud of their identity, not only as Māori but as Pākehā who benefit from all of the good things that Māori have to offer in New Zealand and that our foundational partnership between the Crown and Māori has for everyone. It’s inclusive. It builds inclusive democratic institutions which support the rule of law and lead to a kind of economic growth that is enviable in any jurisdiction that we like to compare ourselves to.

I would say to them that democracy is fragile, and ours especially, with the fewest veto points of any Westminster Parliament. The recent Nobel Prize in economics went to a group of researchers who illustrated that successful economic development depends on open institutions and a stable rule of law. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a democratic institution. We as parliamentarians are charged with the protection of not only our democracy but its institutions too, and Te Tiriti is one. By drumming up this kind of political debate, which is divisive and alienates people, we as parliamentarians are letting our democracy down and are letting down the way that we organise our economy here in Aotearoa.

National MPs can choose to vote against this bill and they should. As MPs who have an interest in stability in our democracy and in our economy, it is their duty, and the duty that they owe to their constituents, to vote against it when it’s introduced.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an honour to take a call in this general debate this afternoon. I want to acknowledge what a huge week it’s been, especially for te kura mōrehu [the treasured survivors] and the apology that we saw in the House yesterday. I’d also like to thank the honourable Minister for Veterans for taking up the wero of veterans and actually applying the Act to more of the service that our veterans have seen, so thank you very much. Since it will benefit me as a modern veteran, I’m particularly grateful.

This week, we’ve seen some extraordinary events in my electorate, where, finally, the local community have been listened to by a large group. KiwiRail proposed a ridiculous idea of closing a cycleway in the Heathcote Valley in order to be able to undertake works to make safe a crossing of a road across a railway, but the cycleway that they wanted to close didn’t even cross this same railway. They appeared to be using that as a way of getting the local council to fund this crossing. This whole thing had had a lot of whakapapa, if you’d like, from back in 2019 when the project was first proposed. KiwiRail had pointed out that they were concerned about increased traffic across this rail crossing and had gone through the process of the shovel-ready projects to get this part of the business case. Unfortunately, it wasn’t included in the business case, as many things weren’t, for the shovel-ready projects.

Then we come down the line five years later and they are proposing an increased cost for this project. It’s gone from $2 million up to $6.5 million to complete putting in barrier arms. They already put in some lights and flashing sirens and everything to prevent people from making a mistake. You can see a kilometre in every direction to make sure that there’s a train coming, if you happen to be walking past. The $6.5 million dollars—I worked out that if they paid someone at minimum wage to stand there and personally escort across this crossing, you could do that for about 10 years and all of the people that were required to be across would be very safely escorted across. This is the kind of level of absolute idiocy that we’re seeing. KiwiRail’s own calculations put that the mortality return on investment for this crossing was 1,003 years.

The local community were rightly up in arms about this. On Saturday, over 200 of them gathered at the cycleway to protest the lunacy of this. As we were all discussing this whole thing, a small, two-engine unit came trundling past and tooted—

Suze Redmayne: Well planned.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: And, yes, I think it may have been some KiwiRail workers, even, wanting to highlight their support for us. The cycleway has now had a stay of execution because, after being called into the Minister of Transport’s office for a “Please explain”, into Minister Brown’s office—and thank you very much to the Minister for doing that to KiwiRail; supporting them and helping them to understand that, really, a cycleway that doesn’t cross a railway does not deserve to be closed down for two years in order to be made safe for this road crossing. We’ve seen that KiwiRail have agreed that they will review this decision. I hope that the good people of the Heathcote Valley will remain safe and their children will remain safe and not have to bike on the road, which would be a much more dangerous proposition than going down their cycleway.

This kind of decision making that is based on risk assessments that make no sense probably shouldn’t come as a surprise to us from an entity that went from a project of $600 million in the iReX project to being over $3 billion projected spend in the end. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to us from an entity that couldn’t figure out how to turn off an automatic pilot and crashed the ferries in the Cook Strait. I hope that they will go on to reflect and keep this cycleway open. I support the people of Heathcote Valley to be able to continue on this way. Thank you.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Today, the Government has launched a refreshed public-private partnership (PPP) framework. I’ve been working on this policy in my role as infrastructure under-secretary, along with the Minister for Infrastructure, Chris Bishop. PPPs, when done right, deliver great value for money, they deliver projects on time, and they also deliver fantastic whole-of-life asset outcomes for the public sector and for the taxpayers who pay for it. Contrast this with the way so many of our public assets have been left to run down over the past few decades, having been built new, opened with a politician cutting a ribbon, but with no thought given to the long-term maintenance and renewal of these assets. You only have to think about the leaky pipes and the overflowing waste-water networks around New Zealand to know that New Zealand might be OK at spending money on infrastructure, but incredibly poor at maintaining it.

New Zealand is also amongst the top 10 percent of OECD countries for our spending on infrastructure, but in the bottom 10 percent in terms of getting a product—actually delivering investment and infrastructure for our spend. One of the reasons that public-private partnerships are important to turn this around is because when the private sector has skin in the game, when they have to put money on the table and when they have to finance a new piece of infrastructure, whether it’s a school or a hospital or a road, and then maintain it for 25 years and hand it back to the Government after 25 years—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It costs more.

SIMON COURT: Duncan Webb says that will cost more. In fact, that reflects the true cost of operating and maintaining an asset.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: There’s a profit motive—there’s a profit.

SIMON COURT: And we know it represents the true cost because the private sector has skin in the game—if they don’t allow enough cost, they’ll go broke, Dr Duncan Webb. That’s the difference between New Zealand Labour’s previously flawed approach to rejecting public-private partnerships, because they failed to recognise that an insufficient investment in the maintenance side of things can’t make up for announcing new projects, building them over time, if ever, and over budget. You cannot possibly spend your way out of our infrastructure problem.

A few weeks ago, I was in Australia and I visited with colleagues in the construction and infrastructure and financing sector, including with the Victorian Infrastructure Delivery Authority. One thing they pointed out to me was that it didn’t matter whether they had a centre-right or a centre-left Government. There was universal support, Dr Duncan Webb, for the concept of private sector finance involved in the delivery of projects and their ongoing maintenance and operation in the form of public-private partnerships. That’s because, when it’s important to transfer the right risks to the private sector—while the public sector keeps some that it makes more sense to own, like getting the planning permissions—when it makes sense to actually leverage private finance and make sure that they have some risk associated with their investment so they want to manage the asset properly, then it doesn’t matter what political stripe you are; it makes sense to make investments along those lines. That’s why I’m very proud to say that, today, this Government has achieved cross-party support—unanimity, in fact—to support the next generation and wave of public-private partnerships, because Labour’s finance spokesperson, Barbara Edmonds, has signed on to the foreword of the public-private partnership policy framework to support that concept where it makes sense to invest in that way.

In Australia a few weeks ago, I visited a number of PPP schools, and what was remarkable about them is that, even though they were up to 10 years old, they looked as good and as tidy as the day they opened. What the teachers told us in our visit and what the school managers told us is that they don’t have to worry about maintaining those facilities—they only need to turn up and deliver education and look after the children in their care. I was astounded by the construction workshops and all of those learning facilities which particularly help keep young men engaged in school right until they graduate out. That is only possible because a public-private partnership has committed to providing the highest-quality facilities, maintaining them to make sure the equipment always operates, and that the teachers can simply get on and teach. I’m proud to say that New Zealand is going ahead today with the next generation of PPPs.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was just fascinated to listen to Vanessa Weenink’s speech, and she’s one that I’m hopeful will actually vote against the Treaty principles bill when it comes before this House.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does she have the guts?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, she’s got form, because she came out doorknocking with me and helped put Jacinda Ardern into that seat over there in 2017. She’s seen the ways of the Labour Party, and when she realised she wasn’t going to be a Labour MP, look what happened, eh? Look what happened.

The Treaty principles bill is an absolute travesty. It is a shocker. Now, look, the fact of the matter is that the ACT Party is there, the tail wagging the big, fat, ugly dog, whilst the puppy dog in the other corner isn’t getting a look-in at all, and I am shocked that the party on the other side—the National Party—is being led by the nose.

The bill itself is actually illegitimate and it’s dishonest. It’s dishonest because the very legitimacy of this House is built on the Treaty of Waitangi. The fact is that the authority of this Parliament comes from the fact that the Treaty, in one way or another, created a union between Māori and the Crown, and the authority of the first Parliament that sat came from that very document. Do you know what? You can’t rip away the foundation stone because you don’t like it any more. You can’t make up and you can’t create fictitious principles because you don’t like the deal that you made 180 years ago.

Look, the Treaty isn’t perfect. There are two versions, they don’t agree with each other, and some Māori didn’t sign the Treaty. The fact of the matter is that even if you take those two documents, its true intent is not always clear to see, and there’s a way around that. Just like a contract that is incomplete and that doesn’t take into account every future circumstance, we do go to the courts. We ask the courts “Well, what’s meant by this? What was the original intent?”, and that’s what the principles of the Treaty are.

Do you know what, I’ll tell you who put it quite well. That was Christopher Finlayson, who said back on 10 August 2016, which is not that long ago—he put it well. He said that “part of the law of New Zealand is, in fact, the Treaty, and part of the Treaty, of course, is that we accept there are principles of that Treaty that we regard as important … the fact of the matter is that we say ‘according to law.’ And, by necessary implication, we read into that the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.”

Yes, the Treaty is old. It was drafted quickly up in Waitangi. It was poorly translated and there are inconsistent versions. That’s why we have the Treaty principles, and it was in 1994, in the State-owned Enterprises case, that the Privy Council looked at this for us, and I accept that we do need an independent judiciary to look at questions like this. They said that “the ‘principles’ are the underlying mutual obligations and responsibilities which the Treaty places on the parties. They reflect the intent of the Treaty as a whole and include, but are not confined to, the express [words] of the Treaty. … With the passage of time, the ‘principles’ which underlie the Treaty have become much more important than its precise terms.” That’s what the ACT Party is trying to do away with—that very foundation stone. What they’re trying to do is vicious, it’s divisive, it’s racist, it’s dishonest, it’s illegitimate, and it’s unconstitutional.

A very wise person in this House—a member of that party—said, “I think New Zealand will be a better place if we can accommodate the concepts of partnership expressed in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.” That was a guy called Gerry Brownlee, in his maiden speech, and I think he’d be very happy to have that—or Nicola Willis. On the radio today, she said, “It’s a founding constitutional document of our nation. If one party seeks to impose their view on the other without their consent, it’s dangerous.” That’s what this bill is. Vanessa Weenink, vote against it.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): What a great day it is today, because right now, at this very minute, there are people driving along the Kāpiti Expressway at 110 kilometres an hour. This is great news for every single person not just in my electorate—the Ōtaki electorate, right through Horowhenua and Kāpiti—but all those that travel up and down the North Island. You’ll remember the dark days of Labour Governments, when it was a windy road; it was a dangerous road. People died on that road. Along came National and said, “You know what we need? Roads of national significance.” And now, here we are: the culmination of the Kāpiti Expressway from Raumati, through Paraparaumu, Otaihanga, Waikanae, Peka Peka, Te Horo, right to Ōtaki—110 kilometres per hour the whole way.

Now, I know what we’re all thinking of. We’re all thinking of Ryan Hamilton in his maiden speech talking about driving down the Cambridge Expressway at 110 with AC/DC blaring. I will be the same. Sadly, in my case it is Taylor Swift, due to the three daughters I have, but I’m OK with that. I’ve made my peace. The one thing I wasn’t going to compromise on was 110. In fact, we held the petition. More than 2,000 people signed that petition in support; 3,000 people submitted to the New Zealand Transport Agency, and 93 percent of them said, “Make it 110.” That’s what people told me they wanted, that’s what I fought hard for, and today it has been delivered. This is a safe, world-class expressway, designed and built to be safe at these higher speeds, and now we have it.

I tell you what: for those in the northern part of the electorate—and, to be fair, for all of us—we just look forward to the next phase, the next stage, Ōtaki to north of Levin, all the way to the north of Levin, construction starting next year. Gee, it’s great to have a National MP in our area, and even better to have a National Party Government that is getting our region back on track. But it’s not just speed that is at 110—10 percent faster on the expressway—mortgages are 10 percent cheaper now than they were just a couple of months ago. In fact, if you buy a house today at the median house price, you put down a 20 percent deposit, you will be saving exactly $110 per week on your mortgage thanks to this Government and our efforts to cut inflation—an extra $110 and 110 kilometres an hour. Now, I’m sure it’s not just those that are 10 percent better; our streets are probably 10 percent safer.

Health: in fact, I looked at the number of nurses that we have trained—almost 2,600—it’s almost 110 new nurses that we have employed every fortnight for the last year since we came into Government. That is amazing; 110 is the magic number to remember.

I hear from the other side people complaining because as we drive down at 110 with that extra money from mortgage rates dropping—and, of course, people have also got their tax relief in their back pocket; the tax relief that the Opposition opposed. They didn’t want people in our community to have anything. Labour didn’t want you to have it. But it’s also not enough. There’s the FamilyBoost payment. If you’ve got children in early childhood education, you could be entitled to extra money—up to $75 a week. Make sure you apply for that. Labour opposed that as well. But it’s also not enough. What do they believe in? No one seems to know. They were very principled before when Duncan Webb was talking, but just ask them what they believe about you having more of your own money.

It’s not just cars, of course, in the Kāpiti Coast that are going faster. This weekend, we just had the Kāpiti Half Marathon. It was good to see some cross-party representation. We don’t need to compare times. I’m OK with it if you want to. Let’s just agree that the ladies from my household did better than all the gents from this House in their respective races. We all earned those pink buns at the end. And guess how much that cost!

Sam Uffindell: $110?

TIM COSTLEY: No, less than $110. Well done to Benjy and the team. Flooding at the last minute meant they had to completely reroute the course, and they did an amazing job. Can I congratulate Jeroen Mattheus, who won the men’s half-marathon. He runs a great running group on a Friday morning and trained a number of runners. Can I congratulate Cath Braddock, who won the women’s half-marathon, fresh off a 70 kilometres Taupō Ultramarathon, where she came second—outstanding. And a special shout-out to a woman, my special lady, who came—guess where she placed!—110th; same as it all.

This weekend, the Kāpiti Strawberry Festival, Foxton Christmas Fair, Levin Diwali—I look forward to driving to them down the Kāpiti Expressway at 110 kilometres per hour. We’re getting this country back on track.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I have an opportunity to respond to what happened yesterday, when this House acknowledged the horrendous abuse that was endured by more than a quarter of a million tamariki from the years of 1950 to 1999. I’m not going to mince my words, because I only have a very short period of time to do this.

Yesterday was the day for remembrance and for the apology, but today is the day for action. Today is the day that the Government needs to be accountable for the actions that it continues to take that create abusive environments whereby the pain and the trauma that we saw in that report might happen again today, because the very next day, as in this morning, there was a regulatory impact statement released that detailed the impact of the military boot camps that this Government is currently experimenting with and on the young serious offender category—the very next day. The Government couldn’t even wait to put their boot camps further into the system. Then, tomorrow, we’re going to come back here and we’re going to debate the Treaty principles bill, despite the fact that so many of the recommendations from the abuse in State care report said, “Please, do not undermine tamariki’s connection to their iwi, to their hapū, and to their whakapapa.”

We have a pipeline in this country whereby Māori babies are uplifted from their families and put into State care, and then in that State care they are often abused, and that still carries on to this day. State abuse did not end in 1999; it continues to this day. They are abused in our care. They end up in our youth justice residences—the same ones that those kids were up on the roof for—and then they end up getting involved in gangs because those are the only people who can relate to their experiences of abuse and trauma, and then for their entire life they end up in and out of prison. It is a vicious cycle. But the obvious thing from the actions of this Government is that this House facilitates that pipeline—they actively facilitate that pipeline. It’s not going to end until we decide that we can and should and must do better than what we currently do.

I just read an article from RNZ that said the Government doesn’t even know if gang members will be eligible for compensation for the abuse that they endured by the State. Where do you think they learnt that violence from? They learnt it from the people who were supposed to protect them and look after them. They’re simply reproducing the behaviours and the attitude that they were taught. We have a responsibility in this House to stop that cycle, but we haven’t learnt anything from the past, because we’re still doing the boot camps.

David Seymour wants to lock up the parents of truants. We want to take this whole pathway around truancy. That happened in the past as well. They picked kids up off the streets, who were meant to be at school, and put them into abusive institutions where they were abused. Karen Chhour and her boot camps: we just need to read the report to see how those boot camps inevitably will end. Mark Mitchell is building a mega-prison at Waikeria and at Auckland Prison to continue to funnel our people into prisons. Tama Potaka is kicking Māori whānau out of emergency housing. Most importantly, tomorrow, this Government will introduce a Treaty principles bill that will absolutely underpin harm that is completely irreversible. When I’m 70, I don’t want to hear an apology from this House about the Treaty principles bill. I won’t accept an apology.

The last thing I want to say is that I want to speak on behalf of people like my grandfather, who ended up in a borstal in the 1970s, where he was subject to seclusion—which is solitary confinement for kids—where he was subject to a number one diet, where he was showered by being hosed down with a fire hose. That is why I refuse to accept that this House continues to perpetuate the same conditions that he had to endure, because he deserved better.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to start off with a shout-out to all of those in the Wairarapa electorate, Central Hawke’s Bay, Tararua, and the Wairarapa.

Spring is certainly here. We could do with a heap of rain on our hills, though, particularly up in the northern part. Most people have had tax relief. Interest rates are on their way down. It’s crouch and hold till the end of the month—hopefully more good news with the upcoming official cash rate announcement. Hard-working parents are now able to get FamilyBoost payments, and anyone that’s not getting it or not sure if they’re eligible, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

I would like to wish all the students who are sitting their exams or who have already sat them not only in the Wairarapa but around the country the best of luck. To those that are leaving school to embark on whatever their next challenge may be, I would also wish them all the best. I’d also just like to thank all the teachers for the hard work that they’ve done and the part they’ve played in the education of our young people.

The agricultural and pastoral show season is now well upon us, and it’s always been a very special part of provincial New Zealand. It’s a place where town meets country and we get to celebrate what we do and who we are. I’ve really enjoyed the interactions at the Hawke’s Bay show, Waipukurau, Clareville, and I look forward to many more.

Some other good news for our region and, indeed, all regions around New Zealand is the fact that commodity prices are up. Commodity prices being up means a big deal. It means a big deal because 80 percent of our export income comes from our food and fibre sector, 70,000 businesses are involved in the sector, and 360,000 people work in it—one in six New Zealanders. Beef schedules are up, lamb’s better than it has been, the dairy pay-out is significant for our economy, and those benefits start flowing through into our towns and into our economy.

Just in case the news hasn’t got through, the inflation genie is well back in the box. It was down to 2.2 percent for the year ended September, and the darkness before dawn, as Nicola Willis previously described the state of the economy, is finally starting to lift. Thank you for trusting us as the Government to manage the economy out of a recession. Through the fog of that recession that we inherited from the previous Government, we can now glimpse better days ahead, and that’s certainly something to look forward to. Actually, all this is in contrast to the other side of the House. A business owner came up to me the other week in Masterton. He was actually quite incredulous at the comments he’d heard from the previous administration regarding their regrets and/or their intentions to borrow more, spend more, and tax more.

In his comment to me, he said, “That’s how we ended up in the recession we did.”, and thinking about what he said, it’s not hard to come to the conclusion that the Labour Party seems to be fixated not only on more rules but on more tax. They seem quite addicted to tax.

They’d tax our land, they’d tax our beds,

they’d tax the tables upon which we’re fed.

They’d tax our tractor, tax our utes,

that’s why, on 14 October, Kiwis gave them the boot.

They’d tax our work, they’d tax our pay,

they’d prefer we work for peanuts and earn all the same, anyway.

They’d tax our sheep, they’d tax our cows,

they’d tax us any way or how.

What about our ties? Even our shirts?

They’d even try to tax our dirt.

They’d tax us if we blink.

They’d tax us if we try to think.

They’d tax all we have, then let us know,

they won’t be done till we’ve got no more dough.

When we scream and holler, they’d tax us some more—

tax us till we’re good and sore.

They’d tax our coffins, tax our graves,

and tax the dirt upon which we’re laid.

When we’re not looking, when we turn our backs,

don’t be surprised if they’ll want a capital gains tax.

Also, when we’re gone, do not relax,

they’ll also try and apply an inheritance tax.

That’s probably more than enough of tax. We as a party are still concentrating on those key things: getting the economy back on track, good law and order outcomes, and getting good and better public services. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Thank you, “Mr Crump”.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ki te kotahi te kākaho, ka whati; ki te kāpuia, e kore e whati—in the words of King Tāwhiao, “One reed alone will break; if they are bunched together, they are impossible to break.”

I speak often about growing up with a Māori father and a Pākehā mother. I feel often that I have the best of both worlds, but I wonder, as the Treaty principles bill makes its way to Parliament tomorrow, how the hell did we get here as a country? Last week, I watched in disbelief as “Simeon Seymour” tabled the Treaty principles bill. Tomorrow, I presume that the Acting Prime Minister will be none other than David Seymour.

Around the country, New Zealanders and Māori are mobilising with passive resistance against this National Government. Today, we saw thousands and thousands of Māori and non-Māori alike go from Te Kamaka Marae in Northcote, Hāto Petera, across the Harbour Bridge in Auckland to Takaparawhau and to Ihumātao to demonstrate their disgust in the Treaty principles bill and this Government’s attack on Māori—this Government’s attack on Māori. I ask again in this House: how the hell did we get here?

I want to acknowledge every single person that crossed that bridge today. The thousands of Aucklanders, the people that have marched from Te Rerenga Wairua, those people that stand for something, who believe in the foundations of Te Tiriti—the thing that brought our peoples of Aotearoa together in unity. This bill will take New Zealand backwards under this Government. It will take Māori-Crown relations back to the dark ages. It is divisive, it is destructive, it is an absolute waste of money.

The Treaty principles bill does not have support in this House, and today not only do I ask people to vote against the Treaty principles bill tomorrow; I particularly throw the tono out to those that sit on the Māori Affairs Committee with me, to the chair, to members that sit across the other side of the House in Government. I’m calling them to do what is right: to not put New Zealand through a six-month process of destruction that whips up racism. Once that reading is done tomorrow, we’ll have to endure thousands of submissions from people like Hobson’s Pledge. This is what they want, this is their wish, and National Party members who vote tomorrow are giving in to them and giving them what they want.

Again, I humbly ask my colleagues in the Māori Affairs Committee: do not vote for this bill. It’s not only the submissions that we will endure—and it’s not often spoken about—but after a first reading and submissions, it will come back to this House for a second reading.

I believe that this country was founded on unity; that we have progressed as a country over decades, but tomorrow we will revisit our shocking and terrible past. I just want to acknowledge all of the people, Māori and non-Māori alike, that crossed that bridge today; that stood for something; that stood for unity, Māori and non-Māori alike. I call again on my Government colleagues in Māori Affairs: do not vote for the Treaty principles bill.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into the morning of Thursday, 14 November for consideration in committee of the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill; the second readings of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill; the third readings of the Contracts of Insurance Bill and the Contracts of Insurance (Repeals and Amendments) Bill; and the second readings of the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill, and Fisheries (International Fishing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Fast-track Approvals Bill

Second Reading

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) on behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: I present a legislative statement on the Fast-track Approvals Bill.

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

Hon SHANE JONES: I move, That the Fast-track Approvals Bill be now read a second time.

It is my privilege to demonstrate to the vast number of New Zealanders, Kiwis, waiting anxiously to see progress as we move beyond the cobweb of green, red, and brown tapeworm-like obstructiveness that has impeded the development of our economy—because projects in mining, energy, infrastructure, and other such developments have been blighted—that today is a day of light, not a day of blight. Now, we actually introduced this bill, in urgency, in March. That reflected the importance we attach to getting our economy enjoying a higher level of acceleration, and it’s my pleasure to celebrate with this wee speech the return of this bill to the House.

Of course, we all know that this is modelled on Labour Party legislation. We all know it was the Labour Party who originally introduced the fast-track legislation, and included a list of projects—quite an inspired development at the time. This bill picks up that earlier version and makes a host of overdue refinements, and connects it with the pulse in our economy, which needs to be injected with fuel that will power the ambitions and give greater certainty and confidence to those who actually want to get things done in a rapid period of time. That’s why this bill is slightly more extensive than the efforts of the Labour Party.

We know that the Wildlife Act has cost millions and millions of dollars as a consequence of it being manipulated—impeding fish farming, worsening road construction—and we also know that because of a calcified level of legal decision-making, it represents a major impediment for garden-variety Kiwis wanting to make progress, build businesses, create jobs, and reward investment. That’s why this bill should be conceived as a broad umbrella, where different statutory permissions will be synthesised into one single consent, and the genius of this bill is it represents a one-stop shop. Sadly, regulatory thickets have stood in the way of building roads, whether it’s up in Mount Messenger or whether it’s an attempt to expand offshore salmon farming down in Marlborough, and this should be seen as accompanying the work associated with what my colleague Mr Simon Court is responsible for in relation to moving—with the honourable Mr Bishop—resource management forward.

Now, I don’t need to remind everyone how many jobs will be generated. Confidence and certainty will grow. I only wish that iwi leaders wouldn’t waste their money in the New Zealand newspapers pretending that mining ironsands is going to affect crayfish, or mining ironsands is going to have a bad impact on surfing. I’ll take jobs for Māoris before surfing for hippies any time of the day.

Let me move now to the business of listed projects. Listed projects are those identifiable initiatives such as the boon coming to Taranaki in the form of ironsands. Now, that was reflected in a very, very sacred document otherwise known as the coalition agreement between New Zealand First and the National Party, and in that document is a reference to a highly sought - after mineral called vanadium. I know that, for many of my critics in Taranaki, they’ve had to consult the dictionary to learn how to spell that word, but, rest assured, that economic boon is on its way, and it occupies a position with a host of other mining projects that are on the listed projects.

Initially, New Zealanders flooded the process and overworked the independent committee—ably chaired by Mr David Tapsell—and there were nigh on 390 to 400 projects, but we showed judiciousness on this side of the House. We chose not to be reckless, we chose not to be cavalier, and we said we’d settle upon 149 projects. Now, those projects represent quarrying. You cannot create infrastructure or build roads in the absence of quarries, and, sure, from time to time there may be one or two modest minor species and critters in the way of the quarry. They will be dealt with appropriately, but we are not going to get into a situation of developments’ progress and jobs held ransom to or hijacked by a random frog, a multicoloured skink, or other such elements of the natural world when there’s thousands and millions of them around us.

Of course the advisory group was independent, and that’s what it means when the politicians can stand up and say that, on this side of the House, we’ve taken high-quality advice. These projects represent an enormous fillip, an enormous injection of confidence into our system, and that’s why the fast-track legislation is so important. Of course there will be a Minister involved in terms of after the bill passes, and there may very well be some opportunities through the committee stage for the other side of the House to make suggestions. I fear that those suggestions will only represent further pollution—further pollution—but we will be resolute on this side of the House because we know the economy can no longer tolerate any more policy seances, any more protracted processes of consultation where the result won’t change; all you do is celebrate—celebrate the mentality that costs are always understated and risks are overstated.

Who are the final decision makers in this highly sought - after legislation, which I hope will be the most permissive regime in Australasia? In fact, it’s the OECD, because, if I’m not mistaken, the Labour Party in England actually has its own fast-track legislation. Now, the final decision maker will be a panel. There was a period of time that I had arrogated that distinction to my good self, but I’m a member of a Cabinet that is blessed with common sense. I’m a member of a Cabinet who wants to ensure that the public has confidence in governance and the institutions where decision makers lock in with the issues. That’s why a High Court judge or an Environment Court judge will chair the panels that will be empowered to make decisions pertaining to either the projects on the existing list or those that will be referred in the future by the Minister for Infrastructure, and there will be an opportunity, in appropriate circumstances, for a member of the panel qualified in Māori development and te ao Māori.

Now, “te ao Māori” means “the Māori world”, and so that’s this planet; not the planets up there in the galaxy, where, sadly, a lot of the Māori hogwash that I have to tolerate, as someone who puts my credentials against anyone in te ao Māori as to where does our language begin and end. This notion that tikanga Māori applies 30 kilometres off the coast, and you can’t go exploring and creating wealth looking at ironsands—not only is that a degradation of tikanga Māori; it shows how ideology has weaponised our Māori identity.

I must acknowledge the efforts of the Environment Committee. In conclusion, I am immensely proud, with appropriate levels of modesty and humility, to play this small role to bring this legislation to the House and to assure New Zealanders, assure investors, and assure our communities that jobs, growth, revenue, and progress is on the way and we will no longer allow the deification of the environment to stand in the way of jobs and growth. Kia ora tātou.

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

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a sad day that I am standing here with a bill that has changed a little bit through the select committee process, but not nearly enough. It is not—

Hon Shane Jones: Labour policy.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: The Minister for Resources says it is Labour policy. It is not a refinement, it is not slightly more extensive than Labour policies for fast track; it is a huge overriding of all of our environmental protections, and the Minister doesn’t even pretend that it’s not. The Prime Minister might, the Minister whose name is on the bill might, but this Minister just told us he wants it to be the most permissive regime in Australasia, and what does that mean? That means that all our normal environmental laws can be overridden because some private project has got on to the list that he just told us about, and that is disgraceful.

He has told us that he wants the public to have some trust in the system, but what we have here is a Government bill that will give private rights to private projects to private companies. That is not how we make law in New Zealand, because Government bills are there for the general New Zealanders—they’re not specific. We have local bills when councils want to change the status of a reserve or something like that, and we have private bills when private entities such as trusts want to change something about their trust deed. Those sorts of things are private bills. They are not Government bills, but here—

Hon Shane Jones: Red tape.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —we are told—and the Minister is just yelling out “red tape” because that is how he holds the constitutional norms in New Zealand: with disdain. It is a disgrace, and New Zealanders should be very concerned that this Minister is in Cabinet and that the Cabinet that he says has some common sense is letting these changes come through. It is a disgrace.

The Minister for Resources, who just spoke, said that maybe there’ll be some amendments in the committee of the whole House stage of this bill, because, of course, we’re only at the second reading stage. Here is a wad of amendments that both the Labour Party and the Green Party have already submitted, and they make all the changes that are needed to make this bill—what did he say?—a “refinement” of the Labour Party fast track. The Minister has said that he’s very proud that “the genius of the bill is it represents a one-stop shop.” That is an interesting idea that it’s a one-stop shop, and that is different from what Labour had done in fast track, but it is something that I’m not fundamentally opposed to. What I am fundamentally opposed to is any legislation that overrides our normal laws that protect the environment, and that is what this bill does, and the Environment Committee have reported back and amended clause 3, which is the purpose clause.

Clause 3, as in the bill that was introduced, said something about processes to facilitate development and projects, and now that “process” word has been deleted—to make it very clear that this is a substantive bill. The purpose does not refer to the environment, and it does not refer to sustainable management; it just refers to the facilitation of projects. That is very concerning, because then how the rest of the bill works is that that purpose is the thing that decision makers have to give the most weight to, and that is the mechanism by which this bill leapfrogs all of our normal environmental protections—our environmental protections that don’t apply to the things that haven’t managed to get on to the listed projects list, that don’t apply to things that are medium-sized and not regionally significant, which have no way to get to this fast-track process, and that don’t apply to the projects that, demonstrably, the Resource Management Act does the worst job at, in terms of costing those people more money for the process and taking more time than it should.

These large projects, which would always normally go to a court because of how large they are and the effects that they’re going to have, go through the system now reasonably quickly. They could go quicker and they could be cheaper, but, comparatively, the real problem is with those medium-sized projects, and this bill does nothing to fix that. All the talk of how it’s improving the economy and efficiency is just not right. All this bill is doing is overriding our environmental protections for the good of a few—for pet projects of that Government and of that Minister—and it is a disgrace.

Now, the Prime Minister has stood up in question time many times and referred to this fast-track bill as something that is going to help us in our climate emergency. He goads Labour and Green politicians and says, “Well, you should support this bill.” No, we should not support this bill in its current form, because it is not all about doing things that are good for climate change, it is not restricted to renewable energy, it is not restricted to public-good infrastructure, and it is not restricted to stormwater improvements or things that are going to help adaptation. No, as the Minister very clearly just said, it is for mining projects and other things that might be in totally unsuitable areas. It is a disgrace.

This bill, where something is prohibited in a plan—and it’s very hard for councils to make prohibited rules. When they make a prohibited rule, they have to be able to demonstrate that something like, say, building houses on a flood plain is so bad and so dangerous that nobody can ever apply for a consent for that—it’s un-consentable. What this bill does is say, “No, no, it doesn’t matter if something is prohibited. You can still get a consent for that activity.” That is a disgrace and it’s dangerous.

The water conservation orders: we heard from people that there are only 16 water conservation orders in New Zealand over 16 pristine water bodies, and it’s a very long and arduous process to get a water conservation order, but these projects can just ignore the water conservation orders, because that is what this bill does. It overrides our normal environmental protections, and it’s a disgrace. It stops public participation, and I acknowledge that the Labour pieces of legislation around fast track definitely restricted public participation, but not to this degree. There are the Labour—

Hon Scott Simpson: Oh, so it’s OK when Labour does it.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, I’ve got an amendment here, Mr Simpson, and I hope that you will support it because it lists all the groups that were listed in Labour’s emergency COVID legislation, such as some of the environmental non-governmental organisations and Business New Zealand and other entities. Not even those groups are involved in this process in this bill.

It’ll make more wrongs against Te Tiriti. We know that projects can override our normal environmental protections and we know that that will cause environmental harm. We’ve heard the Minister say he’s not worried about killing a few animals because there’s thousands or millions of them. What a ridiculous thing to say in this House, when we are talking about—and I assume he is actually talking about—threatened New Zealand native species, where there are not thousands or millions of them, but they are the last ones on the planet, and we are very privileged to live in a country with such wonderful biodiversity and such interesting endemic species that are not found anywhere else in the world. He thinks, for a few bucks, that one of his pet projects should just be able to ram through all those protections that those species, those frogs, would normally have—whatever that animal is—and that is disgraceful.

There is no Treaty clause in this bill. There’s reference to Treaty settlements, but that’s pretty much it, so we know there will be more wrongs. And it enables coalmining in kiwi habitats. That is just mind-blowingly bad. We know that that cannot be a good thing: (1) why do we need more coal when we already have a climate crisis and are trying to stop burning fossil fuels; and (2) kiwi are regarded as taonga species in New Zealand, and that project has already been declined. It can’t get through the current environmental tests, and yet with this bill it will be able to, which demonstrates how this bill is not protecting our environment. It is overriding our environmental protections. The problem definition is wrong. The problem here is not to make things faster and to help the economy; the problem definition is the consenting of—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired, thank you.

LAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Well, we knew at the outset of this Government signalling their intention with the fast-track bill that it would be bad. We knew it would be bad for the environment, we knew it would be bad for Te Tiriti, we knew it would be bad for local voices and for local democracy, and it was actually not only all of that but it was also just really poorly put-together legislation. Officials have made that really clear throughout the select committee process and there have been so many changes as a result.

We’ve had some really concerning developments over the time of that select committee process. One of the most concerning was the fact that the Schedule 2 projects did come out and were announced, and we saw the possibility of what this fast-track bill actually could enable and the reality of that for communities. We had the media point out, even just at a cursory glance, that $500,000 in donations have been linked to companies that are on that Schedule 2 fast-track list, and we really welcome the Auditor-General launching their inquiry into how Ministers managed conflicts of interest with the fast-track process. I wanted to quote here because the Auditor-General said that this inquiry was “vital for maintaining public trust and confidence, as well as New Zealand’s global reputations for transparency, accountability, and integrity.” This is really serious stuff.

There are aspects of the bill that have not yet been addressed by the select committee, and we’re still in the position in this House now where there are so many questions yet to be answered that the public still have so many concerns about, as does the Green Party. What’s noteworthy at this time in this bill’s passage through Parliament is that, despite the 27,000 submissions that we got on the bill and the 23 days of public hearings that the Environment Committee went through, which had so many voices, with such eminently sensible recommendations that could have been adopted and put through into this bill from organisations, from iwi, from hapū, from companies, and from industry that would have made this bill something that actually was of value to New Zealand and could stand the test of time—despite this whole process—quite incredibly, this bill has now emerged that is actually worse than when it first started out.

Sure, there have been some welcome changes. The removal of the ministerial decision-making has been removed, and there has been a clause put in so that on referral decisions, the Minister for the Environment will now be consulted, but I’m not sure that offers New Zealanders any comfort when we have a Minister for the Environment who says that the balance has swung too far toward the environment at the cost of getting things done, despite the overwhelming weight of evidence within her own ministry saying the contrary. I want the public of Aotearoa to know that, under this bill, the meagre environmental protections that once constituted a framework of what we would consider to be environmental protections are no longer, under the fast-track bill. They now amount to mere considerations, and this is because the purpose clause has actually been strengthened so much that it now gives the greatest weight to significant development over environmental considerations. Now, I don’t know how many times I’ve heard the Government saying that the Green Party should support fast track, and talking about things like renewable energy, but if it’s just about public infrastructure, then let’s make it about public infrastructure.

The Green Party proposed at select committee that we would actually define what constitutes significant, regional, and national benefits, and we proposed that this would mean public infrastructure, like transport, water, hospitals, education, renewable energy generation, and telecommunications. This would have narrowed the scope of the bill, but that was rejected, and why was it rejected? It was rejected because fast track is, unfortunately, not just about public infrastructure. It’s about the damming of rivers to progress farming intensification and the pollution of rivers and streams; it’s about the flooding and mining of conservation land; it’s about hydro schemes that degrade and diminish some of our last remaining wild rivers; it’s about so-called waste-to-energy plants, which sound great in theory but are human and ecological health nightmares, and now, overseas, similar plants are being decommissioned or banned; it’s about the mining of our last remaining areas of seabed habitat; and it’s about this Government being so incredibly lazy with their policy making that they would rather open up swaths of the Mackenzie Basin for massive solar farms than actually do the policy work to enable the use of the millions of existing square metreage available on industry and domestic roofs that could be used instead.

I want to talk about the lack of iwi, hapū, and public voice in this fast-track bill, which has not improved, because, again, if this bill was really about enabling projects of such significance that they’re of regional and national significance, then logic would dictate that, actually, the breadth of expertise within civil society—groups and experts having their say—could contribute to the informing of the expert panel and actually result in projects that not only have a social licence but robust evidence and understanding that allow conditions on these projects that actually makes sense and do not unnecessarily risk human health and environmental health. We proposed just that—that all projects should be publicly notified—and got nowhere.

We hear, like a broken record, from this Government that they’re the Government for farmers, and what’s really concerning about this bill is that there are no protections for the rights of existing consent holders in this bill. I can tell you, from being on the select committee and from talking to very unhappy consent holders in some of these proposed project areas, that they are extremely concerned about their consent rights being overridden by fast-track projects, particularly when it’s limited resource constraints like in the water space. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment so accurately described this as there being one set of rules for everyone and then there being special, fast-track rules “for the big end of town”. We think that is unacceptable, and our proposal to actually protect the rights of consent holders in this bill got nowhere.

Here we have this bill that could have got the basics right. It could have enabled a one-stop shop for development within environmental constraints in a way that actually upheld Te Tiriti and allowed public voice. Instead, we have this bill that is so definitively short-sighted that it ignores the voices of our people, the need for the protection of te taiao—our environment—and the right of current and future generations to a livable future. This bill has no clear justification and rationale to justify its continuation through Parliament. Te Pāti Kākāriki thinks that this bill should be binned and left to the ashes of history. It’s reckless. It should not go any further, unless the Government really seriously looks at our amendments and considers them in the next stage, the committee of the whole House. Thank you.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The ACT Party will be supporting the fast-track legislation. It’s a really important tool to unlock what is currently a system that’s been running with the handbrake on, getting nowhere, and, in fact, costing $1.3 billion per annum, according to the Infrastructure Commission, to consent infrastructure projects alone in New Zealand. We’ve got a resource management system which required a friend of mine building a house at Mangawhai, north of Auckland, to apply for a consent because his 1-metre-high retaining wall, according to a council officer, was actually 1.2 metres, and that was a $4,000 cost and a six-week delay to building a family home.

This is the system that this Government has inherited that the previous Government failed to fix—five years of navel-gazing. The Randerson panel, of which the Hon Rachel Brooking was a member, in five years couldn’t come up with a concept that was enduring and that would allow us to get on with building infrastructure, developing the natural resources that we need in order to build roads, make concrete, and build buildings—which includes hospitals and schools, by the way. The fast-track legislation is the best solution we’ve got to knock the blockage out of the system, and you know how important it is because hundreds and hundreds of applicants put in their projects, seeking to qualify for fast-track approval on a nationally and significantly important basis.

It turns out, though, that everybody’s infrastructure and development project is important to them. New Zealanders are currently forced to get about 40,000-odd consents a year, as at the most recent peak of our construction boom. In the 1990s, and a few years after the Resource Management Act was passed, about 5,000 consents were required every year. Now, we’ve got to 40,000. We’re sure as heck not building 40,000 consents’ worth of stuff; this is all paperwork. It’s all red and green tape. It’s all asking questions by councils and commissioners and planners to protect their own reputations and to protect and manage their own risk, not to ask questions to help get things built faster.

Fast track is an important first step to unlocking our resource management system, making it easier to build, making it easier for Kiwis to use their property in ways that they see fit, making it easier for local government to get their vital infrastructure projects over the line, to upgrade water and waste-water treatment plants, to get housing developments over the line, and to get renewable energy projects up, but it’s also to get those really important quarries and mines that we need to consent and develop so that we can have access to the natural resources like hard rock for building roads, and minerals like coal and gold, which we need to power our industries.

What many people in this House on the Opposition side don’t realise is that coal is not just something to be burned; it is a chemical. It contains carbon. It is used to turn into products like the coal tar in our trading partners like Japan and South Korea, which is then used to make those wonderful waterproof backpacks and rain jackets that so many of my friends who might want to go for a hike on the weekend rely on to keep warm and dry. Coal is not just something to be burnt; it’s a vital mineral resource in technology and healthcare, as well as in many of the products that we use and consume every day, and it’s important that New Zealand has access to our own resources, rather than being strategically vulnerable on importing other people’s resources.

I’d also like to talk about the one-stop shop factor, and I want to appreciate the fact that the Hon Rachel Brooking did acknowledge the improvements that this bill brings to the decision-making process and the assessment of information about the environmental impacts of projects. This bill brings in consideration of the Conservation Act, getting access to land managed under the Conservation Act. It brings into consideration the Wildlife Act. There are species out there that when we’re building roads, when we’re developing residential housing subdivisions, and when we’re building commercial precincts, there will be little creatures and there will be habitats with plants and other species on them that we want to know about, and, if at all possible, we want to avoid or remedy or mitigate the effects of development on these places. Now, unfortunately, the system to do that is so disparate, the Wildlife Act is a 1953 piece of legislation which presumes that when you apply for a wildlife permit, you intend to kill it.

Now, I can promise those members of the Green Party, Te Pāti Māori, and Labour, who were so concerned about the last frog, that the ACT Party, in supporting this bill, is confident that there are processes in place to identify threatened species and to identify special habitats to make sure that they are protected and that consent conditions issued as part of approvals under the Fast-track Approvals Bill will recognise those important places and creatures. The problem we’ve got is it’s taking too long to get these approvals. You get one and it might take two years; if you still have to get another, that might be another two years; and then you still need to acquire the land under the Public Works Act. We’re bringing all of these things together.

I also want to talk about the catastrophism that we’ve heard. When this bill was first proposed, I read comments that this bill was an example of this Government’s war on nature and that it was going to cause—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Because it overrides the environmental protections.

SIMON COURT: —an ecocide—Rachel Brooking—

Kahurangi Carter: The truth hurts.

SIMON COURT: —an ecocide—Kahurangi Carter. Well, here’s the thing: there is no developer of residential housing or of long-term residential care for the elderly. There is no one I know—a civil engineer, an environmental engineer, an ecologist—who works for a company that’s developing quarry resources to build the things we need who wants to take part in an ecocide. That is a complete nonsense. It is catastrophising, and it is completely unhelpful—it is unhelpful and immature from people who want to participate in the debate about how we build the infrastructure that we need, and how we also protect the special places and creatures that are important to New Zealanders. I would call on all members of this House to quit the catastrophising, quit the use of these terms like “ecocide” and a “war on nature”, and go back and tell your supporters and the members of your political parties that there’s a way through this, and we’re going to participate in a constructive way, because this is just round two of this Government’s resource management reforms.

Round three—which we’ll be talking about more soon—is replacing the Resource Management Act with a system based on property rights which sets environmental limits to protect these special places and provides for mechanisms like compensation and offset and trading biodiversity credits to make sure that where we do do development that’s really needed, we recognise that there are other places that we want to protect and enhance. New Zealanders do share values about our love of the environment, but, by goodness, we also want to live in affordable homes, we want to be able to drive at a decent clip on modern roads, we want to be able to get into ports and airports, and not have a whole bunch of nimbies and people who catastrophise the impact of land development on the environment to such an extent that, essentially, they’ll say that we can’t build anything anywhere, ever.

Kahurangi Carter: No one’s saying that.

SIMON COURT: Well, you say, Kahurangi Carter, that no one’s saying that, but the implication of what the Green Party is calling for and of what Labour is saying is that we must remain anchored in this status quo and that the status quo you see today in terms of our traffic congestion and in terms of our inability to build major infrastructure projects on time and on budget is acceptable, and, in fact, we have to slow them down further and apply more layers of precaution. That’s what we’re hearing. Now, if you disagree with me, what I’d like you to say, Kahurangi Carter—and maybe some other members of the Green Party, like Lan Pham, will get to speak on this bill again—is that you do support land development, you do support housing intensification, and you know there are pathways to actually codify environmental effects management, and that we shouldn’t have to apply for 40,000 consents a year to get permission to do the things we already need to do well.

Now, I can tell there are some members of the Opposition here who can’t get their heads around this concept. The ACT Party supports this bill. We’re going to do more of this stuff. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I rise in support of the second reading of this Fast-track Approvals Bill in the name of my friend and colleague the Hon Chris Bishop, who is our Minister responsible for RMA Reform.

I also do so in my capacity as chair of the Environment Committee. It’s a role and a privileged position that I came to halfway through the deliberations and hearings on this legislation. As other members have already indicated, there were a lot of submissions. There were some very strong views put both for and against the proposed legislation, but I can report to the House that, after the select committee process, the bill that the select committee has reported back to the Parliament is, I think, a significantly changed and better bill than the one that was first introduced at first reading.

In telling the House that, I just want to reflect for a moment on the timetable that has been transpiring while this legislation has been considered by the House and by the select committee. It’s just over a year since the last general election and it’s not quite yet 12 months since the formation of this current coalition Government, and it’s been 12 months of action and activity and positive change for a brighter, bolder future for New Zealand and for our people and for future generations.

One of the first things that the new coalition Government did before Christmas last year was to repeal Labour’s very ill-conceived natural and built environment legislation. It was full of red tape; it had slowed down the economy; it did very little, if anything, to preserve, maintain, or enhance our natural environment; and, most importantly, it was symbolic of Labour’s view that everything should be controlled from the centre and that issuing proclamations from the Beehive was the way that New Zealanders should receive consents—that was the way that information should be conveyed to them and that’s the way that all things should happen.

That’s of course a principle and a philosophy that’s not unique to the New Zealand Labour Party; it’s a policy that is, essentially, the same in left-leaning parties all around the world. What they fail to understand is that in New Zealand’s case, we’ve got a woeful deficit of infrastructure. We’ve got an economy that is struggling and that has been made far worse after six years of a Labour-led Government, we’ve got a desperate need to improve the health, wellbeing, and certainty of future for all New Zealanders, and we’ve got to get things done. That was a key, fundamental element of last year’s general election. This coalition Government was elected to get things done, and this bill represents exactly that kind of momentum that’s required to get things done.

Minister Shane Jones made comment about it being a one-stop shop piece of legislation. Far be it from me to even try and emulate any of his magnificent eloquence and oratory in this Chamber, but I think he did make a number of serious points that are well worth repeating and focusing on again, and they are that New Zealand needs a growing economy, we need more renewable electricity generation, we need more capacity to build roads and infrastructure that give us the kind of lifestyle that we want as a First World nation, and we need to have a decision-making process that can expedite that growth, that development, much quicker than has been the case, frankly, over the last 30 years or so, since the inception of the Resource Management Act.

Then when he says—and as do others in this Chamber—that Opposition parties should be supporting this legislation, he’s 100 percent right, because, surely, if they continue to want and demand better housing, better education, better health facilities and all those sorts of things, then we need to have the economy that can sustain that. We simply can’t, as a nation, continue to divide the pie into ever-decreasing slivers. We can’t continue to do that; we actually have to grow the pie. I know that that is a difficult concept for members of the Opposition to grasp, but we have to have a thriving, growing economy if we want all the things that we are to have as a First World nation. This piece of legislation goes a long way to ensure that the obstructions, that the roadblocks, and that the logjams that have so stultified our economy for so long will be freed up and removed.

Now, the bill makes a number of changes as reported back from the select committee, and I just want to focus on one or two of them in the time that’s available to me. One of the main changes is that the select committee has recommended on a suggestion from Cabinet that the expert panel projects be referred to the expert panel by the Minister for Infrastructure alone and that that Minister will be required to consult with the Minister for the Environment. I think that’s a positive change in this piece of legislation. Importantly, also, final decisions on projects will not sit with a group of Ministers but with the expert panel. I think that’s appropriate. I think that’s appropriate; in fact, it’s identical to the same system that the Labour Government had when they were in power, so I’m sure that they’ll be supporting that. Then the expert panels themselves will include expertise in environmental matters, and that, of course, is important as well.

On this side of the House, we don’t accept that having protection, enhancement, and maintenance of the environment and having a growing, thriving economy are binary options, and that you can’t have one without the other. In fact, you must have both—you must have both. That’s the reason why, on this side of the House, we’re supporting this piece of legislation. We’re grateful for the support of our coalition partners in ACT and New Zealand First, and we are determined, as a Government, to get things done. We support this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. First of all, obviously, we stand in absolute opposition to this bill, and, to be very specific, it is giving unprecedented powers to politicians who have deliberately chosen to remove Te Tiriti and who are doing everything they can to resurrect zombie projects previously turned down by every court that exists in Aotearoa. That’s not progress. That is not economic progress; that wreaks of desperation. When we see nearly 27,000 submitters, 83 percent of whom are opposed and many of whom weren’t heard because they were relegated to a ballot system over 23 days, it sort of tells you how desperate this Government is. There is nothing innovative or transformative in what is being proposed. Absolutely, we should progress—absolutely, and there’s no debate on this side—but “At the cost of what?” is what we’re really, really opposing you on.

We have a Minister who has been proudly championing this kaupapa. I think the terminology was to milk mother Earth for all we can. Shane Jones, in his valedictory speech, said that what matters more than anything in the world was he tangata, he tangata, he tangata, and yet not once has he listened to ngā tāngata—not once. What we have is a person who, actually, would have been marching beside those across the Auckland Harbour Bridge today. He would have been part of the hikoi—that is his background—but, instead, the people he chucks off at today are now sitting there, ashamed of his background. We have a Minister who was involved in the Ministry for the Environment, who was involved in Māori fisheries, and who led a delegation to the Pacific on transparency, and, in 44 years, now has every one of those groups—iwi Māori, environmentalists, Māori fisheries, and Pasifika—against what it is he’s proposing. In 44 years, we see this downward, desperate spiral, and it’s just so sad that, again, if we were truly listening to the people, we would provide economic solutions and transformation that we could all be proud of.

We in Taranaki are sick to death of hearing everyone here act as if they’re experts in a sector that they’ve never had in their backyard. I call BS on this Minister—Minister Jones—because not once has any of this gone back to his backyard. I’ve just come from there, and there’s no way, with all the anti-mining signs I saw, that they would allow him to do that in his own backyard. But, no, in Taranaki we have to enjoy the fruits of this unimaginative Government. We have to sit here and see—and I want to share that some of those who so bravely have invested in making sure that mainstream media have got advertisements showing how toxic the decision to have seabed mining in Taranaki is viewed, because nowhere can we trust that any of their political representation is going to do it except for us, on this side.

What we had were so many ex-voters of National walking with us, opposing seabed mining, absolutely disgusted that their Government—or the people that they’d previously backed—are doing this. Ngāruahine were absolutely opposed, saying, in fact, that the Crown had failed them and, again, it is prepared to continue to develop on the back of our pain, as Taranaki. We’ve got Ngāti Tama, who said that you are so focused on the significance of economic development at the cost of our kaitiakitanga. KASM—Kiwis Against Seabed Mining—said that you are breaching the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. And who cares—who cares? No one is listening. Also we’ve got, again, Greenpeace, who said this is extremely problematic and that the bill is setting up a clear hierarchy that will allow development, regardless of the cost to threatened wildlife. Horowhenua Lake Trust Muaūpoko also talked about how the bill prioritises development goals over existing rights and interests. Again, 25,000 people on the bridge today are telling us that you—this Government—will never ever listen to the lament of those who are disgusted at how you’re treating our Tiriti.

Taranaki don’t want this, those who care about our mokopuna don’t want this, but, instead, what we have, unfortunately, is a Government that is executing this so damned fast—so fast—that what you don’t realise is you’re fast tracking your way out of Parliament, and let this be a one-term Government, for all we can do. Kia ora rā.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was fortunate to be part of the fast-track bill hearings earlier this year and to hear from submitters, and I have to say up front that if this bill is an example of the way this Government intends to keep on operating, I see clearly that they really only want one term. One term is actually one term too many for a Government intent on trashing our environment, running roughshod over our communities, and destroying our children’s future.

Let’s consider the numbers, the facts. There were 53,000 submitters, including petitions, individual submitters, and a thousand organisation submitters. Of those, 0.3 percent gave outright support to the bill—0.3 percent—1.1 percent gave support in principle, 5.7 percent had an unclear position, and 92.9 percent outright opposed the bill. Let’s be clear: this bill was rushed prior to introduction, is incredibly unpopular, and has no public mandate to proceed, and yet here we are, facing a Government determined to destroy our environment and our international reputation and to threaten trade agreements and override communities, all in the pursuit of short-term financial gain.

I firstly want to thank all those submitters who presented, and all those who sent in written submissions, but were denied an opportunity to speak. I can understand why this Government would be unwilling to face the full glare of an outraged public, a public dismayed by the arrogance of this Government to push poorly written fast-track legislation through a blitzkrieg of urgency. It just demonstrates how out of touch this Government is, and it also demonstrates an astonishing denial of the climate crisis we face and an unwillingness to work constructively across the aisle for wellbeing.

There were some in support of fast track. There were companies who made submissions in support of the fast-track legislation who are developing renewable electricity generation projects, and we certainly need more renewable electricity generation. They noted that they participated because they did not want to miss out, and made it clear to us that, even if they participated in the fast track, they would still engage with communities, with iwi, with hapū, and with councils, because, ultimately, they need social licence to continue to operate. Without social licence, we will see development tied up in courts. We’ll see protests galore. We will find it much harder to build social cohesion if people, if communities, if iwi, if hapū, and if councils are overridden by the Minister for Infrastructure, and what will happen in those situations where people are overridden where people, iwi, hapū, and councils oppose proposed projects listed in Schedule 2? Who will the Minister listen to: the developer or the people?

For example, members might be aware of Project Kea, a proposal that’s in Schedule 2. It’s a proposal to burn toxic waste in a small, rural community, in Waimate in South Canterbury, and we heard in their submission that this is a project that will increase harmful climate emissions. It locks in dependency on a constant stream of waste. It will produce toxic air pollution. It will produce toxic materials to pollute the soil, water, animals, and people. It is proposed on a site on a flood plain—it could all wash out to sea—and it’s located within two kilometres of a school. On 5 November, the Waimate District Council passed a motion to request that the Government remove the toxic waste plant from the fast-track list. All councillors are against the incinerator, as is iwi, as is the community, and as is the local school. Who will the Minister listen to: the developer or the people? And what about our international obligations? How is it that the Environment Committee proceeded with the bill, despite not receiving any legal advice on the potential impact of the bill on our international obligations such as emissions reduction targets or trade obligations?

This bill is a solution in search of a problem. We’ve got an existing fast-track process which has managed to protect the environment while enabling more infrastructure, renewable energy, and housing. This fast-track bill is simply a dog’s breakfast and it deserves to be consigned to the bin.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Goodness me, that was hard work listening to that, wasn’t it? I agree with our great chairman of the Environment Committee, the Hon Scott Simpson. He said that we used to be a country that got stuff done and now, quite simply, we’re a country where it’s become impossibly hard to actually get anything done at all in a timely and cost-effective manner, and that’s despite a housing crisis, despite a roading crisis, despite an energy crisis, and despite an economic crisis, and we’ve got serious issues with our basic infrastructure. As Chris Bishop has described it, we have become an obstruction economy. Well, we now find ourselves in a position of infrastructure vulnerability—a position where those that we need to invest have just lost the confidence to want to invest.

In regards to the 149 projects included in Schedule 2 of the bill, they include housing, aquaculture, infrastructure—including 180 kilometres of new road, rail, and public transport routes—quarries, renewable energy, and, yes, mining. This bill will provide confidence and will provide the ability to plan our transition to renewable energy, and I quote Alan McDonald from the Employers and Manufacturers Association, who said that “Given the recent issues caused by higher energy prices and the demands on generation capacity to further electrify the economy, these new fast-tracked projects have increasing significance.”

This country also has a housing crisis. Again, this bill will go a long way to addressing this. We heard through the submission process of the sheer frustration from those that wanted to get a consent about the time and the cost to do so, and we need to get this country moving again. We’ve got an economic crisis. We need this bill to help facilitate that investment in projects such as aquaculture and roading projects, and I quote Nick Leggett from Infrastructure New Zealand, who said that the list of projects was “balanced” and that “it really speaks to the need this country has to get its act together and build some infrastructure”.

There are roading projects, quarries, and, yes, also utilising the minerals that we need because we have choices to make as a country with minerals. We can create jobs, we can create economic growth, we can create export income that helps us pay our bills and provide the services to New Zealanders, and we can have control through the fast-track build process of the environmental impact and the conditions that are contingent with the projects, or we can have no jobs, no economic growth, and no export income, and continue to import those minerals that we need in our everyday lives and have no control whatsoever on the environmental impacts.

I quote Gary Taylor, who is the chairman and the executive director of the Environmental Defence Society. He has conceded that “while I come from an environmental perspective, I am also a Kiwi interested in economic welfare of our nation, and a lot of the infrastructure projects look good to go to me, subject to environmental assessment … a lot of the renewable projects, a lot of the housing projects, although there are obviously important questions about impacts from them … a lot of them are all good to go”. There is a process in the bill to assess environmental impacts. I commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): It is a tough day for democracy, and a tough day for my ears as I listen to the information shared from the previous speaker, Mike Butterick, and other speakers in this Government. When the deputy chair of the Environment Committee talks about the fact we have a housing crisis—yes, we have a housing crisis. Therefore, Mr Deputy Chair, why not ensure that Kāinga Ora is building the houses that we in Government actually put in place? Why not come to New Plymouth and make sure that those houses that we had planned and that were budgeted for were actually being built? If you want to talk about the housing crisis, then take some responsibility for the fact that you and your—that the Government—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

GLEN BENNETT: —is actually making decisions and making choices that have implications for our housing space, which has nothing to do with this legislation.

Now, our world is burning, and if you look around at what is going on, I feel like this Government is just throwing fuel into that fire, literally—literally. Nature is in retreat, it is under attack, and this Government is fast tracking its way to collapse those things. For example, if you look around the world and you look at New Zealand in terms of our biodiversity, and we are one of the worst offenders in terms of what’s going on. Almost two-thirds of rare ecosystems are threatened with collapse. We have the high—

Cameron Brewer: Oh, Labour is very rare in New Plymouth.

GLEN BENNETT: Thank you, sir, I really appreciate that comment, but it’s no laughing matter, actually, when we talk about things like the destruction of our ecosystems and the destruction of things like birds and creatures that have lived here for millions and billions of years, and that you choose just to make a joke about it is unacceptable. When you look at 90 percent of seabirds being under threat, when you look at 84 percent of reptiles being under threat, when you look at 76 percent of freshwater fish being under threat—when you look at all of these things, and this is an underestimation of what is potentially happening, we need to make sure that nature and that the environment is in this bill. What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of in terms of the purpose of the bill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: “What is the Government afraid of?”

GLEN BENNETT: What is the Government afraid of—it’s hard, Madam Speaker, when it gets really angry—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know it’s hard—the word “you”. I know it’s hard, and other people have done it too.

GLEN BENNETT: Part of me rages, because—why? What is the fear of the Government to put into the purpose of the bill “environmental protections”—what is it that this Government is afraid of and why would they not do that? That is my question.

We look at the Minister who championed the bill this afternoon, the Hon Shane Jones, and he spoke of this Government presenting this bill under urgency back in March because it’s so important and this is such complex and important legislation. Well, that didn’t give them many months to write the legislation, and as we listened through the submission process, there was person after person, submitter after submitter, who said that this legislation is undercooked. This is actually something that doesn’t just happen overnight and appear. This legislation is undercooked, and it needs to go back to the drawing board and be rewritten—we heard, time and time again, submissions coming through about that.

When we listened to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Hon Simon Upton, a previous National Party Minister—

Hon Rachel Brooking: “Rt Hon”.

GLEN BENNETT: —the Rt Hon Simon Upton—he talked about this bill lacking many of the environmental safeguards that the predecessor legislation contained. He talked about the significant risks to our environment. This is someone whom this Parliament commissions to make sure that we have the checks and balances in place to ensure that New Zealand is a place that is a leader in the world when it comes to our environmental protections. He even talked about Muldoon’s National Development Act of 1979 having far more environmental protections in place than this piece of legislation. He talked about the fact that this would achieve suboptimal outcomes, poor decision-making, and, in fact, a lack of legislative durability, and also the fact that the litigation risks are high because of this bill being so undercooked.

I want to take a moment to consider one of the submitters who spoke, and he was a farmer from the Tararua area. He was talking with regard to the Puketoi Wind Farm and the process of consents for that, and he talked about social cohesion and the importance of ensuring that we bring communities with us. As I listened to this farmer speak, he was vehemently opposed at the beginning to this wind farm being built next to his farm. The community was opposed to this, and, through the process we currently have, they worked, they listened, the company understood the challenges, then they made changes to the design and to the placement of that wind farm, to the point where this farmer said that he and his community sat comfortably with that wind farm being built near them, because they had been listened to. They were not only listened to; action had been taken where they’d actually made sure that that wind farm worked for the community.

That is a submission that I think is significant, because this legislation is just about ignoring locals. This legislation is about ignoring hapū, ignoring iwi, and ignoring neighbours. This legislation actually is about shutting down participation in the democratic process. It’s about shutting down social cohesion and involvement. Even members of the electricity companies, the lines companies, talked about this. Clarus, which used to be Firstgas, talked about the fact that they have pipes running throughout the North Island that are on farmers’ land and that are on communities’ land, and a big part of their job is around community engagement to build social cohesion because they know it’s a privilege for them to have their products on the land of landowners. We need to consider that although there have been some changes, this bill still does not allow for the community and it does not allow for local iwi or hapū to actually engage and challenge some of the processes and some of the things that have been thrown on this piece of legislation.

Now, I want to talk about our international obligations, because this concerns me. This concerns me greatly. This concerns me, and I know that for us on this side of the House, it was a key part of our discussions towards the end of the select committee process. Many submitters raised the challenge of what this is going to mean for our international trade obligations, and also talked about things like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the global biodiversity framework, and the Paris Agreement and our obligations to the climate. We did not get advice that was reasonable, and I’m sure everyone who sat on that committee can agree to the fact that we were not informed.

As a committee, we do not and could not tell this House and tell this country that this piece of legislation, as it comes back to the House and is read a second time today—we don’t understand fully the consequences of what this bill will do in terms of our international obligations. For us, as the Labour Party, that is highly concerning, and I know that the other parties in Opposition agree with me on that, as well. We had inadequate advice on the consequences of this legislation on our international obligations, and I think that that is something that the Government needs to seriously consider. We have amendments that we have already tabled and we will continue to table in the committee of the whole House stage, and we hope that this Government seriously considers them, because if this becomes law, then I think all parliamentarians will want to know that at least with regard to our obligations internationally, we will honour them.

I want to close with just some quotes from some of the submitters. As we heard, many were unable to be heard, but for the few that we did hear from, I want to close with some of those reflections and thoughts. “Democracy takes time”—democracy takes time. As I listened to that, I thought, yes, we understand, and I know that, in the Labour Party, we’ve talked about thinking through some of the challenges when it comes to a one-stop shop, or how we do actually fund properly the process of consenting. But democracy takes time. “We want a fast track, not a short track.”, and then another submitter talked about how this is 19th century thinking. “This bill is the worst ever to be presented to this Parliament.”, a submitter said.

Finally, I want to say the final quote from a submitter. They said that “Democracy works best when everyone has a voice.”—democracy works best when everyone has a voice—and I believe that that is important for us, as a lean, mean democracy in New Zealand. This legislation does not allow that, and we cannot commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Look, I just want to say that it is a pleasure to speak on this bill, which the Environment Committee has spent such a long time working on. There is a lot to say, but, first, I just want to acknowledge the committee and all the people that joined us for the hearings and submissions, because, of course, there were many and it did take many hands to make light work, and there were a lot of hours spent.

I just wanted to acknowledge, first, that members opposite are talking a lot about the nature of the bill as it was introduced, but it’s important to remind those who are listening of both sides of this, because, of course, it was a draft. It’s the first reading when it’s introduced, and they know that it’s about to go through this process. They were honest about the fact that it could have been better, and, of course, that was the part that we played, as a select committee.

I think it was really amazing for us to walk away from this process, knowing that we had had some incredibly constructive submissions, and in those submissions, in some cases, I felt incredibly lucky to have had free legal advice, actually. There were some really helpful things. If you read the debate on the first reading and saw how this bill went in, and see now how the bill has come out, you will see what has changed. If you were to go through painstakingly—as it would be—every single submission that was put through, listen to the public hearings, and see, you will see the process and how we came about the change, and I think that that’s a really important thing to consider. Look, it is our job, as a select committee, to go through this process. We did hear from thousands of people and some of them were incredibly constructive, and I do say, very often, that this is not a poll. It is not our job to weigh each individual submission; it’s our job to consider them, and, because of that, the bill is now in a better place.

One thing that struck me was the feedback that it is the complicated parallel processes that were the most difficult thing that got in the way, and in some cases it’s as simple as reconsenting a power station. I have a power station in my electorate, up in Tūai, a very remote part of New Zealand, and this power station provides power to almost the entire settlement of Wairoa, which is a very special place to me. One of the projects that could get fast-track consent is the hydro energy station in Tūai. Now, this is just reconsenting. This is an existing power station, but the processes that they have to go through, as it stands, are so complicated that we are risking cutting the power to the entire settlement of Wairoa, and this is something that is very important for people to understand. It is not just controversial projects; it is complicated projects that are going to benefit from this process, and, as people have said, they are those complicated parallel processes.

I just wanted to highlight in this legislation the many different laws and Acts that the bill will go through: the Resource Management Act—as we know—the Conservation Act, the Reserves Act, the Wildlife Act, the Heritage New Zealand Act, the Freshwater Fisheries Regulations, the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act, the Crown Minerals Act, the Public Works Act, and the Fisheries Act. Some of these projects would have to deal with over half of those different Acts, and that is what has complicated it, and the feedback that we got was that in many cases it’s the one-stop shop aspect of what we’re introducing that is most important. The slow pace and the tediousness is not necessarily because there is one Act that is taking such a long time; it’s that they have to go through so many different parallel processes, and that is what this bill does—it amalgamates those processes. It says, “We acknowledge that as a regionally significant project, you are going to be more likely to be complicated, there are going to be more hoops for you to jump through, and we don’t want that to get in the way of progress for our regions or for our country.”—and that is what is so important.

Building roads, repowering power stations, building housing developments that are affordable housing, business parks, recreation parks—this is the kind of stuff that this bill is aiming to solve, and it is an important thing for us to do. I have been pleased to be part of the process, the rigorous process that our select committee has gone through, and, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. You know, something smells rotten about this bill, and—[Interruption] Yeah, and I can see why there are murmurings on the other side. I can understand that because many of those members will be as uncomfortable as I am about this list. I mean, Radio New Zealand did a great job: $500,000 of donations from people who are on the fast-track list, and there’s no good explanation for that. I’m concerned that there are close connections between donors, members of the National Party, and the fact that they’re on this list. I mean, one of the people who made donations, in fact, made the comment. He said donating was there because he’s “looking to be heard”. Well, that donor appears to have been heard.

There are projects on this list which have been thoroughly considered by the relevant panels and courts and have been turned down—turned down for environmental reasons, turned down because the project wasn’t needed, turned down because there wasn’t the resource to support the developments that were proposed—and the Environment Committee didn’t get to consider them. In Canterbury, one of those projects was the Carter Group project. Philip Carter of Carter Holdings, uncle to Matt Doocey—donor of $60,000. I asked the Prime Minister, in written question No. 66395, “Did Matt Doocey recuse himself from any consideration, deliberation or decision-making in respect of the Fast-track projects and in particular those concerning the Carter Group Limited?” The Prime Minister gave me a long answer. I needed one word—“no”—and he didn’t give me that word. That’s problematic. I want to be sure that we have a transparent decision-making process, one where conflicts of interest are clearly and openly and effectively managed.

The Carter Group is a donor. The Carter Group has a direct family relationship into this House, and this—

Hon Scott Simpson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I have hesitated while I’ve been listening to the member on his feet making inappropriate imputations and assertions and veiled allegations that are inappropriate in a debate of this sort. I would invite you to consider the content of the words that he has been making, in consideration of appropriate Standing Orders, and ask him to desist from this type of insinuation during this debate.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Thank you, Mr Simpson. I was just about to mention to Mr Webb that in naming the names as you’ve gone, you are getting close to, if not crossing, a line, and I think you can make your point with the generalities which you began your speech with.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you for that guidance, Mr Speaker. Every one of those statements I’ve made can be found in the Radio New Zealand article, and I invite people to look at it. There are plenty more. There is a list, and we know that a Minister had a dinner, which he omitted to disclose, with people who are now on the list of the fast-track projects. I’m deeply concerned that this country’s position as somewhere where people do business honestly, transparently, by the rules, and on an equal footing is at risk.

The Government can take points of order and be uncomfortable and squirm when it’s pointed out to them, but I won’t stop pointing out that there are critical shortcomings in this procedure, because the fact is that we can’t examine what’s going on. It is a black box, and we are being told “Don’t worry. We’ve managed the conflicts of interest.”

The Prime Minister informs me that there was a letter which I’ve read outlining how the key Ministers will recuse themselves from projects that they’ve had particular and personal contact with. Chris Bishop himself has stated that he’s recused himself from the project where he advocated in favour of that developer prior to the election, as he should. Those kinds of close connections are uncomfortable—they are deeply uncomfortable—and that party on the other side should be ashamed.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Well, if there was any doubt where the Grinch was going to be hiding this Christmas, I’d be looking in central Christchurch, because what we’ve heard is an Opposition and a Labour Party—

Hon Rachel Brooking: You’re not serious. Give us one serious speech—come on.

TIM COSTLEY: Ooh! We’ve touched a nerve tonight, haven’t we? They don’t just want to kill this bill; they want to kill 55,000 new homes for hard-working Kiwis that just want to get a chance, that just want to get a break, and that want more houses. We are in the middle of a housing crisis. Here are 44 developments with 55,000 homes, and they’re saying, “No, we don’t want that—oh, we don’t want that.”

Then they’re saying, “We don’t just want to kill them, we want to kill 180 kilometres of new roads.”—just like they killed the Ōtaki to North of Levin Expressway in 2018. Everyone in our region, in Horowhenua, knows exactly the impact that had—the needless deaths that we experienced on that road—because of the six years of delay. It’s back on track now, but 180 kilometres of new roads coming in just the first tranche—that’s what this bill unlocks. They want to kill that.

They want to kill 3,000 megawatts of new, sustainable power generation—new generation—like a new solar farm in Foxton. That is transformational for a town like Foxton, and Labour is saying “We don’t want it, we don’t want it, we don’t want it.”

They don’t want a billion dollars of new revenue for this country from mineral exports. They don’t want a chance at growth. They want to kill growth. They want to kill our economy—that’s what they’re campaigning for here.

I’ll tell you the difference it makes in a community like Ōtaki. In our region alone, it means 3,400 new homes, it means a new solar farm, and it means integrated rail mobility and improving public transport. That’s what this bill is doing.

I note that Mr Parker is the one sitting quietly, as he should because he wrote the bones of this. We’ve made a few improvements, but it is the same principle.

We need to cut through this. We have tied ourselves up in red and green tape in this country, and we can’t keep going like this. We need to unlock potential. We need to tell the world that we are open for business, with a whole pipeline of infrastructure, and that’s what this bill is doing. I am so proud to stand here in support of this bill and in support of my region, because we need the five specific projects that come from it but, more than that, our whole country needs it.

Fifty-five thousand houses, sustainable power generation, new roads, flood protection—that’s what we need. We need to unlock our potential and get this country back on track. That’s what this bill does. I commend it to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): It’s quite fortuitous, then, that I have the next call, because I’m going to educate the member Tim Costley—who obviously hasn’t been paying attention to the debate—to understand the important differences between this version of fast track and the other, earlier versions for which I was proudly responsible.

Now, it is true that New Zealand’s cost of consenting projects has been far too high. In fact, when we were in Government there was a study done, led by the Infrastructure Commission, proving that New Zealand’s cost of consenting mid-size infrastructure was higher than the top end of the range for Europe. Over 5 percent of the project cost was being spent on the consenting process, which was far too high. What did we do? We fixed that. We introduced a version of fast track which overcame most of the problems.

There is one aspect of this legislation that I do support in principle, which is combining the decision making under various other pieces of legislation, including the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act, but only if the tests that apply under those pieces of legislation still apply and are not overridden in the process, because what that does when you do that is mistake the substance of proper decision-making with the process.

What did we do in Government? Well, we introduced a fast-track process which cut through the red tape and which the National Party says this is modelled upon, and in one part it is actually modelled upon it. Why is that? Because the National Party knew it worked, even though they repealed it as soon as they got into office, which was absolutely ridiculous and wasteful.

What was consented under our process and what was the difference? Well, we consented many thousands of sections, apartment buildings, business parks, retirement villages—

Hon Member: Quarries.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Did we do some quarries? I think we did. We did some quarries, and that was held up at one stage with a problem with some of the wetland rules, which we also fixed. We consented New Zealand’s first big solar farms—really good decisions, if you read them; I thought the panels did a really good job of that, considering new issues like reflection from photovoltaic panels for people who live nearby. We consented wind farms. The legislation enabled the re-consenting of hydro facilities and other electricity facilities, although not new hydro facilities, which, in our view, should go through a full process, because if you dam a large river you change that river environment for ever, and that should be the subject of public participation.

There were a number of safeguards in that legislation which didn’t slow the process down, but included the fact that we only changed the process, not the environmental test. There was no need to override the Resource Management Act (RMA) or any of the other legislation which is there to protect the environment from undue harm—not from any harm, but from inappropriate harm. Another protection was that there were parties that could, effectively, represent the public interest or sectors of the public interest, and the legislation that we passed enabled the likes of the Environmental Defence Society and Forest & Bird—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Business New Zealand.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —and Business New Zealand—it was both sides of the of the debate; development interests and the protection interests—to, as of right, make written submissions and, through that process, be heard on every one of those applications. Do you know what? Ninety-five percent of the applications that were made through our fast-track process were approved and, indeed, of the 5 percent that weren’t, there were probably some applications that were withdrawn or that proceeded through some other process outside of fast track. We had a process that was principled and worked.

What’s the difference between that and the current process? The current process doesn’t just change the process; it enables the decision maker to override RMA plans to actually allow activities that are prohibited under the Resource Management Act or under Resource Management Act plans, or are contrary to the legal requirements of the Conservation Act or the Wildlife Act or the heritage protection legislation, to name but some. That is the major difference between this legislation and that.

There are a number of other differences. For example, this legislation comes back to the House worse than the state it was when it went to select committee, in one important regard. After tens of thousands of people submitted against the legislation and even more demonstrated up and down the country in public protests, and at the one in Auckland, the people were still leaving Aotea Square when they were filing into the square outside Britomart because it was such an enormous protest—notwithstanding that, the legislation is made worse by stripping out any reference to the environment in the purpose of the bill so that not only can they override all that legislation but the purpose of the bill is only development.

Another thing that they’ve done through this legislation and the list of projects that are up first time is they are introducing projects that have previously been declined. Now, anyone can always apply for reconsideration of something that has been rejected, but to give them a hand up through the ability to override the environmental protections that lie at the heart of the likes of the Resource Management Act or the Conservation Act is, in my opinion, wrong. If the Government wanted to change the Conservation Act because they thought that court decisions had made too narrow land-swaps or offsetting under the Conservation Act, the Government should have brought a bill to that effect to this Parliament. They shouldn’t have taken to themselves the ability to give a panel an instruction that they can override the Conservation Act, rather than apply it. That is another mistake that is made in this legislation.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is no radical. The Rt Hon Simon Upton has in the past been the secretary for the environment for the OECD, probably the highest environmental office ever held by a New Zealander. He is a former National Minister for the Environment, and he said that this legislation is wrong and is worse than the National Development Act under Muldoon, which was so criticised at the time, after pushing through projects for Think Big. He further made the point that if this legislation was to proceed and override the environmental protections normally found in legislation, then that right should be limited to projects that are of a public benefit. There are occasions when there is a case for overriding normal environmental protections. I would say that those exceptions are already well provided for under the Resource Management Act through infrastructure exceptions to the protections of wetlands and biodiversity and the like. If the Government thought that that was not the case, they should have taken these powers for only public projects, rather than projects for a private benefit.

Now, we heard from the Hon Duncan Webb the shady side of this, and those were not his words alone; they were quoting media commentary. We, in this House, do have freedom of speech in order to raise to the House and the public of New Zealand the risk of corruption that can occur if Ministers can give private interests a leg-up in respect of private projects that confer a private benefit overriding normal laws, and that’s all that Duncan Webb was doing. He was perfectly proper to do so because he was right that that is another risk from this bill, and many, many submitters pointed to that.

Scott Simpson, at one level, did a very pleasant job of administering the chair for this bill—and he is a decent chair—but, by goodness, he’s going to be at risk in the Coromandel election next time, isn’t he, because he has, effectively, brought through legislation which is incompatible with the values of most of his voters in the Coromandel. He is not only overseeing the unwinding of water regulation and the taking of money, as a Government, away from waste management to put to other things, because they’ve cut the money; he’s actually been in charge of the select committee that has brought forward this terrible legislation.

This legislation is entirely unnecessary. The earlier form of fast track was working well. It changed process, it saved money, and 95 percent of the projects that went through it were consented. Some of the other huge projects, like the first ever waste-to-energy project in New Zealand—a large one—is going to go through fast track without even proper consideration of the greenhouse gas implications of a project like that. This is poor legislation.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise in the second reading to support the Fast-track Approvals Bill. I am the last speaker in this debate, and so I think it gives me a chance to kind of correct some of the things that we’ve been hearing.

This bill is about a one-stop shop for approvals for projects which are of national or regional benefit, because, as we’ve heard, New Zealand has an obstructionist economy. To prove a point, I’ll just pick two examples, but in the select committee we heard many more. The Raetihi Hydro Dam—an existing dam—took 18 years to reconsent—

Hon David Parker: When was that?

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: —and I appreciate that the other side are going to say that they had fast-track legislation to do that.

I will get to some of those numbers: 65 percent were actually consented through that legislation, 16 percent are still in the process, and 11 percent fell into a black hole of who knows what. A medium track would be a complement. Then, if we look at some of the other things, the Mill Creek wind farm took 1,437 days to consent, and we’ve just heard from the other side that re-consenting is different to new. This was a new thing. It was a wind farm that took close to four years to actually gain a consent.

If we’re going to achieve our ambitious goal of boosting our economy and reducing our emissions, we need to make a fundamental change to our planning and regulatory settings, and before us today, this bill represents a vital step towards that—a brighter future for all New Zealanders. We’ve already heard about some of the projects. In Schedule 2, there are projects that, if approved, will deliver up to 55,000 sections, 3,000 megawatts of renewable energy, and 43 infrastructure projects enabling 180 kilometres for roads, rail, and public transport routes.

The fast-track bill is about more than just efficiency; it’s about a vision. It’s about creating a future where all New Zealanders can have access to affordable housing, where our economy is powered by clean energy, and where our communities are connected by modern and efficient infrastructure.

Now, we heard from the other side that we’re going to disrupt our international trade, but the Opposition did fail to mention that in the select committee process, we heard that the UK currently actually has a centralised planning process like this for large infrastructure projects. Did they mention that? No, they didn’t. The EU has adopted a fast-track permit-granting process for renewable energy projects. They’re also exploring options to speed up permitting for critical raw materials to make sure that mining can support their green digital transition. Did they mention that? No, they didn’t.

There have been a number of things that have been said in this debate, but I think we really need to make sure that we actually get the point of this. We can develop and protect our environment, we can grow to our net zero—and that’s what we’ve got to do. We have not heard about the environmental expertise that is on the panel, which, just like our Resource Management Act, can put conditions on these projects. It is something that we’re well aware of in this country. Therefore, I urge everybody to support this bill, and join me in building a brighter future for our nation.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 48

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

Amendments agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 49.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Fast-track Approvals Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68, Noes 55.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This bill is set down for committee stage next sitting day. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clause 3 to 30, “Amendments to [the Building Act 2004]”; and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish members of the committee a good evening, and I just want to start by acknowledging with thanks the debate at the second reading. A lot of very pertinent points were raised in that debate. I think it was a very helpful discussion of the issues. Obviously, I’m in the hands of the committee as to the extent to which members may wish to revisit those issues.

In the spirit of helpfulness, I hope, I will just set out a couple of key points in relation to Part 1—which is really the main, substantive part of the legislation—in case that is helpful to anyone who is in any doubt on our position on these matters. First, it is just to acknowledge that there is an element of retrospectivity. That’s because the Cabinet decision was announced on 2 April of this year, and, of course, the mere announcement by a Government that it will all be changed isn’t the same thing as that it is all being changed. We don’t govern by fiat in a parliamentary democracy, so it is only now, or, rather, at the third reading and then at the Royal assent of this bill, that the legislation will become effective as a matter of law. We’re saying that back to that date at which we announced that that change will be made, that’s when the rule shall apply, with the rule being that an additional four years shall be allowed to remediate buildings in accordance with the earthquake-prone building regime as it currently stands.

I do also want to acknowledge a point that was emphasised during the second reading debate—particularly by members opposite, and I think that had a good point—which was, first, that this should not be an exercise in kicking the can down the road. So while there is, I think, a reasonable argument for allowing more time, given labour constraints and the capacity of the sector to physically conduct the works, there is also a requirement that we have settings that will enable people to do that in a reasonable and a proportionate way. There is a review taking place in which we think we can end up in a good place in terms of the settings, and so this is an exercise in allowing some time for that review to be conducted, and some certainty in the meantime from a legal perspective that that work can take place where able, or not, as the case may be.

In terms of the “Henry VIII” element, as it would be known in certain circles, which is where there’s an additional power for two years to be granted beyond that four years by the Government—or the Minister, technically—as opposed to that being locked in in primary legislation, I appreciate that the constitutionally minded among us may recognise that that’s an additional power for the executive as opposed to the legislature, but my assurance is that we will not use that power unless it is needed. What I mean by that is that if additional time should be needed following the review and any legislation needed to give effect to new settings, and then to allow a reasonable period of time for people to comply with the settings, particularly if they are in any way more onerous—we don’t expect that, but we cover ourselves for every eventuality. That additional time may be needed for people to get up to those standards. For that reason, we hope that there will be clarity and certainty provided through this mechanism. I’m grateful for the support we received at the second reading for that, and, indeed, harking back to the very constructive select committee process.

For the sake of completeness, and in the hope of getting as far along in the debate as possible in an opening contribution, I do note that some other changes to the Building Act are made. I don’t intend to go through those now. Again, it will be in the hands of the committee as to whether colleagues wish to ask us any questions or make comment on those. With that, I—through you, Mr Chair—welcome the discussion and the debate tonight.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. Labour supports this bill, but we’ll work through clause by clause to ask the Minister to clarify some points which came up not only from submitters in the select committee stage but also in the contributions in the second reading, because there are remaining questions there.

What’s particularly important to, I think, both major parties is that we’re getting the balance here right between the safety of people who are in buildings which we know are earthquake-prone and the ability of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and of Government to work through the issues which need to be resolved and need to be resolved quickly underlying some of those decisions. It’s really important that MBIE is well resourced and well equipped to not only work through those issues but also to consult with people like the affected Wellington apartment owners, people in Christchurch, and many of the Auckland business owners, because that is, in fact, where most of the earthquake-prone buildings are in terms of numbers.

There’s a big piece of work to do in balancing all of those concerns of building owners as well as people who are affected by the earthquake rules more generally. Members of the public who find themselves in these buildings and might not have the right kind of information to make the kind of choices that homeowners do now.

We’ve also got almost every Labour Party constitutional law enthusiast down tonight to have it out with the Minister over his use of the “Henry VIII” clauses. This is something that I was happy to be able to join the Regulations Review Committee to work through. The Hon David Parker is here to—you know, there has been a good consideration of those issues. Ultimately, these are things that we need to work through, but also there will often be an appropriate place for executive Government to make a decision about using an element of retrospectivity and giving an amount of licence in the primary legislation to allow for things to be worked through.

The important point for me on the issues which were considered by the Regulations Review Committee is I would say that that level of flexibility worked into the primary legislation seems appropriate to me at this point. However, we need the assurance of the Minister that that’s not going to be used for, essentially, administrative purposes.

If we are serious about getting these rules right, we need to resource it. We shouldn’t be using extensions in legislation to allow for, essentially, problems of the Public Service being under-resourced and not able to complete the tasks in the time. That’s not what we think this is being used for, but it’s helpful for the Minister to put that on record.

First, let me move to clause 5, the unsexy part of the bill which gives stand-alone building consent authorities (BCAs) more direction in terms of paying their levies. I want to ask the Minister to explain the status quo to the committee and how it came to be—because the change being made here remedies quite an unusual situation which is not well understood even by the experts who submitted to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—and whether this change interacts at all with his proposals generally to change the rules for BCAs, and then whether regional and consolidated BCAs of the future will be liable to pay under this provision.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have two questions for the Minister in the chair, Chris Penk, neither about the retrospective nature nor the “Henry VIII” clauses. I think the report deals with those issues and the paper record of the interaction with the Regulations Review Committee can stand on its own stead, and I have no comment to make on that. I think it’s landed at a fair place.

My first question relates to what work the Minister now intends to carry out, enabled by this legislation, in respect of rarely used buildings. One of the issues that we have, particularly in lesser populated areas, is that there are some very significant historic buildings that are not utilised very often, are uneconomic to repair, and are risky if people were in them infrequently. When there was a bad earthquake, the risk to them obviously would be higher than if they were upgraded to a modern standard. None the less, those buildings are rarely used, and there is a case, according to some of the people who live in those areas, that they would like, with appropriate notification, to actually be able to, as a community, take the risk. Now, obviously, you wouldn’t want to be doing that for schools and hospitals, but will there be consideration given to that trade-off between frequency of use and economics of repair, or will the same standard apply to all buildings eventually, no matter what their rate of use is?

I thought that that was a piece of work that, actually, the Hon Dr Nick Smith tried to do but actually never quite got to the bottom of, and I suspect there’s some work that needs to be done, including in consultation with populations. In the end, obviously, the Government’s going to have to weigh all these issues in the balance and make a decision, but I would hope that the Minister is open to consideration of those complex issues.

The second question I had—and I’ve raised this issue previously with the Minister—I know some earthquake engineers, some very experienced earthquake engineers, including some who have been involved in writing the codes over the years. I’ve also refurbished some high-category historic places buildings myself—wasn’t a happy financial experience. I’ve had a career that’s had its ups and downs, and it’s fair to say this might’ve ended in a “down”. It was the precursor to the Civic Theatre in Auckland—the old Empire DeLuxe Theatre in Dunedin, for those that are interested. An unhappy experience for me and others, but through that experience and the interactions that I’ve had with engineers, I have come to learn that Japan, which has a very, very high earthquake risk and high earthquake standards, I’m told takes a more practical approach to the remediation of buildings which enables them to be unpicked and the design for the refurbishment and the strengthening of the building to be dynamic as the project proceeds.

Now, in New Zealand, the habit is that you can’t get the consent for the upgrading until you have proven that the upgrade will meet the new standard. You can’t get a contract that is looser than that with a construction firm because they require the building permit, and risk is reduced for the council and the contractor but the expense goes through the roof because in the absence of full knowledge of the defects in the building or the different ways it could be strengthened. If you can’t wait until you are unpicking the building before you design, you actually have to assume the worst and design for the worst, and therefore the cost can be excessive relative to a simpler regime that might be possible if people can have a system with trained professionals and appropriate checks and balances that enables the design work to be done as the project proceeds. I think that would be a very, very important thing to include in the new regime if we’re going to enable the strengthening of buildings rather than their demolition. I think often it will be the difference between historic buildings being bowled over and them being refurbished for reuse.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Since we’re moving clause by clause, starting with Subpart 1 of Part 1, I wanted to focus on clause 5 and particularly looking at replacing section 58(1) in the primary Act. One of the things that we’re looking at that’s making a change here is, rather than having the building consent authorities (BCA) paying the territorial authorities at this stage and then going on to, in this case, the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), the amendment moves around that—my understanding is that the BCA is then paying directly to MBIE. But then one of the things that I remember discussing earlier is that it brings up the question of the involvement of the local government in the context of the collection of levy payment and the distribution of levy payment.

My first question to the Minister for Building and Construction, particularly focusing on the earthquake-prone building component of this bill, is around the involvement and engagement with local government on this particular part of skipping the regional authority or the territorial authority in the collection of levy and potentially in the context of earthquake—sorry, this is actually not about the earthquake-prone; the earthquake-prone comes later. This is about the liability to pay for the levy. In the levy component, what is the advice or opinion or conversations that the Minister has had with local government and local authorities around skipping them in the levy-collection portion? More importantly, when it comes to the payment or the collection of levies, whether previously there were any portions that were allocated to local government and would the local government in this case be, I guess, in some ways, short-changed by skipping them and going directly from the BCA to a Government agency? If the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying that, that would be great.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): My question is a very small question, and I’m afraid it is not to do with the “King Henry VIII” clause either—I’m sorry to disappoint the Minister for Building and Construction on this—but it is to do with the definitions of “territorial authority”.

In amended section 7(1), inserted by clause 4, in the interpretation of “stand-alone building consent authority”, it means something “that is not (a) a territorial authority; or (b) a regional authority”, and that regional authority is defined in the principal Act as including a unitary authority, but in the Local Government Act, really, unitary authorities often operate as territorial authorities. Then, in replacement section 62, inserted by clause 7, there’s reference to—and it continues through—territorial authorities. I’m just wondering how that relates back to this separation of a territorial authority or a regional authority in amended section 7(1), inserted by clause 4(1), and if, in fact, at replacement section 62, inserted by clause 7, and other clauses, that will include unitary authorities, which I presume are often the building authority.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Looking forward to some answers about the—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): At this stage, we’ve had some good contextual questions, and now I’d quite like to see us going through a series of questions and answers. It does require the Minister and everyone to get involved, but it would be nice to give it a try.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Very good, Mr Chair. In relation to clause 6, the amendment to section 59, is it the case that this change means that a liability arises before the full amount of the liability is known?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you for the opportunity to respond to a number of contributions that have been made in different areas. I’m grateful for the breadth of the discussion already, at this early stage—or perhaps this late stage, depending on how far we go, he said hopefully. Can I start by—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Don’t book your taxi.

Hon CHRIS PENK: I might have already.

Hon David Parker: You sound like Prince Charles talking about himself in the third person.

Hon CHRIS PENK: The Minister couldn’t possibly comment. The points made by Arena Williams make a very valid point around the need for balance in general. Of course, the proportional approach in a scenario would be looking to balance risk, life safety, and also the resilience of buildings on the one hand but also the cost, and therefore the ability for people to make the changes, is a major theme in all this work.

In terms of the balance that she identifies about the need to operate at speed but also to get the detail right, I think that’s a very fair point to note, including in relation to the extensions. In terms of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) having the resources to conduct the required work in the relevant time period, I’m very confident. I can say I’ve been highly impressed and grateful to the good people of MBIE for working with me very closely on this matter from the very start, including in relation to the establishment of the expert review panel. They comprise some of the membership of that, but there’s also a broad range of individuals who are very expert from a number of different perspectives, including local government and led by an excellent chair in Dr Erica Seville. She has a PhD in risk management, so a very relevant background to these questions—and a background in engineering too, I might add—that we are grappling with.

In terms of the review, I do note that the legislation is in relation to an extension rather than the review, but to the extent that people have made valid points about the subject as a whole, I do want to address those, with your indulgence, because they’ve been posed in good faith and represent a very articulate expression of some of the key things that we do need to deal with. Of course, the only reason that we are seeking—well, one of the reasons that we’re seeking an extension, is to enable that review to take place and these questions to be addressed. To Arena Williams, I say that I’m very confident that MBIE itself, and the panel that will be working closely with MBIE, is well resourced to carry out this work.

In terms of clause 5, which is a non - earthquake-related point that she makes, and others have made too—I’ll try and tie the points together, regardless of them having come from different parts of the Chamber—I note that it will be more efficient for a stand-alone building authority to make the payments directly to MBIE. I’ve not heard from local government any sense in which they would somehow be shortchanged by not being the conduit of that payment. It’s actually quite an unusual scenario; it’s actually unique at the moment to Kāinga Ora (KO), that’s the only stand-alone building authority—well, the only stand-alone building authority full-stop—that is to say, it’s the only building authority that currently exists that is not either a territorial authority or a regional authority. That is a fine distinction that the Hon Rachel Brooking rightly makes, but I think it’s worth noting that there is such a thing as a territorial authority with responsibilities under the Building Act that are separate from the building consent authority, or BCA, functions that are exercised at the moment only by territorial authorities—roughly, in another language, district, and city council.

I think at the moment the key distinction there is that there’s a building consent authority—that is, Kāinga Ora—that is not currently accounted for, and because the legislation doesn’t currently contemplate its existence, what we’ve got now is a situation where KO needs to pay to the relevant local authority a levy which then in turn needs to be passed on to MBIE. It’ll be more efficient to act in that more direct way. I should note that, even in terms of the law as it currently exists, there is potential for stand-alone building authorities that are not Kāinga Ora, and there’s at least one organisation that is seeking accreditation. That’s not a decision for me. The question is, at the moment, whether such an outfit would have adequate “means” to fulfil that task, but separate to that, and going to another question posed by Arena Williams, the legislation here doesn’t actually contemplate reforms that we have since announced, whereby we’re interested in the possibility that BCAs might be something other than the current, essentially, council-based, set up along the lines that there may be a regional approach on a voluntary or involuntary basis.

In my remaining time, but also highlighting that I’d be keen to continue just to address all those questions that have been asked. In terms of underutilised buildings, I think the point is very well made, and the Hon David Parker, in addition to the hat that he’s worn in relation to that very worthy work of the Regulations Review Committee, makes an excellent point which demonstrates the difficulties that are faced at the moment in terms of how risk is recognised, how it’s weighted, how it’s understood and also accepted. I’m pleased to say that the terms of the inquiry explicitly includes an item to be addressed whereby disclosure might, at least to some extent, be regarded as meaningful in terms of accepting risk of those who use buildings. That is to say, if informed consent to a degree of risk might be accepted by users—perhaps by owners, by occupants—then that is something that we are keen to explore in a very holistic review of the settings.

Hon David Parker: Otherwise, no one would ever go into the Leaning Tower of Pisa. 

Hon CHRIS PENK: Yeah—well, quite. The point about the Leaning Tower of Pisa is—for those who missed it—I think, an apt one, but I also would add that we do need to be mindful of the risk also associated with those who are perhaps passersby, those who are involuntarily or unwittingly required to be in the building. I say “unwittingly” in the sense they might know the building but might not be in a position to assess the risk by carefully reading a notice, whether that’s for reasons of a language barrier or in terms of their understanding of what the risk is that they’re actually acknowledging and accepting. Even that’s not a straightforward question itself, but at least it is a possibility. As I say, the terms of reference for the review have contemplated that.

To the question of frequency of use: again, that goes to a broader question of a proportional approach; a benefit-cost analysis, again, specifically contemplated and, I think, actually required by the terms of reference. Of course, it’s difficult to calculate benefit versus cost when we’re talking about a huge amount of cost to mitigate risk in a very unlikely event in any given year, but which would have huge consequences were it to take place. These aren’t straightforward matters, even mathematically, to work out—let alone philosophically—but that’s the task with which we’ve engaged.

Interesting about the Japanese scenario. We’ve, again, explicitly contemplated, in the terms of reference, that overseas jurisdictions’ handling of the same questions, essentially, along different fault lines geographically but with the equivalent issues being faced elsewhere. It was actually just this very day that I was talking with the Japanese ambassador about exactly that, and the disconnect about the point around needing to have plans consented in a way that doesn’t necessarily enable that work to be understood and accepted and contracted for, let alone carried out, I think, is a well-made point.

In terms of Lawrence Xu-Nan, I thank him for that point around the levy payments and I hope that I’ve addressed that satisfactorily.

Finally, in relation to “Henry VIII”, because we do really have some sort of regulations review reunion band gathered on my left, I think the point that Arena Williams made there is well made—just to assure her that there is no sense in which the Government would be minded to give or create that additional two-year extension merely for the sake of administrative efficiency. If we can substantively do the review and have settings that are known and able to be acted upon within that four-year period, then certainly we’ll do so.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m bringing the Minister in the chair’s attention to clause 6, the amendment to section 59 in the original Act, which is liability for territorial authorities and when that liability arises. My question is: is the effect of his amendment that the liability will arise for a territorial authority before the amount of the liability is known by the territorial authority?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is going to be just a reasonably short call, just while the Minister in the chair is contemplating the previous speaker Arena Williams’ question. Thank you, Minister, for responding to my earlier question. I just want to kind of get some further clarification in terms of my question. This is an area that I’m not 100 percent familiar with, and so I need some clarification from the Minister.

When we’re looking at clause 7, and specifically more looking at amendments to section 60, the current version in the principal Act is around the fact that the territorial authority may retain 3 percent of the levies. Instead, in the new version, it says, “A building consent authority may retain 3% of the levies”. I think, just going a bit further, not knowing clearly where the delegation between the building consent authority (BCA) and the territorial authority would be in this case—with a retainment of 3 percent levy that, I guess, in the new version the territorial authority would no longer retain because it’s going to the BCA themselves, and they have the ability to retain it. Is that simply to cover administrative cost? Or is that something that is going to potentially throw off the balance in terms of accounting?

Also, I’m saying this not knowing what the actual amount is in general for the levy—whether 3 percent is like a couple of hundred dollars or 3 percent is like $3 million. It’d be quite good to get clarification on the fact that, yes, from the replaced section 60 and the original section 60, the 3 percent levy is retained by different authorities and how would that work?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you to the member for that question. Answering that latter question first: it seems to me that the 3 percent retention by a territorial authority is in recognition that the territorial authority acting in that way has certain obligations under the Building Act. An example would be in relation to issuing notices to buildings that are dangerous in a way other than covered by the earthquake-prone building regime, and also in relation to administering building warrants of fitness. Fire safety is touched upon elsewhere in this legislation.

I give that merely as an example of the kind of function that what is, to all intents and purposes, the council, but also at the same time a territorial authority with those functions, and also at the same time invariably also a building consent authority. Where the building consent authority that’s overseen the work in the area is not the council, then the council would otherwise miss the opportunity to retain at least some—and in this case, as we say, we’ve settled on 3 percent—of the amount of the levy that’s been paid. I hope that makes the subject clearer—not the other way. No doubt the member will let me know if he’s now as confused as I am.

In terms of the question by Arena Williams, I don’t think it’s the case that clause 6 would mean that a levy would need to be paid and that the territorial authority would be liable for doing so, not having that information. I think it’s more that it would be redundant within legislation for it to be liable and to need to know the amount of the levy to the extent that it’s not been paid to, essentially, that council. It is really a consequential amendment to that broader point about where the money flow needs to take place.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Accepting the Minister’s answers, then, to the questions about timing and the information required of territorial authorities, can I just ask him one broader question about the impact of this, which is: is the real-life problem which is being solved here that the old legislation’s terms were inappropriate, or was there a real market practice problem that was happening where the time frames didn’t match up between the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s collection and the territorial authorities’ collection of those levies?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): I thank the member Arena Williams for the question. I think it’s more a matter of the terminology needing to contemplate the existence of Kāinga Ora, although, actually, I do return to the point that she made earlier that there may be building consent authorities in the future that are not either councils or Kāinga Ora. In that case, we’ve gone with language that’s suitably broad as a stand-alone building consent authority might mean a number of different things to futureproof this section in the event that those other reforms do take place in the future.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll now turn to the amendments that the Minister in the chair is proposing at clause 11 and 12. These have an impact on the requirements for a building warrant of fitness, and also the duties of independently qualified persons. I’m going to open this up for the Minister, because it was something that actually the committee received some very helpful submissions on from the industry and they were generally calls for further work. That this was an accepted set of changes that were being made for the industry, but they had an impact on the liability of independently qualified persons.

That seems like a good idea to have reasonably stringent punishments proposed by this legislation, and by the Minister here, but the industry put it to us that, alongside these punishments, extra policy work was required to ensure that people carrying out this work were then helped to meet the new requirements and were not running afoul consistently of the new punishments. There’s a question about whether people in the sector are reasonably qualified, and that their qualifications are protected, and that the work they do is protected work.

There were also, then, a separate set of questions around the kind of information that independently qualified people could expect to get from councils in order to do their work properly. Just for the context of the committee, I’m talking about here, if you’re an independently qualified person and you are being asked to make independent assessments about something like, say, the fire safety of a building, you’re also really reliant on the plans that you receive from the council to tell you where fire protections are meant to be, and whether the kinds of walls that you were looking at are in fact the kinds of walls that were put on the plan and have the kinds of fire protections that you would expect to find there.

The sector raised with us, “This is all well and good, but what other work is going on in the background?” It would be helpful if the Minister could talk through the impact of new section 108A, inserted by clause 12, and the new offences that he proposes, given that there’s a real willingness and a real goodwill there to meet these new requirements that he’s introducing. What else is going on to make sure that people can meet them, and that the Government is being reasonable about helping people along to meet these obligations?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the member for her question. It’s a very good point. It’s one, essentially, that’s been made to me probably by the same people as she’s heard from in that sector. It does go to education as being needed alongside enforcement, and they’re right, and she’s right. Education is needed both in the sense of territorial authorities working constructively with people who are making certifications, but also education in the skills, in qualification, and recognition of that.

That is work that is ongoing, I’m pleased to say, and it connects with the fire safety review that probably would have and should have taken place anyway at around this time, with periodic review of such important rules being important, but particularly motivated by the tragedy that was the Loafers Lodge fire and the loss of life in that, and I acknowledge that work started under the previous Government. I’m pleased to be able to continue that and it’s important work for obvious reasons. It is that this mechanism here which actually spells out in black and white for the first time that an independently qualified person has responsibilities and, therefore, liability in the event that they don’t meet those. That work is necessary but not sufficient.

I do also want to point out that in terms of the offence that’s created about supplying a false statement, there are also a couple of defences that are set out. For example, a reasonable mistake having been made or a reasonable reliance on information supplied to the defendant by another person, and also that the defendant took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence. I imagine the most likely scenario in which that would arise is exactly what the member has said around reliance on a set of plans provided by the council, which may not be accurate, but, nevertheless, on which she or he is entitled to rely on making those certifications.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have two more questions relating to the period of the extension. One of the lessons from the terrible earthquakes in Canterbury arose from collapsing parapets and other façade features of, primarily, old brick buildings falling on to the street, the most public of which was probably the collapse of a building on to a bus in Canterbury, which killed a number of people and injured others, including Ann Brower, I think her name was. She became quite active to encourage the Government to introduce rules requiring faster remediation of some of those external features than might have applied to the whole of the building. I would like the Minister to explain whether, during this period of extension, some of those easier-to-remedy problems—whether there’s still a duty on the owners of those buildings to do what they reasonably can to advance those issues in the meantime, or are all of those things being delayed? I would hope that there is still some pressure on the owners of those buildings to do what they can.

My second question relating to that relates to the possibility of extension. I’m from Dunedin, originally. It’s been interesting, in Dunedin, that a lot of the commercial buildings that were said to be uneconomic to repair in the end were economic to repair for the subsequent purchaser, who purchased in the knowledge of the defect but at a price which took account of the defect. One of the risks that there is in enabling an extension to the extension is that people take advantage of the extension to the extension because they don’t want to realise their loss. Their loss is occasioned by a defect that is already present in the building but will not be crystallised until they’re either forced to do the work or sell to someone who’s able to or willing to do the work.

I’m interested in the Minister’s views as to what incentive he is creating here to just cause delay, rather than as occurred in the old buildings around Vogel Street, Water Street—those areas in Dunedin which have, largely, now been remediated. The values of those buildings dropped close to land value before the buildings themselves were then economic to repair. It’s actually been a very good outcome for Dunedin, long term, because the economics in the end proved that those buildings—once the value dropped to close to land value, because, you know, knocking the building down and building a new one was more expensive than remediating them, once the value dropped to an appropriate amount. The Minister has to be careful that we’re not creating an incentive here to delay that sort of outcome, which has been a good one in Dunedin.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Mr Chair. The point that the Hon David Parker makes about creating an incentive to delay action, to avoid crystallising losses, I think perhaps doesn’t take into account fully the point that a purchaser would be on notice that those losses would be crystallised at a future point in time. If there’s an additional four years, or six years, for that matter, for that to be the case, that doesn’t alter—

Hon David Parker: No, it’s the existing owner I’m talking about. The existing owner just delays.

Hon CHRIS PENK: —the real-world reality that either the existing owner would crystallise that loss or a purchaser on notice would know that that loss would be crystallised. You would have to think that they would take into account, in a purchase price that they would offer, the fact that—albeit that as at, let’s say, 2025 the requirement isn’t such that they are now falling foul of the law, but nevertheless, in 2029 or 2031, they might be. I think that whether the current or a future owner is disincentivised is really beside the point in terms of the fact that at some point the loss will be crystallised to the extent that it exists. Of course, the purpose of the review is to try and minimise cost as much as possible, while, of course, at the same time, understanding and recognising and protecting against those life safety risks.

In terms of the onus that exists on building owners in the meantime, it’s a very good point that the member makes. I think—to highlight that there are things that are in the category of relatively easy wins—the reality is that after a decade, most of the easy wins probably have been achieved. To the extent, however, that there are other things that are within the budget and physically able to be done to repair or remediate or perhaps even just secure loose masonry, for example, there’s nothing to stop a person doing that. There are aspects of the legal framework elsewhere that do incentivise that, in addition to what one might regard as a moral obligation—and I’m sure that those in Dunedin are moral people and would want to do that for the benefit of their fellow citizens. I refer to insurances, for example, as an incentive to have an earthquake-prone building of a reasonable percentage new building standard, because, for tenants, they might have that requirement that they would not enter into a tenancy unless there was a certain percentage. There are other legal obligations—and, I mean, nuisance, I suppose, would be one that one wouldn’t have to imagine too wildly might come about, if there was a known risk that could be mitigated but nevertheless was to cause injury or loss emanating from that property itself.

The broader point is that I certainly would not wish anyone who is able to remediate their building or to strengthen their building or to secure their building and thereby avoid damage and injury—we wouldn’t want to discourage them to do that. We’re merely taking away the legal compliance enforcement requirement that currently exists, at least for four years and possibly six.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a few questions for the Minister in the chair, and this is a really important area. We’ve heard a bit about the bigger cities, but I just want to reflect on the streetscapes in some of our provincial towns. It’s a bit like the streetscape will have gaps of boarded-up buildings, demolished buildings, or just rundown buildings that look like the gaps in people’s teeth, frankly.

There is not much money in provincial local government. I mean, we hear about the woes of the cities in the funding, but at least Wellington City was able to put a significant amount in for the heritage funds—we would have lost a lot more of the character without that. Thinking of Masterton Town Hall is probably going to have to be demolished. Pahiatua, there are so many buildings; Dannevirke, all of these areas that my colleague across the Chamber is no doubt also concerned with.

What I want to know is: is this a temporary band-aid by extending the deadlines? If you’re talking two to four years, within that time, is there going to be more funding from central government or from some other tool that local government can use? Or is there going to be a sudden advance in science?

You quite rightly say that there is more to be found out about, for example, why do some old, old buildings survive and then something like the BNZ building on the waterfront has to be demolished? Is it just because of the ground waves in the earth or not? I mean, can we find out more about that? Possibly not in the next two to four years, but maybe there’s some funding for science there.

Base isolators were a huge technical breakthrough. I don’t think we’ve seen another breakthrough like that, and perhaps the Minister would like to address how we can actually fund science and technology better to produce answers to those questions. I do think there’s a little bit more about how we—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Ms Wade-Brown, we’re on Part 1 of the bill. You just need to be a little bit more specific. You’ve been pretty broad to date. We’re looking for a question in relation to Part 1.

CELIA WADE-BROWN: Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister’s nodding very wisely so maybe he’d like to respond.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): In the hope that the Minister can speak is not—“as wisely as he was nodding”—referring to himself in the third person, and in so doing referring to himself again—myself.

The member, who I acknowledge is a former Mayor of Wellington City, not only a large city, of course, but one particularly with history in this area. I just do want to acknowledge the work of many in local government, including in this fair city and this connection, but, of course, the point about other areas of New Zealand, including regional towns, is well made. I certainly have engaged with mayors and other councillors in various parts of regional New Zealand, and it’s a major problem, as the member knows. We face the situation of demolition by neglect or, less charitably, demolition by legislation as opposed to the buildings being levelled by a seismic event, in some cases to the extent that people are caught unable to demolish or to rebuild.

It’s a very serious point and, of course, it’s overlaid with the heritage question, particularly when you then balance up the economic considerations—and obviously the cost of remediating is a major one, and we’ve talked a lot about that tonight—but the economic potential of heritage to some of those smaller towns whose tourism offering actually relies in large part on it means that these aren’t straightforward questions for the review to contemplate. They’re determined to do that as best they can—I hasten to add—and we’re giving them, and us, four years in which to do that, possibly six.

As to more funding being made available, of course, if local government is willing and able to make more funding available, then we would wish them all the best with that and, indeed, congratulate them on being able to do so, but from a central government point of view, the decision that we’ve made is that the best use of our resource would be to conduct a review that we hope will mean that repairs and remediation, even demolition, will be more cost-effective under new settings than it currently is. That’s been our emphasis rather than paying funds to people to remediate to a standard that may no longer exist in four or six years.

In terms of the science changing, on the positive side there are additional techniques—and I think there have been some other innovations. I’m no engineer and not qualified, therefore, to speak to what those are exactly, but suffice to say, there are a lot of smart people dedicated to improvements in techniques even beyond the base isolator breakthrough. On the other hand, science is also changing in the sense that we understand more about seismic risk. The bad news there is we understand that there is more risk rather than less every time that we learn a bit more—so definitely a double-edged sword in that sense. It does go to that bigger question, which is a public policy issue in general, which is that the irony of what we’re engaged in now—and I’m being more open than I should, but we’re trying to provide certainty in having a review. Of course, in the meantime, we’ve got the uncertainty, and we want people to be able to get on with their lives and make the changes they need and improve the buildings for the maximum degree of safety.

In the meantime, we’re providing a pause so that they don’t have to do things that they otherwise would have. It is a tension. We’re grappling with it as best we can. We think, in terms of the time frame, that we are achieving that balance as best we’re able, but, you know, reasonable minds can disagree about where to draw the line.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just for those without the benefit of video, there is only one Minister in the chair.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Mr Chair, thank you for the opportunity to ask the first question that I have had the chance to ask about clause 17. It creates new sections 133AMA and 133AMC.

I’ve explained to the committee what this section is, because we are moving very, very swiftly through this bill, but this section is the big section in it. This section is the one that affects a small number of people extremely deeply—those are the apartment owners in Wellington, those are the homeowners, those are the building owners in Auckland and Christchurch whose life savings are caught up in these buildings and have a huge interest in what is happening tonight in the Chamber, and it would be unfair to them who are following along very closely to rush this part. It also affects all New Zealanders at some level, because the decision being made here is to extend the deadline to delay some of those remediations that Mr Parker has spoken about and is to create a period of time where there is extra uncertainty. It wouldn’t be fair for us not to address this part and not to give it a good, thorough going-over, which is the intention here, even though we are moving very quickly on this side of the Chamber.

The first question I have about 133AMA is the concern at the select committee. This was a unanimously shared concern but for different reasons. I want to put it to the Minister for Building and Construction that it was capacity in the infrastructure sector to implement the bill even in these time lines—in the four-year period—whether the infrastructure sector, whether the builders can, in fact, do this. Many members around the table had questions about the capacity of the building sector, particularly in Wellington, to make the remediations that are required along the way, and if all of them are extended in the same way, whether they would all fall at the same time, and whether that is the right balancing exercise. Members on the Labour side of the table also had concerns about the way that the building sector is being impacted right now by not only economic decisions but the pause in the pipeline of Government work which keeps many of the builders within the building sector active. There are 12,000 fewer building jobs today than there were on the day of the election.

Are we ready as New Zealand? Do we have a building sector that is sufficiently tooled up to be able to make the remediations that are being required by this bill in the kind of time frame in the section of the building cycle that we will be in then? That’s my question to the Minister.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we’ve got a chicken-and-egg problem, to some extent, in this country. Yes, it’s been a low couple of years for the building sector and they do want more work as quickly as possible, but until such time as we enable them to get on and do that work—and in the case of the earthquake-prone building work—then they don’t have an incentive to remain here in those occupations.

In terms of the capacity, I’m confident that the capacity will meet the demand to the extent that it’s able, but the key point there, really, is to understand that the deadline extension of four years will mean that we still have a staggered approach, because the staggered approach that was set up by the regulations that followed the legislation a decade ago was such that areas that were deemed more critical by reason of them being in a more seismically risky part of the country would need to be done first. There was a strong element of risk mitigation and proportionality in that decision, and we’re not going away from that. Everything’s shifting right but by the same amount. I’m hopeful that that work can be done.

I suppose the only way to avoid questions of capacity would be to allow an infinite period of time or at least a much longer period of time, but, of course, we’ve discussed between us tonight—haven’t we?—the fact that that in itself represents a danger not only in terms of increasing the chances that a seismic event will take place in the meantime but also that trade-off again between certainty versus the desire for change that will enable people to do the works.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Bringing the Minister for Building and Construction’s attention to new section 133AMC, inserted by clause 17, the power of the Order in Council here—I think there is a level of comfort now that the Minister has assured the committee that the circumstances for using the Order in Council power will not be administrative ones. The Regulations Review Committee heard from officials that, for example, if there was a major event like COVID that significantly delayed the Public Service’s ability to finish work like this, then that would be a reason things might be extended. Is that the kind of circumstance he’s thinking of; serious major events, big things that throw off the ability of everyone to get this work done?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Building and Construction for answering some of the previous questions around the levy. I know that there’s been ongoing conversations around the earthquake-prone buildings, but there’s one other section of this particular bill that I would like clarified by the Minister, and this is new section 108A, inserted by clause 12. This is something that is quite separate from the other sections, because it’s around the “Duties of independently qualified person” in the context of, for example, building warrants of fitness.

It is my understanding that a new offence has been created for the “Duties of the independently qualified person” because we do see bad-faith actors who may not be reporting accurately in terms of some of the inspections and maintenance. However, what’s really drawing my attention to this in particular is that in the new subsection 108A(3), it is up to the defendant—in this case, the independently qualified person—to prove that the failure was due to one of the criteria—i.e., “a reasonable mistake;” or “reasonable reliance on information”. I think that, in terms of the “reasonable reliance on information supplied”, it can be maybe easily proven, but I’m just curious, or maybe want some clarification from the Minister, in terms of the burden of proof in this case—the fact that the burden of proof is on the defendant themselves, and particularly when it’s around a reasonable mistake.

How would the Minister consider that a person is to appropriately prove that it was a reasonable mistake in that case? This is quite a severe offence if we are going by new subsection 108A(4), inserted by clause 12, in terms of the amount for an individual: “a fine not exceeding $50,000:”. It is quite a substantial fine, so I want to know if there’s a much higher threshold, or a lower threshold in this case, for the defendant to prove that it was a reasonable mistake. Yes, if the Minister would clarify that particular point. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. Taking that second point first: in terms of the burden of proof, the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan is quite right to identify that the onus sits on the defendant, which I think is due to a couple of factors. One, the defendant himself or herself would be best placed to state exactly why it is that they had relied on a particular assumption, presumably a set of plans that they’d been operating of, or in reliance on maybe even a verbal statement made to them by perhaps a council officer or the building owner or a building tenant. The fact that that person would be best placed, as well as having the motivation, to make out that defence would be a relevant point there. Also, more broadly, with significant public interest—which I suppose is another way of saying the seriousness of the consequence of failure—we think it’s appropriate that when events could be made out, on the face of it, there’s got to be some sort of reasonably high threshold and onus and burden on a person to say why it was that they didn’t meet that standard.

As to the question that was asked prior by Arena Williams, and I remember she made this point actually in her second reading remarks, I suppose it might be the case that a major event unrelated to the circumstances, such as a global pandemic—God forbid—in the next four to six years, might be the reason that there is a cause of delay such that an additional two years is needed. That’s not something I was particularly contemplating. Again, I’m actively hoping that that’s not the case, but, nevertheless, that might be the cause of a reason. I think it’s more likely that if a review were to take—for example, two years, followed by a year of legislation, to really thrash out the issues and ensure good public buy-in—immediately we’re at the three-year mark, and then there’s one year for people to implement the changes necessary to their buildings to meet that. That would be within the four years, but any slippage on that whatsoever would be in the realm of six years. I think that’s the more likely scenario in which extra time would be needed.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some questions relating to stand-alone building consent authorities, and, in the style of the evening, perhaps the Hon Chris Penk could consult the Minister for Building and Construction and, having done so, respond to his alter-ego before providing information to the committee.

The serious point I want to make, or question I want to ask, is: the amendments that have been recommended at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee relating to stand-alone building consent authorities include the definition of the “standalone consent authority”, which is, essentially, a consent authority that isn’t a territorial regional authority, and then says that there’s a duty on the stand-alone building consent authority to pay levies. I want to understand what the purpose of those levies is, having regard to the experience that New Zealand suffered—and I use the word advisedly—when private building consent authorities were introduced, I think it was by the Hon Maurice Williamson, some time ago under building legislation not specific to earthquake-prone buildings, the outcome of which was that a number of rather imperfect inspections were done and councils or building owners ended up wearing the losses that resulted from those poor inspections.

In the end, the response of this Parliament was to do away with those private consent authorities because it hasn’t worked to appropriately protect either the councils or the citizens who were reliant on decent inspections of buildings as they were built before they purchased them. I mean, I might be mistaken here, but is the purpose of the levy to provide some sort of fund in order to have some fund to guard against those eventualities, or is it completely different? If it’s completely different, what mechanism is there in the legislation here to ensure that the prior experience in respect of private building consent authorities under the more general building legislation is not repeated here if we have private sector participants who could be an under-capitalised company without the deep pockets of a council in the event of something going wrong?

Now, that’s not to say that I think the existing allocation of risk in the building sector is right. I for one do not think that councils should be insurers of last resort. I would prefer consideration of a compulsory insurance mechanism which required the owner of the works or the head contractor—I don’t care which, really—to have major defects insurance. The insurance companies would appropriately price risk, and if it was a low-risk building project, the premium would be low, passed on to the consumer. If it was a high-risk new technology, that might be a higher premium that would be passed on to the consumer, too. I am concerned that, short of that work being done, the introduction of private, stand-alone building consent authorities could end in tears, as the prior experiment did.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. The Hon David Parker makes a number of very important and interesting points that don’t particularly relate to the bill. We’re not doing anything that would make a difference in relation to what he’s described. The change of language in relation to stand-alone building authorities as at now merely describes the existence of Kāinga Ora. These other questions are ones that the Government’s contemplating, in conjunction with other political parties, I’m pleased to say, because the member’s right: we don’t want to move in the wrong direction in terms of liability, not only in relation to local government burden but also that of the individual consumer, homeowner, etc. We’re determined to get that right. It’s an important conversation, but, as I say, not one for this bill.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to really home in now. We’ve had an hour on this section. I want to hear clauses and new questions, because I’ve been listening in. I’m going to take a call from Arena Williams, but I do note that the members who are on their feet currently have had a number of calls, so I’d like things to stay very brief and to the point.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Chair, absolutely accepting your guidance. Two quick questions, then. On clause 22, dam compliance certificates—my question there to the Minister is really simple. Is the intention here that the person referred to in this clause is a professional person? The fines are kind of set at a level that you would expect for, say, lawyers—and conveyancers are at about the same level. Licensed building practitioners are set at about the same level. Are these fines set in line with the expectations that Government has for professionals?

Clause 23—Madam Chair, in line with your instructions about brevity—were any authorities inspecting spa pools, and is that the reason for this change?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan—and the same: very brief, to the point, thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Two questions from me as well, one just kind of going a little bit deeper into what the Minister mentioned before regarding clause 12, inserting the new section 108A.

The Minister mentioned something—that it could be a reasonable mistake, or reasonable reliance could be an oral conversation or even a written conversation from the building owner, for example—but I just want to check what happens in the case where the building owner themselves does not realise what information should be provided. Would that be something that the qualified person would ask very specifically? For example, “Hey, how many times has your ventilation system within this building broken down over the last 12 months?” I just wanted to check with the Minister: would there then be some sort of training with an independent qualified person to actually start asking those questions and those particular prompts, so that way they do get the right information? That’s my first question.

The second question is relating to Schedule 1AA amended, which is part of clause 29, which is still part of Part 1 of the bill. This is particularly to do with new Part 5, clause 17, around offences. Now, the Minister previously talked in terms of some of the retrospectivity of this particular bill, but I want to get clarification from the Minister for subclauses (1) and (2). It talks about offences specifically, and it gives the date of 1 April 2024, which is retrospective. I want to check with the Minister: is that 1 April 2024 a date determined arbitrarily, or is there a specific reason for that date? I think anyone who falls on either side of those days will either be really annoyed or breathe a sigh of relief. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t want to interrupt any contributions that may be made on my right-hand side. In terms of the points made by Arena Williams: no, it’s not just professionals who would be caught by the phrase “any person”, and the relevant section spells out that it could be a natural person or a legal person that is not, namely, a body corporate. I don’t think that it’s intended that it would only be a professional who’d be subject to the fines for failure to display a sign on a certified dam.

As for whether the small pools are necessarily spas, I don’t know—if I would just put that, I might get in hot water, so I’m just going to leave that.

In terms of the point made by Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan regarding offences, I think to describe 1 April 2024 as an arbitrary date might be a bit harsh, but, nevertheless, it’s a pretty convenient date. So often 1 April is decided upon for these matters. I don’t think it’s any more arbitrary than any other line in the sand that’s drawn on a particular date, but the fact that it’s April Fool’s Day, I suppose, might lead the member to draw whatever conclusions he may wish.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to other legislation

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 31 and 32, “Amendments to other legislation”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for the Minister on Schedule 32. Now, when we were looking at the amendment to the legislation, amendments to Building (Infringement Offences, Fees, and Forms) Regulations 2007, I’m noticing that for Schedule 1, in relation to subclause (1) and subclause (2), the fine amount has been increased from $250 to $1,000, presumably to be in line with what is already existing in sections 108(5)(b) and 108(5)(c) in that respective legislation. However, I have a question regarding the overall nature of that adjustment. If the Minister is adjusting those two elements anyway—adjustments to section 108(5)(aa) and 108(5)(a)—what was the rationale for not increasing all of them?

For example, in terms of what is in that schedule for 108(5)(b) around displaying a false or misleading building warrant of fitness, the fine is still at $1,000. However, if we’re looking at some of the other offences and amounts within this legislation—let’s say if we’re drawing, not to discuss it, a comparison to clause 22 in Part 1, where if a person commits an offence or did not display or misrepresents a particular display in the context of a dam, if it’s an individual, the fine is $20,000, and if it’s a body corporate, $60,000 or $50,000 and $150,000. I wanted to check with the Minister: what was the rationale for only uplifting two of them but not other areas? It is quite a substantial difference. For both of them, presumably, it’s about displaying a misleading building warrant of fitness or authorisation of some sort, but the offence amount is quite substantially different.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you. I thank the member for his question. The short answer is because I prefer consistency to relativity in terms of maintaining those different amounts that are currently fixed in the legislation. More generally, I suppose, at the risk of sounding glib, it seems to me that these dollar amounts reflect the seriousness of the offences, and we think that they are set at an appropriate level.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to our final debate: clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that clause 2 stand part.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2)

Second Reading

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2).

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

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I move, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

I would like to take this time to thank all those involved in getting this bill to its second reading, from the members of the Health Committee to the 850 members of the public who made submissions—including the 47 oral submissions we received.

This Government is committed to reducing smoking rates and to reducing youth vaping. The vaping reforms proposed in this bill sit within the Government’s commitment to achieve the Smokefree 2025 goals. Many people have switched from smoking to vaping. That has been a contributing factor to the recent rapid reductions in New Zealand’s smoking rates. We are committed to sustaining that momentum, and vapes must continue to be available as a cessation tool for adult smokers.

However, the number of young people vaping remains a significant concern. Vapes should not be targeted towards children and young people, and they should not be sold to them. That is what this bill aims to stop. It changes the current regulatory vape settings to better protect the young people of New Zealand.

The bill focuses on four areas to tackle youth vaping. Firstly, banning disposable vaping products. We know that disposable vapes are disproportionately used by children and young people. Banning disposable vapes will ensure that these products are removed from New Zealand’s retail market.

Secondly, it increases penalties for under-age sales. The current penalties in place for breaching the prohibition on selling to minors do not adequately deter non-compliance or outweigh the potential gains for non-compliance. Significantly increasing the penalties for illegal sales to young people of regulated products—that means all regulated products, from cigarettes through to vapes—reflects the seriousness of breaching a retailer’s obligation and will help to prevent these sales.

Thirdly, the bill introduces visibility restrictions. I believe the visibility of vaping products has contributed to youth uptake by increasing the attraction and normalisation of vaping. We want vaping to be seen as a smoking cessation tool, and the bill ensures that vapes are kept out of sight and that there are restrictions on where young people might otherwise see them.

Finally, it increases proximity restrictions. The bill further restricts the proximity of new specialist vape retailers to places children and young people frequent. For those applying to set up specialist vape retail stores, in addition to needing to meet the 300-metre proximity restrictions from marae and schools, new applications will also need the store to be at least 100 metres from early childhood centres.

I wish to acknowledge the recommendations of the Health Committee in its final report, and note that these did not significantly change the bill. The main change the committee recommended was to modify the definition of a “disposable vaping product”, provided in clause 4 of the bill, so that the ban does not extend to pre-filled containers and pod system - vaping devices. The committee received extensive and compelling submissions on this issue, and I am pleased this change has been made so that vaping remains a viable option for people looking to quit smoking and for those who have quit smoking, while ensuring our young people do not take it up.

Other changes include removing the ability for specialist vape retailers to provide free, gifted, and discounted vaping products; making it clear that New Zealand - based websites must not link to other websites that do not comply with our laws, such as an overseas website showing images of vaping products; and, finally, ensuring the child safety mechanisms on vape products are not able to be deactivated. These changes strengthen the bill by providing greater clarity and certainty to the law, thereby enhancing compliance and enforcement and better enabling the bill’s intent to be met.

The Government is committed to cracking down on youth vaping and achieving New Zealand’s Smokefree 2025 goal. This bill represents the first tranche of Government changes to ensure we have the right legislative settings and policy levers in place to protect our young people from vaping, whilst ensuring progress towards reducing smoking in New Zealand. Part of that work is bolstering the monitoring, compliance, and enforcement regime. To date, enforcement has not been done well.

In the second tranche, I am considering ways to strengthen the regulatory framework overall. This work will address smoked tobacco, vaping, and other nicotine products.

We have made excellent progress towards achieving our smoke-free goals, but we need to recognise the targeted intervention still required to get to the headline goal as well as what will need to be done in the future to help certain groups when smoking rates are below 5 percent. This will require us to have protections in place so we do not have new smokers or those who have quit start smoking again. Alongside this further policy and legislative work, smoking cessation services will remain a crucial part of our efforts to achieve Smokefree 2025.

This Government has made a commitment to reducing smoking rates and to tackling youth vaping. This bill plays a pivotal and necessary part in protecting our children and young people from vaping, and I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Fast-track Approvals Bill

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the next speaker, I just have a correction of vote here. Earlier this evening when the House was considering the Fast-track Approvals Bill, the results of two votes were incorrectly recorded. The vote that the amendments recommended by the Environment Committee, by majority, be agreed to was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 68, Noes 49. The correct result is Ayes 68, Noes 48. The vote that the bill be read a second time was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 68, Noes 55, and the correct result is Ayes 68, Noes 54.

Bills

Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2)

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my honour to rise to speak on this amendment to the Smoke Free Environments and Regulated Products Act that takes action on youth vaping. Labour supports this bill and we support the four areas where major amendments are made in this bill. That includes changes to the manufacture, sale, supply, and distribution of disposable vapes. Those will be banned under this bill, and that’s appropriate given the high number of youths who use disposable vape products. They are the most commonly used products by young people, and having young people start vaping is a harm we want to avoid.

In addition, Parliament is playing its part in this bill in sending a clear signal that vaping laws need to be adhered to. We all know where young people get their vapes from. They, one way or another, get it from a shop or an online store, and we are all aware from various sting operations, whether that’s done by Health New Zealand, Te Whatu Ora, or by Fair Go or other journalists, that that is sometimes rules that are honoured in the breach. Young people are getting vapes—people under 18—through illegal sales to them quite often. In increasing the penalties for these sales, we are sending a clear signal to the regulatory authority that we expect to see more prosecutions being taken. That would be a desirable thing, in my view. There are not sufficient prosecutions under way currently for there to be a disincentive to bad actors, so I hope to see that change with this bill.

There are also restrictions on the visibility of vaping products from the storefront, so you won’t be able to see vapes when you look through the window of a store any more. That’s a positive development, too. However, I would add the biggest ad for a vaping store is the store itself. They’re usually all lit up in neon or psychedelic colours. That is the ad from the vaping store that you see from the street most easily, but I do think not being able to see the products, just like for cigarettes, is a positive development. Finally, there’s the inclusion of early childhood centres in the—new stores are prohibited a certain distance from those.

Those are good reasons to support the bill, but the bill also raises a number of questions for us. In her earlier remarks, we heard the Associate Minister of Health mention that a further tranche of changes are to come. We wonder: why can’t these changes all be considered at once? It’s unusual to reform part of a bill and not have that alongside the other parts of the bill that are being changed. Why is that? Is that because of coalition agreements that are hard to reach and need to be worked through? We in the Opposition are not let into that conversation. It would be great to know what the big picture here is for vaping and tobacco and other nicotine product regulation that the Minister outlined. It seems to me that the Health Committee has done a good job of agreeing in a bipartisan way on these reforms, but we don’t know what the full picture is.

This bill also had a short select committee period. It’s unclear to me why that was, particularly when there was no opportunity for official consultation before this bill was brought into the House. You’ll recall that from the regulatory impact statement, and we canvassed that at first reading, there was no official consultation. So the committee’s done its best. And I enjoyed the opportunity to work with my colleagues on some of these practical matters. We had good advice, particularly on some of the practicalities around disposable vapes from our advisers, the Ministry of Health, but also from the public, and some vape manufacturers who are of course very able to give detailed advice on what makes a vape disposable or not. You see, the thing is, normally, that would have been preceded by a period of official work, so it’s no skin off the committee’s nose if we’re back here sometime in the future in this term of Parliament, reopening this, because I think we’ve done the best we can in the time we’ve had available to make sure that we’ve been diligent about that. Of course, it wasn’t a normal legislative process, but I feel that we’ve worked together to try and get the outcome we all want, which is to reduce youth vaping and ban disposable vapes.

Look, I do want to thank all the submitters who came to the committee in that short time frame that we had, and none the less gave us their best advice on what they would like to see to meet the aims of this bill. There are a number of potential measures that submitters raised which have not found their way into the final bill, and I do want to mention that. There are still concerns about the number of new vape stores and vape store numbers overall. We are aware that there are more vape stores in low-income neighbourhoods, including neighbourhoods with Māori and Pacific in them, and those groups are the communities amongst whom youth vaping is the highest. The option of a sinking lid on the number of stores was raised, or even density limits. Submitters called for greater reductions in flavours. They called for plain packaging and further limitations on the amount of nicotine. They called for more education when it came to vaping, and, a sentiment shared by the committee, further compliance and enforcement actions.

Once again, we’re pleased to be able to vote for this bill. It does take a positive step, but we fear that even this will not be enough to turn the tide on the increase of vaping we’ve had since 2021, where it shot up from under 2 percent to, well, at some measurements 10 percent; others in some communities of young people, over 20 percent. That’s happened in three years. You have to do a lot to turn the tide on that. As I’ve noted, we in the Labour Party, and many of the submitters, felt more regulatory change would be required to put that genie back in the bottle to reverse the rates of youth vaping. Well, I guess the thing is time will tell whether or not those changes are to be the case. That’s a shame if you’re one of the young people in this period who has got hooked on vaping.

In conclusion, it is good to be able to work with committee members, with colleagues from across the House, on a bill that will make some positive benefit, but there is still much further to go to address this harm in our community.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2) on behalf of the Green Party. I want to echo a lot of the sentiments from the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, and I just want to note that, effectively, if we look back at the past few years, I think this bill has been the product of a lot of community advocacy around the harm that vaping causes in our communities. During the last election, and as a second-term MP, I noted the amount of advocacy groups who came to our Parliament calling for more action when it comes to the regulation of vaping products—particularly how those manifested within the retail sector. This included young parents, young people, and organisations that predominantly serve Māori, and there was a growing concern around the unaddressed harm that vaping caused in our communities.

I think this bill presents an opportunity to think about how we choose to debate different types of substances—which substances we allow ourselves to debate within an evidence and public health framework, and also the reality that any regulation of a substance in which there is a profit motive by businesses will have a strong lobbying component by those businesses who actually benefit from the status quo. That was no different than the select committee process that many undertook.

I want to acknowledge the members of the Health Committee, and our colleague Hūhana Lyndon who partook in most of the select committee deliberations and submissions. I had the privilege of sitting in on, I think, a couple of hearings and hearing from submitters themselves. Having worked in South Auckland before becoming an MP, it is really clear to me that the issue around the harm and the prevalence of vaping in our communities is one that will remain a hot issue because this bill is not a panacea. In fact, as Ayesha Verrall noted in the previous speech, we need to take this bill not in isolation but as part of a broader ecosystem of policy and levers in relation to drug harm minimisation.

There are other bills, when it comes to issues around tobacco products and addictive substances, with which the Government is taking us backwards, right? We’re making some steps forward here when it comes to vaping specifically, but I do still think that, overall, we need to be more ambitious than a bill that had a relatively short select committee and, as the previous member noted, no proper consultation prior to being brought to the House—particularly in this bill, when we know that there are organisations that work very closely with people who are affected by vaping.

I think there was an opportunity to bring the public on board. When we have a bill that is so high profile in nature, I think—and we saw this in the distribution of the submissions—it kind of enables organisations that are really well-resourced, including people in business sectors, to prepare really cogent submissions, but it actually prevents the broader public who often don’t have the time, the resources, or the means to make submissions, from adequately participating in that process. I think this is one of those bills that would have really benefited from bringing a broader community on board.

Many organisations that came to the select committee noted that—well, particularly those that work in public health—they supported the bill but called for us to go further than the interventions that we’re making around disposable vaping, around the fine system that we’re putting in place, around the restrictions in places that this bill deems adequate and where young people congregate. In fact, many of them—and I’m mindful that I may be repeating some of the previous comments—asked us to look at, again, a whole-of-ecosystem approach and to look at issues around regulations around retailers. It has been noted that, while this bill will look at how vaping products are displayed in stores, it doesn’t look necessarily at the broader regulatory systems and models around how we allow shops to basically pop up in our communities. That continues to be an issue, right, because you can create limits around where those shops may operate, but these shops actually continue to make a profit out of causing addiction and harm, effectively, in our communities. I think submitters were really right to raise these issues. While they may sit outside of the bill, they should serve as food for thought for the Government.

In the same way that this has been a relatively constructive cross-partisan process in which most, not all, political parties have been on board, I think I would echo the calls that actually in the broader policy settings of the Government and goals, I would invite the Government to bring all political parties on board when it comes to issues of drug law reform. At the end of the day, if we take an evidence-based approach, there should be no fear of us coming together to discuss basically how we regulate drugs.

Other issues that were raised were specifically relating to density limits for specialist vape retailers. I think this is particularly important because as we moved in this recession environment where there have been a lot of changes in terms of the make-up of shops in our communities, in areas of Auckland, I’ve noted, and many constituents of mine have noted and fed back that to me, and I’m sure to others, of how they’ve seen local businesses close only to be then replaced by a vape shop that actually sits in quite close proximity to an already existing vape shop. That is something that I think needs to be addressed, because that density and the way that the advertisement then is carried out by proxy of the density creates the conditions for vaping products to be more attractive to young people, particularly.

There were issues around flavours being addressed and/or nicotine levels. Then there’s also the tricky conversation around the minimum age requirements as well. I think, again, the select committee process highlighted the vested interest that ultimately retailers have, that companies that make a profit from the harm that vaping products cause have. I do welcome the select committee being able to work with nuance, and through as much as possible and as much as our cross-partisan approach would allow, look at not so much those commercial interests but, actually, the wellbeing of our communities.

I think the other things that have been raised by submitters were the consideration of what other public spaces we should have considered as part of this bill. I think that’s a really important thing because for many communities—and I think of migrant communities or even faith-based communities—young people will be congregating in spaces that are not necessarily captured in this bill. I think we need to look at, for example, what other mechanisms we need to put in place to ensure that the intent of this bill is one that allows it to be successful.

Other things that I noted from submitters were the calls for cessation programmes to be adequately resourced. I acknowledge that some submitters noted what they perceived was the importance of vaping products when it came to cessation. I acknowledge that many organisations will be working with limited resources to allow for people to quit nicotine and tobacco products, and those organisations need to be adequately resourced if we’re to meet, I think, the intent of this bill, and to ultimately take a public health approach. When organisations that are connected to our communities and that are operating from a public health framework are allowed to thrive, it also, in my view, restricts the ability for a prohibitionist lens and panic to sink in in our communities, because, actually, we’re resourcing the organisations on the ground who understand the communities, who understand the harm that substances cause, and we allow the intent of this bill to thrive.

I just want to end by saying that, once again, while we support this bill, we still have a really cautious approach to the overall goal of this Government when it comes to tobacco and nicotine products. We urge the Minister in charge to look at the evidence, to look at the data in making any decisions in relationship to this issue, because otherwise we are letting down communities who are facing really ill adverse health effects as a result of the harm that the substances cause. Kia ora.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party as the ACT member on the Health Committee, which heard this bill. I’d just like to echo agreement with my fellow colleague on the committee—Ayesha Verrall—about the collegial way in which the committee work, and in no small part thanks to the able chairing from Sam Uffindell—doing a great job of chairing that committee and bringing us together and working through some issues that many of us held with this bill when it first came to select committee.

The bill ostensibly is about addressing the increasing concern that we have up and down this country in youth vaping. The committee heard stories from submitters not just in this bill’s process but even before. We’ve had people come and speak to the committee about the effects that youth vaping is having on youth, and the long-term negative effects, the short-term effects on their health, their opportunities, and, indeed, their mental health. I would also refer again to my colleague Sam Uffindell talking about it as a drug addiction rather than a—what was the term?—basically saying that it’s a dependency on a chemical addiction, not just a habit. I think that is something that we need to keep in mind as we pass this bill through.

At the select committee, we’ve got these four points that have been traversed already. Number one, we had a ban on manufacture, sale, supply, and distribution of disposable vapes. Personally, I was quite shocked hearing about the very low number of convictions and investigations that have taken place for retailers selling to those under age. I think it was kind of a shock for all of us to hear about the lack of enforcement. I want to put on the record that I would personally like to see a lot stronger enforcement taken by vape smoke-free enforcement officers. I think that the Minister has done a good job of adding some increased fines to make a higher penalty and more of a disincentive, and an incentive to enforce the rules and a disincentive for people to be breaking them, by increasing the fine schedule.

We’ve also heard about the affordability, the cheapness, the low cost of disposable vapes being the reason and the intention to ban these, but we also had an issue. The effects of allowing only refillables had a whole lot of perverse outcomes. That is, some of the most damage that has been observed overseas from vaping bans has been people producing their own vape juice and what that can actually have in it when it’s a homebrew of some description, and the damage that that can do. I personally was quite worried that we were going to end up with a negative outcome that way.

Also, the ease of use of some of these disposable or pod-based vaping devices were seen as an assistance for people who have been quitting smoking actually making it easy for them to pick up a device that gives them that chemical addiction hit that they need to keep them away from cigarette smoking. Also, there is one more thing to add on that: if you’re buying a product in vape-induced form, you don’t exactly know what quality that product is at all times. Having a closed device provides a degree of safety about the products that are being used. At committee, we made some changes and so this will mean that this ban will not extend out to cartridges and pod-based vapes. So that is something that I think has been well canvassed at committee.

ACT and I have concerns about what we’ve seen a black market for. When this Government came in, we had a situation in New Zealand with our cigarette and smoking laws that would, I believe, have led to a black market—that’s with the denicotisation of cigarettes, basically kicking smokers off cigarettes that they purchase at a legitimate store, and into, perhaps, the black market. I personally think we would have ended up with a very entrepreneurial underworld taking advantage of this—

Todd Stephenson: Gangs.

CAMERON LUXTON: And gangs—my colleague Todd Stephenson correctly identifies yet another avenue that could have been opened. This Government came in and changed this law, the law that the last Government left in place, but we needed to find something to replace it with. I congratulate Minister Costello for starting to work through these issues. We don’t want to see ex-smokers who have used vapes to great effect return to cigarettes because we’ve made it so hard for them. I think the hard-working, diligent, and collegial Health Committee has returned a bill in good order, that is very acceptable, to the House. I’m pleased to support it. Thank you.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to be able to rise and speak on this bill, and thank you to Cameron Luxton, the previous speaker, for his complementary tone there. I do appreciate that.

I’d like to extend the thanks to all the members of the Health Committee, who have worked through this bill. We got—

Dr Hamish Campbell: Especially the deputy chair.

SAM UFFINDELL: Especially the deputy chair—yes, yes. We managed to get it to a place where we felt it needed to be, and I’d like to thank the Minister Costello, as well, for bringing this in.

There’s been some commentary noted around the shortened select committee time. Look, the reason for that was quite clear: youth vaping is a real challenge in New Zealand. We are clear on that, and I don’t think there’s anyone in this House that would disagree with that. We want to get these changes in quickly. We want to be able to get rid of disposables as soon as we can, and we want to be able to ramp up the fines and the enforcement fees as soon as we can, as well.

As the Minister did say when she primarily came and addressed the committee when we started hearing submissions on this bill, this is not the be-all and end-all of the vaping legislation; this is the first part of it. There will be another part to that as well, but it’s very important that we get this first step in so that, one, we get rid of disposables, which is the product of choice for youths when they vape; and, secondly, so that the fines are there and they are sufficient and they are heavy so that people who flout the law and sell to minors—and we know that that does happen—know that they will be held accountable. It also will incentivise those enforcement officers out there to go out there and take that enforcement action. At the moment, they are weighing it up against the cost of the enforcement, but this does further incentivise them to do that.

Look, there were a number of changes, and I’m not going to go over that, but what I will talk about is the things that the committee did change, and I’ll do so very quickly. One was about not extending the ban on the disposable devices, because we know that that would have left people with the only option being the open devices. People were turning up to wherever they go to buy vapes late at night, and they’re not there. They don’t have them there and they’re reverting to buying cigarettes, and it does run the health risks that Mr Luxton has pointed out, as well. It’s important that when people who have smoked—and we’re talking about older smokers here, mainly—want to go and buy an alternative product, it is available for them, and that would have been removed from them had we proceeded with it as it was originally drafted at the first reading.

We were clear that child safety mechanisms must not be able to be deactivated. We also had concerns around the dumping of vape products at very low prices or for free as well, and the incentive there to get young people involved and participating in that. We thought that, no, we can’t allow that, and so that has been rubbed out. Also, we have done some stuff around the visibility so that vaping products cannot be visible from outside the store.

I just want to thank everyone again for coming together. We’ve had a whole week there in the adjournment when we got through all of our submissions and we did a few other field trips, as well. I think that every day that week when the committee was working during the adjournment week, the chair wasn’t popular, but thank you to everyone for coming together and getting this back to the House. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan—a five-minute call.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March said, yes, the Green Party does support this bill, but I think in terms of the select committee, like the chair of the Health Committee just mentioned before, the shortened select committee process is regrettable, because it did mean that we weren’t able to hear from the community in its entirety and be able to tease out some of the issues.

However, in saying that, there are a lot of really important amendments that are being made as part of the select committee process, and I think that all of that strengthens this particular bill. However, I would like to point out one particular part where there were a number of submissions that were talking about out-of-scope submissions. I find that really interesting, because in this case, I thought that nothing would be out of scope because the whole purpose and essence of this bill is to reduce the number of people from vaping. If you are restricting it specifically to what the Minister has intended in here, it almost defeats the purpose of some of these processes or the purpose of the bill itself.

I think particularly some of the things that should have been considered are things like introducing a sinking lid on retailers. That’s something that has been called for when we were talking in the first reading of this bill, and other things like futureproofing the Act to ensure that it covers other things, because overall, fundamentally, we want to hit that smoke-free target and that includes vaping, that includes heated tobacco products, that includes the traditional cigarettes and tobacco products. It is a shame that some of these out-of-scope elements were not considered by the Minister and by the select committee to be included in this particular bill, because I think it does line up with the purpose of this bill.

One of the things I would like to specifically mention is around the advertising element, and particularly when it comes to the new section 25(4A), inserted by clause 12. This is something I would like to ask the Minister for further clarification on during the committee stage, because it specifically refers to how New Zealand - based websites must not link to advertisements that do not comply with New Zealand legislation, but it is limited to New Zealand websites. Now, we know that one of the biggest areas and biggest concerns globally, not just in Aotearoa New Zealand, is the number of young people who are taking up vaping, particularly young people who are under the age of 18.

Although this bill has made some progress in terms of making sure that retailers cannot sell to under-18-year-olds, websites are not the main root of how young people engage with the internet at this stage. One of the things we see that are challenging in other countries—for example, in Singapore, where vaping is banned but they’re still seeing a lot of vaping in their young people and a lot of that is by targeting through social media. So one of the things that would be good to actually see in this would be expanding it out to include not just New Zealand websites but social media as part of that ban, that limitation and restriction, around advertisement. I think that is something that would be good to consider during the committee stage in particular.

I think, overall, we do see that this bill, although it makes some changes, simply does not go far enough, particularly when we’re talking about things like limiting the number of retailers, things like having limits on heated tobacco products. Although this mentions a lot in terms of disposable vapes and some of the other elements around refills, etc., it still doesn’t address some of the other elements of non-disposable vapes; it doesn’t address some of the issues and concerns that we’re seeing with flavouring—I think some of the out-of-scope submissions did also talk about limiting the flavouring of different products.

Overall, although the Green Party of Aotearoa does support this bill and we’re supporting it, we do have a number of questions for the Minister during the committee stage on this bill, and we’re really hoping—and we’re also urging the Minister to consider expanding the scope of this, despite the fact the Minister says that she will be undertaking further things. I think the time is now for us to do something about it.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): It’s a great honour to stand up and speak in support of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2). I’m glad to hear that there’s support around the House, and the previous speaker, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, did mention a number of things that I do want to touch on. One of the things is a number of things which were considered out of scope, but it is actually in the report about why they are important. That is going to be, as we’ve heard from the Minister, more regulations coming into place.

We’ve also heard about the short select committee process, but I will also point out that maybe not all members in the House talking on this debate have actually been part of the select committee process. We’ve been working on vaping probably since early March. I noted on 6 March, we did have a number of briefings talking about vaping and youth vaping. This is not just something that’s popped up at the last minute.

I just did want to clarify a couple of those points. I think there’s probably been a little bit of misunderstanding about that. This bill is a vital step towards protecting the health and wellbeing of young people in New Zealand. This bill really does deal with a strong tension: a tension between stopping people smoking through vaping but not encouraging people who have never smoked—so we don’t want them to start vaping. We’ve seen an increase in youth taking up vaping, which is of great concern. Somehow the message of “less harm of vaping” has been morphed into “vaping is safe” and that is definitely not the case.

I will say we do need to be very careful—we can’t take decreasing smoking rates for granted. We have seen cigarette smoking rates in places like Australia and UK increase for the first time in decades, possibly in part due to their restrictive regulations that are put in place around vaping and smoking. I think we’ve got to be very careful with regulations that we do bring in, and I think kind of taking it in a bit-by-bit process is actually a wise way to do it. In saying that, our large increase in youth vaping rates does present a challenge and it does need to be addressed properly, and that’s what we’re doing.

We’ve talked about a number of things that the bill is doing and, through the select committee process, what has been improved, and we’ve talked about the disposable vaping. Of course, these disposable vapes are cheap, they’re easy to disguise and easy to hide in pockets and things like that, and so they have been a popular tool for young people who are vaping.

We heard about the pod system, how that’s important—especially with people who are facing disabilities, especially in the hand and fine motor skills, that they actually need to have a pod system. Of course, what we don’t want is to have a situation where people are reverting back to cigarette smoking. The same with a sinking lid on the number of vape stores: what we don’t want is places where cigarettes are available but vaping’s not, and so if people go in for a vape then they’re more likely to go to cigarettes. These are some of the things that we’ve been working on in the select committee process, not just in this bill but more widely.

Also, increasing the fine for selling to under-age people is very important. Not only is $10,000 clearly not a strong enough deterrent but, actually, by increasing it to $100,000, it also tips the balance. Actually, when enforcement officers are thinking about prosecuting, that actually the cost of going to prosecution is kind of a lot lower. It kind of increases that benefit, tipping the balance in favour of prosecution—and that’s what we definitely, definitely want to do.

This is an important, important bill. We are not trying to eliminate vaping as a tool to quit smoking, but we are trying to stop youth taking up vaping, and we also want to make sure that our children are safe. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended, and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting.

Debate interrupted.

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

WEDNESDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 2024

(continued on Thursday, 14 November 2024)

Bills

Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2)

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is resumed. Last night when we left, we were on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2). I call the next speaker, who is Ingrid Leary.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The most compelling thing for me when I sat on the Health Committee listening to evidence about vaping was seeing a graph presented by Professor Hoek which showed New Zealand right at the top of the graph for 16- to19-year-olds that had vaped 20-plus times in a month, to the year 2023. New Zealand was up at 17 percent. Then there was the US down at 6 percent and the UK at around 10 percent. So we were way off the chart.

The bill was presented to us as a crackdown on vaping, and certainly there does need to be a crackdown on vaping. What we heard in the select committee was a lot of anxiety, not only from young vapers who are addicted but also from parents and from public health professionals, who reminded us that we don’t really know what the long-term effects of this habit are. So is this bill a crackdown on vaping or is it a bit random? Is it a bit of a distraction? It feels pretty random to me when I think about what the bill does and doesn’t do, and also the context in which it has been presented to the House, from which Minister and which party. What is the real agenda here around vaping and smoking cessation?

What the bill does do—and we’ve heard this—is it disallows some disposable vapes. It also reduces the visibility or the opportunity to have displays in store and online, which are good things and are part of the reason we are supporting this bill; and it has stronger penalties. It is important, I think, for anybody who is selling vapes to under age young people that they do face harsh penalties, although what we heard in the select committee was a real gap and a real concern around enforcement and the fact that very few prosecutions had occurred, that there was confusion around what the rules were, and that outside of the penalties regime, there didn’t seem to be a fear of being prosecuted, which is something that I’m not sure that this current bill fixes.

More importantly, what the bill doesn’t do is it doesn’t address price promotion. It doesn’t reduce the opportunity for young people to see vaping being advertised where there is a price promotion, which was an opportunity missed, and we were told by submitters that that was really important if we really want to crack down, as the Government has said. We didn’t see anything much about the number and density of vape stores, even though there was evidence that, particularly in low socio-economic areas, there is a prevalence of these vape stores, one after the other, just as there can be with alcohol stores, exposing our young people not only to the visibility of vaping but also to the opportunity to get hold of vapes.

We didn’t see very much, if anything, about the appeal of vape flavours, and we know that these are marketed to young people with names like Candyfloss and Sweet Mint and things that are really designed to appeal to young people. Why wasn’t that included in the bill? There was nothing about reducing nicotine. Nicotine is the addictive substance in vapes. Surely that would have been somewhere where we could have started to have some effect in legislation to make sure that the nicotine levels were graduated to be able to get young people off vapes, and indeed reformed smokers off vapes, but that was missed.

There is nothing in the bill about age verification, or about how one verifies purchasing vapes online or in stores, and, crucially, in my view, there was nothing about the monitoring, valuation, and performance of how the measures, including enforcement, were going to be conducted. It feels to me that this is a bit of a random bill, a bill that doesn’t go far enough. It is worth supporting because, of course, any step to reduce our young people vaping is important, but it’s such a missed opportunity.

Then, when we look at the context of how this was introduced and by whom, we have a Minister who introduced it who says she wants to crack down. I question the authenticity of that statement because this is a Minister who does not have a good track record at evidence transparency, and her integrity has been questioned by Professor Chris Bullen from Health Coalition Aotearoa.

Let’s look at what kind of evidence this Minister relies on. She has told us that nicotine is no more harmful than caffeine. She has presented that to her health officials in a document whose origins were unknown, a document she said she didn’t know who authored, a document that was eventually produced and redacted. It’s a document she maintains was produced before the election and yet contains references to the coalition agreement. It’s a document that inspired deep concern from the Auditor-General as to the conduct of information-keeping and information release.

When we look at a Minister who has acted in that way around smoking cessation, how can we trust that this bill is really about vaping cessation for our young people? The Minister has chided her own officials for describing the evidence that she was trying to produce—that some called a Google search—as out of date, selective, and crap. She took the unprecedented step of criticising her own chief adviser and saying that that chief adviser was trying to undermine her.

Well, I question the motivation for introducing this rushed vaping bill to the House, and is it true that this is really part of a crackdown on vaping with a bill that does not go far enough? When we look at the context of this, we see that the Minister also tried to change the regulations and rules around vaping to have them delayed for two years. Instead, Cabinet said that she could delay them for six months. Are these the actions of a Minister and a Government that really wants to crack down on vaping?

I’m providing this context because I’m questioning whether this bill is random or whether it is a strategic crackdown on vaping, and I don’t have the same faith and generosity of some of my colleagues to suggest that this is an authentic piece of work and a bigger piece of work because, of course, we have heard that there is a bill yet to come—we have no idea when it’s coming—that is apparently going to address all the other concerns, which are probably the real vehicles for being able to reduce vaping in young people.

To make matters worse, and I must address this because it has been very difficult for me to sit in this House and watch my colleague Dr Ayesha Verrall be attacked around conflicts of interest when I have sat on the Health Committee in the deliberations for this bill and watched her be at pains to show the conflict of interest with a family member. This is not the conduct of somebody who has tried to conceal anything, and I think it’s an indictment on the Government that they would try and raise this to defend their conduct when it comes to the authenticity of reducing smoking and vaping.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for raising that. Now we’ll go back to the bill.

INGRID LEARY: This is because the way I think is that we cannot look at vaping in isolation. The justification for vaping is that it reduces smoking harm, so we have to look at the totality, and my question to this House and my question to people watching is: is this a random bill? Is it something that is being designed as a distraction from a Minister under pressure and a party under pressure, trying to take the heat—pardon the pun—off the smoke and mirrors that we’ve seen? Or is it actually an authentic and serious piece of work designed to try and stop young people from smoking?

There is nothing around the process that convinces me of the latter. I look at the truncated process—that at the eleventh hour we were told it was going to be a shortened select committee, that, in fact, the Health Committee had notified for submissions prior to the bill even coming back from the House because the Government hadn’t anticipated the strength of our dismay and our concern at what they were doing from a process perspective.

We have heard that there are many things that this bill does not do, that are out of scope, that should have been in this bill, in my view. These are things that we would expect to come in the next tranche of legislation from this Minister, and my questions are: when will this happen, and will these be addressed? These are things like reducing the number of new vape stores, reducing the flavours—we’ve heard that time and time again. That was not addressed. What about the plain packaging that could be used to make vapes less attractive? What about reducing the nicotine harm? There’s plenty of evidence about that. You don’t even have to go to Google; you can get it from universities and experts. Why are these not addressed in this bill?

I look forward, as a member of the Health Committee, to doing my job as a parliamentarian, and I do want to acknowledge my colleagues from across the House for the strength they’ve shown in this regard, to making sure that this Minister comes back in a timely way with some legislation that addresses this issue. Until then, I think it’s pretty random bill.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): The people of New Zealand have spoken. Vaping is a serious issue and it is time for the Government to take action. I rise up this morning to support this Government’s work to get tough on vaping and particularly on youth vaping. This bill is a first step towards limiting youth vaping and addressing vaping issues.

Just now we had our previous contributor from the Labour Party, Ingrid Leary, mention how she is passionate about addressing vaping issues, but I want to emphasise that I haven’t seen any action in the past six years to address the issues, and now they say that we don’t care. We are the Government who actually put this bill on the Table, so I don’t know what she was trying to say or what she was meaning, when saying that we are not taking action.

Let’s go back to the bill. The centrepiece of this bill is the complete ban on disposable vape devices. Also, it is important to recognise that this bill has a significant increase in fines for retailers caught cash-selling vapes to under-18s—from $10,000 to $100,000. It also introduces additional restrictions on the visibility of vaping products, and one of the best ones is banning new vape shops from operating near schools and early childhood centres.

During the submissions stage, we received and considered submissions from 849 groups and individuals. We had the privilege of hearing 41 submitters, both in person and by video conference. Because of them, we were able to strengthen this bill to serve its purpose. I also want to mention some of the great ideas that are out of scope, including licensing all retailers, the possibility of introducing density limits for specialist vape retailers, reducing the nicotine labels, and introducing plain packaging. Also, we heard feedback from local constituents and also from a lot of health foundations, especially the Asthma and Respiratory Foundation. They all agree that this bill is a positive step forward in the fight against youth vaping.

I believe that this bill is the first step towards limiting youth vaping and addressing vape issues. Also, we believe it is true that there is more work to do, and I’m looking forward to this House making more progress in due course. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I listen to that member Dr Carlos Cheung’s contribution, talking about the past six years, what we know is, actually, the blueprint for how we can reduce the impacts of these types of vaping methods, so we can reduce the impact of smoking in our communities, was already set out. There was a plan to make sure that we could eliminate smoking in this country, so we could continue to protect young people from the harms of smoking. That’s the blueprint for how we can really achieve this, with such an important matter like vaping, which is why, yes, we do support this bill. The member said that it’s a step forward. Well, it might be a step forward in the right direction, but it’s a long way from home plate. It’s a long way from where we actually need to be to reduce the harms of vaping in our communities.

I question some of the motives when we look towards the changing of eliminating smoking in a generation, yet just taking baby steps to make sure that we can support the elimination of vaping, or at least to minimise the harm of vaping in our communities for our young people. For me, these things go hand in hand. They are not something that should be seen in isolation whereby smoking is right over here and vaping is over here. That’s not the point. We need to be making something that’s far more coherent in order to make people understand that, yes, while we might accept that vaping can be used as a cessation tool, what we need to do is stop it getting into the hands of the people who don’t smoke; stop it from getting into the hands of the people like our young people, who have caught this craze—caught this bottled lightning, if you will, because that’s the way it just rapidly took over the country for our young people.

I think of my nephew who, sadly, got caught at school with a vape in his bag. He’s only 13 years old. I love my nephew. It would have been easy to crack down on our nephew because he got caught with a vape in his bag. I look at my Auntie Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, because she knows my nephew very well. It’s her mokopuna, so perhaps we blame my auntie. None the less, the point here is “monkey see, monkey do”, and if our young people continue to see vapes, regardless of the kinds of parameters that this bill might put in place to make sure that it might be harder for the operator to sell, harder for the young person to get it, the fact remains that when they see these examples in their environment and in their community, they think it’s OK to do it. They think it’s the right thing to do, which is why, as I reflect on the member who contributed before me, asking about what Labour did in six years, well, I take us back to just a very brief journey to well over 20 years ago—and, once again, my colleague and Auntie Mariameno Kapa-Kingi will know this very, very well. The pathway that was set out for banning smoking in this country—that’s the blueprint for how we do this.

As this bill continues to progress, I appreciate this is the second reading, but it’s not too late to make even more changes. It’s not too late to make this thing even better, to make sure that we follow that blueprint so that we can minimise the harm and reduce the harm and, in fact, get rid of the harm in our communities. I think that’s the opportunity we’ve got here. We know that when it gets through to the next stage, there’ll be a chance to make sure we can strengthen this bill. I’m going to look at colleagues right across the House to see if we can do that, to make sure that when we come to the third reading it’s going to be something that our community deserves; to make sure that my 13-year-old nephew doesn’t have a vape in his bag, that all of our tamariki right across Aotearoa New Zealand don’t have vapes in their bags.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I take the point about a blueprint, but it matters that we act on it and that’s what this bill is doing. Just two weeks ago I met with Vape-Free Kids NZ, an organisation of young people in our community, in Kāpiti. I met with Keisha and Riley; I met with Yelin and Abigail, and they told me the impact that they saw. They told me what this meant to them and what they would like to see happen. They talked about what their experience is at their high schools. I hear this from friends and family as well. Last year in particular, the constant fire alarms from people smoking in the toilet—but to the extent now that they’re telling me people are smoking in class. They’ve got the ones now without all the smoke, and they’ll hide it down their sleeve. They thought some teachers knew. This is how bad the culture has got.

This is why we need to take definitive action to crack down on the availability. That’s why they were so keen to see restrictions on the sale and supply of disposable vapes, which have just made it far too easy to get a hold of them. That’s why we talked about how young people could get a hold of vapes, how easy it was for them and how we had to crack down. We actually had to step up the consequence for people that continued to break the law and provide vapes to young people that—yes, I understand there’s an element where people will always be able to get a hold of them when they’re really determined, but we have to make it difficult and we have to put a consequence in place.

The other thing we talked about was visibility of products when they’re on sale and the impact that we know it’s had, and restricting the visibility of products in supermarkets for cigarettes and dairies and places like that, how that would make a meaningful difference. That’s what this bill does. This bill bans the manufacturing, sale, and supply of disposable vapes. This bill increases the consequence, the penalties for unlawful sale of vapes to people underage, and it imposes visibility restrictions for vaping products. It is a meaningful thing to do. As I met with these remarkable young women, they told me what they wanted to see happen, I said I would come and support this bill for them, and so on behalf of them now, I commend this bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to make a contribution in this House, as always, on this Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2). I wasn’t a member of the Health Committee that was examining this bill, but I think many New Zealanders, and especially all parents in New Zealand, will join me in their concern around the rise of vaping in New Zealand and agree with the Health Committee—and, indeed, many parties in this House—that what we’re currently doing is not going far enough.

I say that because of the sudden—what appears to be, anyway—rise in the popularity of vaping, and also the concerning targeting that we have seen towards children. I’m reminded of a particular sweet that my daughter recently bought from the dairy. When she was eating it, it looked like she was vaping. I don’t know—many people in this House may remember lollies from their past that looked like cigarettes, which were quite popular. I was alarmed to see that this has now crept into people who are manufacturing sweets. I think it’s indicative of the huge problem of vaping.

Although we do support this bill, I would urge the Minister and the Government to think carefully about the upcoming committee stage on this and whether there are further changes, as indicated by the Labour and Green parties in their minority view in the select committee report, to take this further. I don’t think anyone in this House wants to see a greater proliferation of vaping. I don’t think we want to see this be an issue in schools, which, as previous speakers have said, it is. I do think now is the time, if we want to stop this becoming as much a part of our culture as cigarette smoking has been to previous generations, to actually make some strong decisions that keep our children safe.

Now, that’s not to take away the role that vapes do have as a smoking cessation tool, and I think that that is clear in the deliberations around that, but it would have been nice to see a few further changes in relation to this bill that would have made accessing vapes more difficult and less attractive for children. These have been mentioned by other speakers, but options included a kind of sinking lid on vape stores so that once one closes, another one doesn’t open; greater limitations on the flavours that you would have, and this kind of links into my point around this particular brand of sweet that my child was able to buy from the dairy that looked very similar to a vape; and also to minimise that appeal—I think we need to realise that there is an incentive for companies that produce vapes to make these products attractive.

We, as the decision makers in the room and the adults in the room, are the ones that have to take responsibility for ensuring that this is not targeted towards children in a way that would make them more susceptible to taking up a habit that we know is likely to be detrimental to their long-term health. We’ve had great success in terms of smoking cessation in relation to other products that contain nicotine, and we have to take a different route in relation to vapes.

We will be supporting this bill, but we do urge the Government to continue to be open-minded to the large amount of our community that is calling for even greater restrictions on vapes, and that includes, very importantly, parents and people who are concerned about the future of our children with this relatively new product that seems to be infiltrating all of our communities. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’ve listened to the contributions from both sides of the House, and I’ve thought about those in my generation—Generation Z; born after 1997—many of whom have taken up vaping but would have never ever considered taking up cigarette smoking. It’s about making it more challenging and difficult to take that first step.

This legislation, the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill (No 2), is focused on the banning of disposable vapes; increasing the penalties for unregulated sales of the product, particularly to minors; and imposing retail visibility restrictions. We think about how many vape stores we walk past nowadays that weren’t there 10 or 15 years ago, with the big, bright lights, the attractive qualities to them, to entice people into their stores to purchase their products.

I think the aspect that stands out the most to me is the last point, around including early childhood education centres into the proximity restrictions for vape stores to be established. I think of my Bay of Plenty electorate and my home and the number of incredible early childhood centres we’ve got—we’ve got BestStart, and Future Focus, and JeMMa’s, and many, many others that play an incredible role in our local community—and ensuring that vape stores aren’t set up next door to them, so that, as Camilla Belich said previously, we’re not making it an attractive quality for kids to want to take up in the first place, and that we’re putting in measures to prevent them from even considering taking that first step into vaping.

We’re going to reach our target of Smokefree 2025 next year, but there is more work to be done in the vaping space. There’s more work to be done to say, yes, “We want to have fewer people smoking in New Zealand, but we want to have fewer people vaping as well”, and so we need to do our part as the regulators and those who create the law to make it difficult for people to take that first step into vaping. This legislation does that, so I commend it to the House.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. I stand to take a short call on behalf of Te Pāti Māori. Just as a brief summary for our whānau who are watching: this bill will ban the sale of disposable vapes by the end of this year, and it also increases fines for selling vapes to under-18-year-olds, and it’s going to introduce further restrictions on retailers who are selling vapes. From that perspective, Te Pāti Māori is supportive of the bill before us. We know, as tangata whenua, how cigarette smoking and vaping has become a real scourge on our communities and we have real concern with the lack of support around those of our rangatahi and tamariki who have started vaping and are, in fact, addicted to it.

I do want to caution—and I think we’ve all said this, but part of this is that, while we support this bill, I guess the hypocrisy is that we can’t help but keep in mind that the Government is restricting vapes but appear also that they’re continuously pushing cigarettes. From Te Pāti Māori’s perspective auahi kati [smoke-free] is where we should be. It’s how we should have stayed focused; and there have been numerous templates, blueprints, and red prints put out to actually show how communities should be progressing towards these targets. Our biggest fear is that we are bringing in nicotine to our communities. I guess, what we know from our young people’s perspective—and there were some amazing submissions and there have been some amazing advocates—is that the more you vape, the more your brain and your body get used to having nicotine, and the harder it is to go without it.

We are talking about young people. As my colleague on the other side, Peeni Henare, shared about his 13-year-old nephew, we’re seeing eight-year-olds and 10-year-olds becoming addicted. I just want to talk about what that looks like so we can identify the symptoms in our communities. Nicotine withdrawal symptoms make our rangatahi and our tamariki, our eight-year-olds, our 10-year-olds, feel extremely irritable, restless. They feel sad and down. They feel anxious. They get tired and groggy. They have trouble concentrating. They have trouble sleeping. They have trouble thinking clearly at all. They feel hunger and they have intense—intense—cravings for a fix, and this is going on inside our very communities, inside our schools. Actually, probably the biggest shock for everyone in Aotearoa is that it isn’t just Māori-centric. It hits us harder, but, actually, it’s hitting middle class, upper class white families as well.

What we need to be really mindful of is that, while we see these symptoms and we put these actions in place and, indeed, support the Government’s bill—what we also need to remind ourselves of is the services, the support, and the empathy that we need to be seen as having for our communities who have absolutely no investment around them in how to deal with this. That was probably the biggest concern that came out that we heard loudly and clearly. Absolutely, we heard from the Muaūpoko Tribal Authority. They had absolute zero tolerance for smoking and vaping, and the same with Ngāti Tukorehe, because if we look in my takiwā in Taitoko—Levin—there are 31 locations selling vapes in Levin—31 locations. I caution that we do this wisely—that we together, across parties, make an effort to make sure that those communities have the support, the wraparound support, inside their schools, inside the homes, where a lot of these, again, rangatahi and children are suffering these symptoms without us even knowing.

I guess the biggest concern that we saw when the changes were happening within the cigarette and the smoke-free targets and, indeed, the investment, is that there’s a lack of recognition in the connection to where those rangatahi go with those health concerns. So, nō reira, we leave that there and look forward to the next stage of this bill. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: I present a legislative statement on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill.

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

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I move, That the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The bill was introduced and referred to the Social Services and Community Committee in May this year. The bill proposes sensible, much-needed changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA). It will increase flexibility and tautoko for landlords to end tenancies, aiming to remove barriers to increasing private rental housing supply, as well as introducing new provisions making it easier for tenants to keep pets, which I will refer to here on out as “mōkai” in this speech.

The bill makes a number of changes to tenancy termination provisions in the RTA, returning the law to what it was before changes were made in 2020. Firstly, the bill reintroduces 90-day no-cause terminations, which give landlords the ability to end a periodic tenancy with 90 days’ notice without providing a reason; returns the ability for a landlord to give notice to terminate a tenancy at the end of a fixed term without providing a reason; reduces landlord termination notice periods for periodic tenancies to 42 days where a reason for termination is provided; and reduces notice periods for tenants in periodic tenancies from 28 days to 21 days, which will increase flexibility and reduce costs for tenants looking to move. Secondly, the bill introduces mōkai-related amendments which will make it easier for tenants to keep mōkai in rental properties, balancing the interests of landlords and tenants.

The bill was reported back on 7 November and I would like to thank the committee for its careful consideration of the bill and the 1,655 submissions received from 1,634 submitters. I’d also like to thank and mihi out to those who have made oral and written submissions on the bill. Those submitters responded and represented a good cross-section of groups and individuals in the tenancy sector. The committee has considered the bill and recommends it be passed with amendments to a number of clauses, which I tautoko in full. The committee has not recommended any changes to the termination provisions. I commend this decision, as the bill, as drafted, reflects our intention and delivers on coalition agreement commitments.

We’ve heard from landlords that the changes made to tenancy terminations in 2020 increased risk and costs, and discouraged them from renting to tenants who, for example, do not have perfect references or a steady job. The changes in the bill will address the concerns of landlords and encourage landlords back into the market.

Now, turning to mōkai provisions—we know that mōkai are important members of many whānau. I have two myself: a three-legged tabby called Scout and a ranga called Haku. However, it is currently difficult to find mōkai-friendly properties. The bill makes changes to rental laws to make it easier for tenants with mōkai to find a home. The bill introduces the ability for landlords to charge a mōkai bond of up to two weeks’ rent. It also introduces a new mōkai consent system, which sets out how a tenant may obtain agreement or consent from a landlord for keeping a mōkai—and that’s not a Mōkai Pātea by the way, my whanaunga Shanan. Landlords will only be able to refuse a mōkai if they have reasonable grounds for doing so. The bill also changes the damage liability rules for mōkai damage, which means tenants will be liable for the cost of all mōkai-related damage that’s not fair wear and tear—my cats rip up our chairs every day. The bill excludes disability assist mōkai—kurī—as mōkai, so those disability assist dogs are excluded as pets. This means a tenant will not have to pay a mōkai bond or obtain consent from their landlord for these kurī.

Based on submissions, the committee has recommended some sensible changes to the bill to make the provisions more workable. Firstly, they recommended a couple of changes to the mōkai bond provisions to clarify that a landlord may only require one mōkai bond at any one time per tenancy, and a mōkai bond can be paid out during the tenancy, not just at the conclusion of the tenancy. These changes will allow tenants who have lost a mōkai to get their mōkai bond refunded during a tenancy. If, later during the tenancy, the tenant wanted to get another mōkai—maybe another cat, in my instance—the landlord will be able to request another mōkai bond to be paid.

Secondly, if a tenant keeps a mōkai without their landlord’s agreement or consent, that would be an unlawful act. Given there are four new unlawful acts for landlords in the bill, this new unlawful act provides for a more balanced set of obligations.

Thirdly, some amendments have been made to the reasonable grounds on which a landlord can refuse a tenant’s request to keep a mōkai—a couple of minor changes to make the grounds more workable, and two additional reasonable grounds for refusal of consent have been added to do with tenant non-compliance and the number of mōkai being requested.

Fourth, the bill now includes a non-exhaustive list of reasonable conditions which a landlord could attach to a mōkai consent. These are: a tenant agreeing to pay a mōkai bond, a requirement for a mōkai to be restrained while the landlord is on the premises, and a requirement for carpets to be cleaned to a professional standard if the mōkai is allowed inside.

Now, before members bring up the “why should a tenant have to pay a mōkai bond for a goldfish in a bowl”? example, I want to mention another very constructive change recommended by the committee. Any mōkai-keeping conditions will be subject to the proviso that they are reasonable, having regard to the nature of the premises and the type of the mōkai. This means landlords can only set mōkai conditions in terms of the particular circumstances—for example, the mōkai propensity to cause damage. It might not, for example, be reasonable to charge a mōkai bond or require the carpets to be professionally cleaned for a goldfish, for an ika. Finally, some tweaks have been made to the mōkai damage liability clause. As introduced, the bill made tenants liable for damage caused directly by a mōkai. The amendment makes a tenant liable for the cost of any damage caused as a result of keeping a mōkai.

Some minor and technical amendments and changes have been recommended to improve the clarity and efficiency of the law. The committee has recommended changes to clarify that a landlord may prohibit smoking inside the main premises. In other areas of the premises, a landlord will remain able to prohibit smoking where this would be consistent with a party’s broader rights and responsibilities provided by this Act. This will ensure landlords are able to prevent damage inside the main kāinga—the main home—while enabling a common-sense approach to other areas based on the specific circumstances.

In addition, in response to submitter suggestions, the committee recommended changes and clarifications related to strengthening the retaliatory termination provisions, which set out that it is unlawful to serve a termination notice in retaliation to a tenant enforcing their rights or making a complaint about the landlord. Currently, there are 28-working-day limitations for tenants applying to the Tenancy Tribunal seeking an order that the termination of their tenancy was retaliatory and therefore unlawful. Feedback considered by the komiti suggested that evidence that a termination was retaliatory may take time to emerge, and tenants may have other reasons for delaying an application to the tribunal. They also heard that landlords may serve retaliatory notices to tenants who exercise their rights under enactments other than the RTA. In response to this feedback, the komiti recommended the 28-working-day limitation to apply to the tribunal be removed. The default limit under the RTA—12 months following the end of the tenancy—will apply.

The bill has also been brought in to clarify that the landlord may not terminate a tenancy in retaliation to the exercise of any power or function conferred on any person by the RTA or by any other enactment. The bill proposes that the Tenancy Tribunal be allowed to make decisions on the papers—that referring only to documents provided by the parties, rather than through a hearing. Initially, this included a requirement that the tribunal seek parties’ views on this prior to scheduling a hearing.

The aim of this amendment is to improve efficiency for parties engaging with the tribunal, helping with wait times. However, the komiti had feedback that requiring parties to be consulted before a hearing is scheduled will slow the process down. As a result, the committee recommended that the bill is amended to remove the requirement to consult with parties before scheduling a hearing. Parties will have the ability to provide their whakaaro—their views—once the hearing has been scheduled.

In addition, technical amendments include enabling the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to approve methods of payments to it without needing to create regulations—hallelujah; changing the maximum duration of a Tenancy Tribunal order for rent reduction from six to 12 months; and updating the exclusion in the RTA relating to emergency housing—whare ohotata—following work by Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora, the Ministry of Social Development, to review the emergency housing programme.

In conclusion, colleagues, members of this House, I once again would like to thank the people who took the time to make a submission on this bill, and the committee for their consideration and recommendations. I’m very appreciative of your patience in listening to my kōrero and commentary, particularly about the mōkai—the pets. Madam Speaker, I recommend this bill to the Whare, this fine Whare Pāremata, and thank you for the opportunity. Kia ora tātou.

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

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s always interesting at a second reading speech to take note of what the Minister emphasises in that speech. There’s a lot in this bill and a lot that the committee have reported back on. Now, members of the public who listened to that speech would think, and they’d be forgiven for doing so, that this bill was all about pets, because that’s all the Minister basically talked about, but if you look at the legislative statement that the Minister introduced to the House today, the primary purpose of this bill is to remove barriers to rental supply and incentivise landlords back into the market.

I’ll explore that a little bit more in a moment, but I’ll get right off the bat that the provisions that are in here around pets are worth a go. We’re not fully convinced that they will work, but in the absence of anything else, it’s definitely worth supporting. We do support that. The clarification around domestic violence provisions, that definitely has our support. Of course a landlord should be able to determine whether a tenant can or cannot smoke in their premises. That makes sense. Those things are not in dispute and if, as was presented, this bill was only about that, then it would have our support, but it’s not.

What this is about is making it easier for landlords to kick tenants out. It’s all outlined in the legislative statement and it’s outlined in the commentary from the select committee on this, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. The rationale behind that, according to the Government, is that if Parliament makes it easier for landlords to kick tenants out, then more landlords would enter the market. That is a flawed rationale, and I’ll explain why. If we’re not building houses and increasing the housing supply—be it privately or through community housing providers and Kāinga Ora—and more landlords enter the market in the absence of the interest deductibility rules that were in place, there’s only one thing that will happen. There will be competition on existing stock from speculators and landlords and investors. That drives prices up.

There’s a few aspects here. If landlords are the ones purchasing homes, it would reverse the trend that we’ve seen over the last few years of first-home buyers entering the market, and if first-home buyers aren’t entering the market, they remain renters. And if, as we have seen, the Government has essentially paused 50 percent of Kāinga Ora builds—there were 5,000 built last year; there’s likely to be 2,500 built this year and significantly less the following years—and community housing providers have only been funded to 750 a year, that is a significant reduction in the number of houses available for people who don’t own their home and now, as a result of this, can’t buy a home. That’s increased competition on rentals. Rents go up. Yet this bill proposes that making it easier to kick tenants out is actually in the tenant’s interest, and that doesn’t add up.

What this bill will do is it will increase the uncertainty of a tenant. Knowing that it’s easier to be kicked out for no reason, no cause, when you have a significant increase in the number of people seeking rentals, that is an uncertain and unstable existence and likely to be unaffordable. If the Government took building homes seriously, perhaps they might have a point, but they don’t.

In the absence of building houses—and keep in mind that 12,000 construction workers have lost their jobs since this Government came in and many of those have gone to Australia. Houses are simply not being built and the Government has no grounds to claim that this bill is in tenants’ interests when we are going backwards in building houses privately and the numbers of social houses and community houses are falling through the floor. That is bad news for everybody. It’s bad news for tenants, it’s bad news for first-home buyers, and I think it is telling that the Minister chose to portray this bill as a bill about pets rather than as the bill that it actually is: a bill that will make it easier for landlords to kick tenants out.

Now, that has to be considered in the context of emergency housing, because if people can’t find a rental because there are more people seeking rentals, because they’re not entering the market, that means the only option available to them, in many instances, is emergency housing. But, as the Minister’s own advice says, the people that are leaving emergency housing are doing so for two reasons: they are finding a place in a social house funded and built by the previous Labour Government, or they are being kicked out of emergency housing or not being let in in the first place. That’s why the numbers are dropping.

If, as has been established by the Government’s own figures, the Government isn’t building social houses—not to anywhere near the extent that it has been—sooner or later the houses that are being used to put people from emergency housing into housing will dry up, because the numbers definitely don’t meet the demand. By the Minister’s own words, as quoted in the media, the Government doesn’t know where 20 percent of the people that have left emergency housing have gone. They can only account for some of them, and they are going into houses that were built and paid for by the previous Government.

Where this relates to the bill is that we will have higher levels of homelessness and higher levels of competition for rental markets. Rents have already gone up in the last 12 months at a record rate. If you look at the inflation figures produced by the Reserve Bank, there are three drivers of inflation: insurance, rates, and rent—record increases. This bill will only make that worse, and it will only make a tenant’s existence not only more expensive, possibly unaffordable, but more insecure.

How on earth does this bill live up to the promises that this Government made? They promised they would build more houses than the last Government; that’s already broken. They promised that rents would go down; that’s already broken. The only answer to those two challenges is to make it easier for landlords to kick tenants out. It’s shameful.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Today, I am going to be speaking on behalf of the Green Party and our views on these changes to our rental laws here in Aotearoa. It’s really important that this bill gets the attention that it needs, because, at the end of the day, it impacts more than a million people. There are an estimated 1.2 million renters in this country, and these changes are going to impact so deeply because it gets at the fundamental basis on which we all rely, which is the roof over our head. We all acknowledge that if you don’t have a solid roof over your head, if you can’t return back home to your home every single day and know that you are safe and secure, then how are you supposed to do literally anything else in your life? That is the one thing that all of us need to be provided, and that’s why it is provided for in international conventions that say human beings have a right to shelter, but, actually, we’re trying to go further than that to say human beings have a right to safe, warm, and affordable housing. These changes are massive.

The kind of overarching point that I want to make on this bill is that I feel and we feel that these changes have, actually, in a way, been paid for, because if you look at the levels of donations that different Government parties have had—and we’ve got those on the record—we see that from 2021 to 2023, the National Party received over $1.3 million in donations from the property industry, the ACT Party received over $830,000 worth of donations from the property industry, and New Zealand First received over $300,000 worth of donations from the property industry. My sincere belief, after going through the select committee process for this bill, is that the evidential basis for this bill is not there and the support for this bill is not there because 97 percent of submitters opposed this bill; 53 percent of landlords and property managers opposed this bill. Therefore, it does make you question—and I’m not making assumptions—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just be careful how one’s going to phrase this. I think the point’s been made and I think, probably, come back to the points in the bill.

TAMATHA PAUL: Yes, will do, Madam Speaker. I just do want to highlight that it is reasonable for people to question how this bill came about when there isn’t an evidential basis for it and when the submissions are very clearly opposed to this bill. I wanted to make that point, because it is the belief of our party that these changes have been paid for. I’ll move on now.

Hon Mark Patterson: Point of order, Madam Speaker. That’s a very serious allegation—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ah, yeah—

Hon Mark Patterson: Could I just more fully formulate on that. We heard in the previous bill a speaker cast aspersions on political parties, as well, in terms of the motivation for bringing legislation forward, and I think that’s unbecoming of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the first part of the point of order, the allegation was not actually made. I stopped the member before the member got to the point of making that allegation.

Just before, I imagine, Ingrid Leary was going to want to speak to the point of order, I also put this member back on the bill when she stood up on behalf of a colleague with some information that has been publicly debated in this House and then we went back to the bill. On that particular occasion, yes, the member did say some things but they had already been publicly debated in this House. I call Tamatha Paul to continue her speech. Thank you.

TAMATHA PAUL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m going to move on to the other parts. Thankfully, in this bill there are a lot of different areas that we can talk about. I’m happy to move beyond that one, but it did need to be said. Thank you, Madam Speaker for your understanding.

This bill has been couched in fluff—it’s been couched in fluff—to try and hide the fact that the biggest, most detrimental impact that this bill will have is no-cause evictions. The point was made by my colleague Kieran McAnulty that the Minister when he was promoting this bill talked a lot about the pet provisions, and they’re welcome. As a renter who has a dog, yeah, those are welcome changes because it is really hard to have a pet and to rent, but I actually wouldn’t want those additions if it meant that 1.2 million people will be potentially at risk of being kicked out of their homes for no good reason. All of these changes that are made to couch the real devastating impact and the devastating potential of this bill are simply not good enough. That’s why we won’t be supporting this bill.

Actually, my colleague Francisco Hernandez just made a really good comment—that the Government doesn’t want to stand on this bill and that they’re actually ashamed of what they’re doing, because they know that no-cause evictions are going to have a disastrous impact, as they have around the world. If you look at the UK, they’ve got this thing called “no-fault evictions”, which, I understand, is the leading cause of homelessness in the UK. That was no-fault evictions that did that, and now we’re trying to do the exact same thing. We’re not trying to do anything unique here. No-cause evictions is not unique. You look at developed countries around the world who have tried this out before and it has led to homelessness. That’s why we’ve been so staunch in our opposition against this bill, because we know what happens when things like no-cause evictions are introduced.

In reality, there are no tools for tenants to be able to fight it, because that is the insidious nature of no-cause evictions—they don’t need a reason to kick you out, and they will kick you out. It renders renters absolutely powerless, not to mention that we’re not even going to go to the Tenancy Tribunal in the first place, because what resources does your typical renter have against their landlord who has got money, who has got power, who has got the law on their side; and you’re just a renter who has nothing to fight against that? That is the insidious nature of the no-cause evictions. I do believe that the Government is ashamed of their own policies because that’s why they’ve tried to couch it in all the fluffy stuff.

I also want to talk briefly about the changes to domestic violence. I know that this is a really sensitive topic, so I will try to approach it as sensitively as I can. I want to say that these don’t go far enough when the result of no-cause evictions is that many people who are in extremely challenging situations in their living conditions will be put under further stress by no-cause evictions. If you don’t have housing security, and you are going through a difficult experience such as domestic violence, then you are not going to want to leave your home situation, because you will be scared to not be able to find another rental. Yes, the changes that this bill makes around domestic violence are important, but also just take a minute to think about how much more pressure you will be putting on people and their personal situations when they are constantly living on the edge and unsure of whether they will even be able to stay in their homes or not.

Now, I don’t want to just talk about the bad, because we have got a range of amendments and suggestions to make this bill better, because if there’s anything we can do to make this slightly better, we will do it. We will be bringing these amendments to the committee of the whole House stage. I would really ask that other parties would consider the merits of these suggestions, because we think they’re ones that could be accepted and that could get support around the House. Some of those suggestions are around clarifying the pet provisions a bit more, because it was clear through the select committee process that there was still a bit of confusion in the public—for example, whether disability dogs were classified within these provisions or not, and a whole range of other things that we explored in the select committee phase. I would really ask that people consider these amendments and these changes, because they are doable.

At the end of the day, it’s really hard to support this bill when the core aspect of it is so morally indefensible. Also, I think that the really frustrating thing with this bill is that the Government has really tried to feed the public a story that justifies this bill. We’ve been told that these changes will allow for property managers and landlords to take a chance on riskier tenants. There’s actually no evidence behind that. I was really disappointed in the analysis and the robustness of the advice that we received on the bill in relation to that assumption, because there wasn’t any evidence behind it.

This is not the first time that this Government has passed a housing bill that doesn’t have a strong evidential basis. With the interest deductibility work, we were told that this would drive downward pressure on rents; we are yet to see any of the evidence that backs that up. There was no evidence for that either. We’re being told all of these lines and marketed these beliefs that this is what we should accept, but if you actually look at the evidence, it doesn’t back up those assumptions that are being sold to the public, and that’s because this Government treats policy and lawmaking like a marketing strategy.

Briefly, I’ll touch on what our solutions would look like to actually transform the rental sector that we would like to see and that we would be willing to work with the Government on. We would love to see a rental warrant of fitness. This would drastically improve the quality of our rental housing, which we know, overwhelmingly, is damp, cold, and mouldy. We would like to see rent controls that actually limit the amount of times that landlords and property managers can increase the rent and how much they can increase it by, and we would like to see more regulation of the property manager world because we know that they are not regulated, they do not have rules, and we need to have those in place so that tenants’ rights are respected and upheld. That’s our contribution, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill. Firstly, I’d just like to thank the submitters and also the other members of the Social Services and Community Committee, which I am part of. Anyone would think, listening to the last couple of speeches, that we have these mega landlords, that every landlord in New Zealand owns multiple homes.

Ricardo Menéndez March: We do have mega landlords in this country.

LAURA McCLURE: Someone just said we do have mega landlords, but, as you are research-focused, I’m sure you know how many there are, and there is not an awful lot. Most of the landlords in this country are actually mum and dad landlords that own no more than one or two homes.

When we’re talking about the research around rentals and the fear that, actually, property owners have about renting their property, this is very real. When I talk to landlords or prospective landlords that have empty properties, one of their biggest fears is past tenants that they’ve been unable to evict for multiple reasons. No good landlord would get rid of a good tenant. Let’s make that really obvious. What is the justification for getting rid of a good tenant? There isn’t. You have to advertise your rental. You have to go out there and actually do a whole bunch of things in order to get your property rented. If a tenant is good, you want to keep them. That’s the whole point of renting your property—to make money, to have a good property, and to provide a home for others—so to turn around and say that this is not renter-focused I think is actually a big misjustice.

I heard from the Labour speaker who mentioned rental increases. Well, actually, rental increases have slowed for the first time in six years. What we are doing is having an effect, and I think it’s really important to note.

I’m not going to sugarcoat the 90-day no-cause evictions. I think it’s great, and I think it’s something we need in order to give a lot more landlords out there, or potential landlords, the opportunity to rent their properties, alongside the fact that we do need to build more houses. Everybody failed to mention the Resource Management Act (RMA). The RMA has basically been hindering, whether it’s the Government building houses or the private sector building houses. We’re also sorting that out. I think that would actually go a long way to fix it. But one of the key things I really wanted to talk about—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): If members could keep it down a bit—

LAURA McCLURE: It’s all right. I think we like the spicy debate around here.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’m having trouble listening to the member.

LAURA McCLURE: It’s early morning for this, but one of the things I do want to talk about, and I think it’s a huge win for us, is something that was a part of the ACT-National coalition, and it was the pet bonds. I think one of the main reasons around this—or the driver of people not being able to rent a home is because they have their pets. I know how this feels, because I’m actually one of them currently. My house is getting earthquake repairs—long overdue—and I need to try and find a short-term rental like an Airbnb. I’ve got a dog and three cats, and it is impossible, OK? I could not find anywhere. We have my dog—we’ve got her in the kennels and it’s stressful—so I understand how that feels, and what I would really like to see is people being able to take their pets to other homes.

This policy has come around and we’re hoping that it will make it easier, and we will see more, I feel, landlords saying, “Yep, you know what? There are some things here, the measures in place, for us to actually allow pets to be in our property.” If you are a landlord and you’re worried about what the provisions may be, there are actually good grounds for you to say, “No, actually, this property is not appropriate.” But what it does do is it sets up the environment for landlords to say, “Yes, because I’ve got the protections in place here.” They have the bonds that they’re able to take, and they’re also able to recover any costs that are beyond wear and tear.

Anyway, that’s all I’m going to say on this bill, but I commend it, and I would like, once again, to thank everybody who submitted on the bill. Thank you very much.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. I was also on the Social Services and Community Committee, and I would like also to thank all of the submitters. There were a lot of submitters on this bill, for and against, so it was actually an interesting process for me to rehear what people felt and what people thought.

There are several changes in this bill, as already debated in the House, some of them to support the private rental market and to remove some of the barriers in rental supply, and also to try and incentivise landlords to get back into the market. I do know a lot of people who left the market in the last few years, and they do now feel encouraged that they are going to be able to come back into the market. They’ve had personal experience, not good experiences, and so they left the market, and now they are very happy to come into the market.

I will also talk a little bit about pets later on, but, firstly, I will just talk about reintroducing the 90-day no-cause terminations and why some of the people I spoke to, and some of the submissions that I heard, were in favour of this. They felt that it was going to be a balance now between the needs of the tenant and also what the landlords have been saying to them. It was interesting to hear both sides of the story, and I feel that we need to voice both sides of that story.

Now, I’m going to keep my contribution a little bit short, but I do want to talk about the fur babies, because I do have a lot of friends who look after fostered pets, and they’ve said to me that it’s so hard to find accommodation with pets, which is why we are getting so many on our hands at the moment. Over the last two or three years, with everyone being locked down, a lot of people really went out and got pets, and either they cannot now handle them or they just have too many, or they need to move and they can’t find accommodation. For a very brief period of time, my husband and I had to find a furnished property just for a few months, and because I have one cat, I could not find anything. The only thing that got me into the accommodation was to say, “Look, Thomas is blind. He’s got beautiful eyes, but they don’t work and he doesn’t see. Thomas wouldn’t even know what a curtain looks like to climb up.”

Those were the only conditions that got me into this rental accommodation. If it had been my other cat, Fergus, he would have wrecked everything, so I wouldn’t have done that to the landlord. I really saw how difficult it was for me to find a place when we needed it urgently and no one would let us in, so I really welcome these provisions. I welcome the detail of the provisions to do with pets, as well, and I look forward to going through the committee of the whole House to hear the amendments from the other side and then to finally see this bill through. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Mōrena tēnā tātou katoa. When the Minister first spoke this morning, and he used the term “mōkai”, so, I mean, it’s a—

Arena Williams: I thought that too.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Yeah, exactly, right? I thought it was a kind of a—there’s a little bit of a play in there. Interestingly enough, “mōkai”, where I come from, means “slave”, and we’ll leave that there until I see the Minister again. Save to say that when our reo is used in a way that is meant to do good, in my view—there’s a play here, which unfortunately for the majority who do not have te reo Māori in their makeup and in their reo, that’s a shame because then it can be played. Those are the points I want to start with.

Too many renters, in my experience, need at least four or five months to get a blinking place. I’m in Kaitāia and I notice a māmā parked on the side of the road and I notice that her car is loaded with clothes in the back. Then I get closer and I see that she is stood outside and she’s got her baby and she’s feeding her baby and she’s sleeping in her blinking car. I realise that across the whole of the motu there will be many, many a story like this, but she is a māmā with a new baby, trying to feed her baby on her own, and she was just kicked out of her whare, her rental, by a reasonable person. When I hear comments like, “Well, you know, it’s just mums and dads that are landlords”, and then I hear the word “market”, that’s a very different concept and a different layer to understand landlords and what landlords can do.

In my experience, landlords make it tough, and I’ll use this expression “RWB”, which means “renting while brown”—that’s tough. White privilege is an issue for brown folk, and I want to make these statements, and I know they might disturb some in the House, but it has to be understood, because the reality of just trying to get a rental property is that you’ve got to ring up and put on your Pākehā voice. Now, many Pākehā may not actually get that, but it is true, and it is real. Unless you understand that, you’re going to stand and take a speech and talk about it like—because you are protected by the colour of your skin. Unless you understand that, you won’t think about it, you won’t understand it, and you will not describe it in the way in which it needs to be described.

To the bill: does this bill help any of that? Not in a single way. When the Minister talked about mōkai, in my view, I kept hearing, I kept acknowledging, the whole slave concept and thinking that he has used that word in the worst possible way—in the worst possible way. When the bill attempts to touch on and address our whānau that are being harmed, that violence is the issue, I don’t trust that. It is an issue, but I don’t trust that it is understood and appreciated in this bill in a real and genuine and enduring way.

I’ve written this whole speech, but I haven’t really referred to it much, so I’m just going to keep going.

Tamatha Paul: It is the truth, though.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Yeah. It’s easier and simpler to just talk about the reality of this situation, because without it, then we are all “speeching” and therefore we don’t get to the heart of the matter. Renting while brown is true, right? Trying to buy a house, trying to buy your first house—how impossible is that when you’re just renting while brown, or working while brown, or driving while brown?

Anyway, these are my comments. I do hope that the House starts to appreciate—those who would not necessarily do so—the points that I’m making. White privilege is a thing. It’s something we have to work against all the time; though I love my brownness, just by the way. Kia ora tātou.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill and the ability in this bill for landlords to evict tenants with basically no good reason just shows that this is a Government that treats housing as a game of Monopoly that allows people to make a huge profit and treat it like a game instead of treating housing as a human right, and for people to be able to put roots down in the communities that they belong to.

Let’s make no mistake: all the glibness and all the bumper stickers from the previous Government speakers hide the fact that this bill will actually lead to greater homelessness. It will lead to precarity for renters and hardship, and people being discriminated against for who they are when they’re simply trying to find a home to live in. Tamatha Paul already spoke about how this bill has no evidential basis, and I think it really says a lot about some of the previous speakers, who have no real connections serving our people who are on the street, living in cars, living in motels—they are turning their backs on them now that they get to these positions of power.

Some of us have directly worked with the communities affected by this bill. We have seen firsthand how people are being discriminated against, in real time—people who are trying to find a home, people who are afraid to raise legitimate issues with the landlords out of fear that they will be retaliated against, people who have lost their tenancies because of the policy that is being reintroduced from back in the day, with the intergenerational impacts that having no-cause evictions causes to them and their communities, and how it locks them into poverty because it pushes them into homelessness, it pushes them into emergency housing, and it pushes them into getting into debt, just because they were trying to find a home to live in.

It’s really clear when we hear the language that has been spoken from the Government members around tenants—talking about risky tenants but without actually explaining to us who those risky tenants are—that they have no regard for the communities that have been left behind. I think that when they’re saying, “risky tenants”, they mean people in poverty, they mean disabled people, they mean people who have ill mental health, they mean brown people—that is actually what they mean when they say, “risky tenants”. They mean people who have been left behind by successive Governments, the people whom we should actually be serving, the people who deserve a home.

This bill will actually not lead to greater housing access for people, especially when this Government is gutting Kāinga Ora’s build programme. This is a Government that is literally building less public housing than previous Governments. How are we to believe that this Government has any intent to provide housing for the people that they are calling “risky”, who they can’t even name because they’re too scared of actually acknowledging the communities that they’re turning their backs on? We know that this bill is part of a bigger picture to serve the property developers that they actually serve rather than the communities on the ground who are experiencing the housing crisis at a more disproportionate rate than most.

I don’t want to hear MPs coming up and speaking about their own experiences as a tenant while we’re on these privileged salaries, while we’re privileged and speaking in this place. How out of touch can these MPs be, trying to relate their experiences of renting as privileged MPs when they’re pushing a bill that will actually disempower and disenfranchise low-income communities? [Interruption] And their fake outrage over these comments won’t hide the fact that this is the truth: a privileged bunch of people who are serving property developers and making the housing crisis worse.

No-cause evictions will increase homelessness, no-cause evictions will lead to more people in emergency housing, no-cause evictions will widen the gap between Māori and the rest of us and will be a breach of Te Tiriti obligations by the Crown by failing to provide housing for people. Let’s make it clear: the market will not fix the housing crisis, and no amount of fairytales will make that true. We should have a Government that is committed to building enough public housing so that no one lives in motels. We should have a Government that doesn’t allow landlords to raise rents way above inflation, because rents are one of the driving factors when it comes to inflation; they’re one of the driving factors when it comes to the cost of living crisis, actually, and the inequality crisis, because the rich are getting richer and this Government is enabling the poor to get poorer by gutting benefit increases, by enabling people to more easily become homeless.

The Greens will continue fighting against this Government’s housing crisis agenda that will only serve property developers, and we will not buy any of this fake outrage as the Government and their friends benefit from the policies that will lead to more hardship.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I stand in support of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. The Government’s amendments, alongside the introduction of interest deductibility, are aimed at increasing housing supply in rental properties by giving landlords the confidence to enter or to re-enter the private rental market. The confidence is brought about by one part of the amendments which has to do with reintroducing landlords’ ability to give notice to end a fixed-term tenancy at the end of that fixed term. It also provides for a 90-day, no-cause termination for periodic tenancies, where the landlord is not required to provide an explanation or reasons for that termination.

This part of the amendment bill is a part of the puzzle for New Zealand to have increased housing supply and increased affordability. Another part of that puzzle is the fast-track consenting process. There are many parts to the puzzle that we all have to deal with, which is to make housing more affordable and more available to everyone, and which is, I think, in everyone’s interests and desire to do.

There has been a big mention about the assumption that landlords are going to kick tenants out for no good reason. I think that we, as members of this House, bear a big responsibility as to how we send a message to the public who are out there and who hear us and listen to us speak, and if they hear the words “landlords will start kicking tenants out for no good reason”, I think that poses a very large—it inflames fear needlessly. I would like to just say that as much as there may be bad landlords, for sure—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: There are.

PAULO GARCIA: —yes; I’m not saying that there aren’t—there are surely, as everyone would agree, bad tenants, as well. We cannot look at the puzzle as just landlords being the evil side of this housing equation. The fact is that landlords who have good tenants will hold on and care for those tenants for as long as they can; in fact, that’s a real challenge anywhere in the world. I just wanted to be able to present that aspect of this debate, because I think that sometimes there can be a tendency to just roll over the good things, as well.

I’d also just highlight the point that regarding the pets portion of this bill, Women’s Refuge at some point had a research study done that showed that the fear of losing pets and not being able to find an alternative rental for, mostly, women who are in troubled and violent family situations is a real thing that prevents them from making the move to leave. The pet provisions aren’t just “fluff”. I think that the pet provisions are there specifically to address a portion where Kiwis who have learnt to love their pets as part of their families have a better chance at finding a different place to live. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): We’ve heard from the Government MPs. We’ve learnt a lot about their pets today. I think Laura McClure has two cats and one dog, Tanya Unkovich has a blind cat, and Tama Potaka has a cat with three legs, but we did not hear much from the Government MPs about the tenants and the impact of this legislation on the tenants. I think the point was well made by Green MP Tamatha Paul that over a million New Zealanders are renting and this legislation has a huge impact and huge implications for them.

The other point made by Tamatha, which I think is a point fairly made, is that many outside of this House are questioning the motivation for the Government to push through with this legislation and whether or not there is any correlation between them being so willing to put this bill on the Table and the place from which some of the political donations came. Now, I’m questioning that, but certainly people on the outside of this House are.

Hon Mark Patterson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This was traversed when the previous Speaker was in the Chair early in this debate. There were some allegations of impropriety on this side of the House which we take offence to. The member has skirted around it a little bit but she’s been very clear on what she’s implied, and we do take offence to that.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Mr Speaker, there are some areas of this bill that we do support, and that has been traversed by the previous Labour speaker, Kieran McAnulty, but fundamentally there is no way that we can support this bill when this bill is reintroducing the 90-day, no-cause termination of tenancy provision. Those that are on the select committee know that the vast majority of submitters were opposed to this bill and that that particular provision was brought up time and time again.

The Government has said that this will enable or encourage there to be more of a supply of rental properties. That’s simply not the case. The Government has been told what the risks are to reintroducing this provision and has chosen to ignore the risks that have been laid out in front of them. I’m going to remind the Government so that they know that when they vote for this bill again, they are voting for it despite the areas of concern that have been raised by credible organisations and individuals, people like the Salvation Army, the Wellington Coalition for Housing and others. People like that have brought these issues to the attention of the Government and when they vote for it, they have to know that they are ignoring all of that.

It was raised that there are natural justice issues with having the 90-day, no-cause termination of tenancy provision. A tenant with their family—maybe they’re an individual; they may have kids and they’re living in a house and then all of a sudden, with no reason, “You need to get out.” What concerns me is that I was asking officials whether or not they had any information to provide to the select committee on how long it actually takes to get another rental property, particularly in the major centres around the country. Would they even be able to secure another rental property within three months? There was no information available to be given to the select committee, so we don’t even know whether or not that is a fair or reasonable period of time for people to be able to find alternative accommodation.

I’ve been an electorate MP for the better part of 16 years, and I have had people from my electorate come into the office freaking out, literally, because their tenancy has ended and they cannot find another rental property. I have had constituents come into my office who had ended up in emergency accommodation because they could not find an alternative rental property, and now here we are reintroducing this provision which does not provide the security of housing that we as parliamentarians and politicians should be providing to our constituents.

There was concern raised by a number of submitters about the possibility of abuse by landlords here, and I’m going to add to what Paulo Garcia said. Actually, the vast majority of landlords are good landlords. There are some that are not. The Property Investors Federation, who actually were supportive of this bill, said during their submission, or acknowledged, that the vast majority of tenants are good tenants. Then there are a few that are not. What we’re concerned about is the possibility that this particular provision could lead to abuse of power.

My concern, which was reiterated by submitters, is that vulnerable families or individuals living in rental properties who perhaps are not system savvy, or don’t have the confidence to be able to take up the retaliatory provision in this bill and to go head to head against their landlord by taking them to the tribunal, are at risk. What if their home does not meet the Healthy Homes Standards and they complain to their landlord and then the landlord just decides the tenant is too hard work, and so they just utilise the provision of the 90-day, no-cause termination clause? Is that tenant necessarily going to take that landlord to Tenancy Tribunal because they deem that to be retaliatory? Well, actually, if I think about my Pacific community, the vast majority would not, and that puts them at risk.

I think the other thing that that side of the House failed to recognise is the impact that insecure housing—and the potential that this bill will lead to that—has on social stability overall. When you do not have secure housing, then you are more likely to have precarious employment.

When you do not have secure housing, then you are more likely to have insecure, unstable education. I thought that side of the House cared about kids showing up to school, but it seems they don’t. When you don’t have secure housing, then that has an impact on the stability of the family and the lifestyle and everything that goes around that. So we have fundamentally made very clear, as have the submitters, that we can’t support the bill, in particular because of this particular provision.

There were some things we could agree on with some of the submitters who actually supported this bill. One of those things was the need for the Tenancy Tribunal to be bolstered and supported to work faster, to be able to work more effectively and at pace to the benefit of both the landlord and the tenant. That is currently not the case. In many ways, I wonder whether that has led to this particular provision.

If the Tenancy Tribunal was resourced effectively and was able to be responsive and work at pace, then would we be here? I’m not entirely sure that we would, and so I think that the Government, whilst they’re in office—which, hopefully, isn’t for too much longer—need to look at that and take that seriously as an area that could actually benefit both landlords and tenants.

I want to go back to the fact that this bill is supposed to lead towards a greater supply of rental housing, and I’m just going to reiterate and make sure it’s on record that this bill will not lead to that, nor will any of the other actions that the Government are taking. We’re not going to end up with more housing when the Government makes the decision to pause the build of Kāinga Ora housing. We’re not going to end up with more housing when we’ve lost 10,000 jobs in the building and construction industry, given that infrastructure and building projects has been cancelled and we’ve got a whole lot of New Zealanders that we invested in and we trained up to be tradies that are travelling over to Australia to use their skills now because this Government have not created the environment in which they can work here. We are not going to end up with more housing when the Government decides to cut $1.5 billion from Kāinga Ora but puts $2.9 billion into tax breaks for landlords.

Primarily, of course we can’t support this bill. The bigger picture and the bigger issue is we have major concerns about this Government’s policy agenda and programme when it comes to housing and ensuring that New Zealanders are housed, and their track record to date is absolutely abysmal.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Just for the awareness of the House around the point of order raised by the Hon Mark Patterson, if I can bring members’ attention to Speakers’ ruling 55/4 and 55/5. I’ll be listening carefully, but if there are other concerns that are raised in that nature, I would ask members to reflect on those two Speakers’ rulings before taking a point of order.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Mr Speaker, thank you for that ruling. We just have to ask ourselves why they are throwing the dirt over this side of the House, given their track record. What was their track record? Let me remind you—let me remind you—that their track record was $180 rent increases across the country during the last term of the Labour Government; $180 rent increases, per week. That’s how much rents went up. How much did interest rates go up? I think they went from somewhere like 2.5 percent to about 7 percent, and I think they kept going up. The official cash rate went up about 12 times—bang, bang, bang—and they have the temerity to turn up and lecture us about them supposedly being the champion of tenants, when tenants had to endure some of the steepest—steepest—rent increases in the history of this country, under their tenure; interest rates and the impact that that had on homeowners as well.

We’ve heard today that they’ve tried to say there is a fallacy that the National Party and ACT and New Zealand First are trying to perpetuate that we’re a country of mum and dad landlords—you know, that’s a made up National Party kind of marketing strategy, I think someone said. Well, guess what? We are a country of mum and dad landlords. And how do we know that? The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, a Government department, during their tenure, came out with the data, only a couple of years ago, that said 80 percent of landlords own just one property—80 percent of landlords own just one property in New Zealand. We are a country of mum and dad landlords, and don’t we want to keep mum and dad landlords? Aren’t they the best landlords? And don’t they want to keep their tenants—don’t they want to keep their tenants?

This is about encouraging the mum and dad landlords, the nanas and pops, to stay in the market. Don’t keep your money in the bank, don’t put your money in the sharemarket, don’t put your money in a commercial property syndication; put it into residential housing and support New Zealanders getting into housing. That’s what we want to do. We also want tenants to have the opportunity to turn up to an interview and get that property, and that will only happen, in many cases, if the landlords have the comfort that they can have that tenant in and know that a good tenant will be rewarded but a bad tenant—a bad, bad, bad tenant—will have to go through a long-lived policy that was under the Labour Government previously, under successive Labour Governments, with the 90-day no-cause termination fee. This is not something we’re inventing; we’re bringing it back—these guys were defending it only two or three years ago.

This is about us shoring up the property market, and, man, have we got a track record in this already—brightline test: reducing the brightline test from 10 years to two. Haven’t we got the mortgage interest deductibility—haven’t we returned that? That goes back to 100 percent in the financial year 2025-26. Fast-tracking: how many houses are we building in the fast-tracking schedule? Fifty-five thousand, was it? Fifty-five thousand on the schedule. Interest rates falling, and what will happen on 27 November—what will happen on 27 November? We don’t know; we don’t know, but we know it’s heading in the right direction—we know it’s heading in the right direction—and the introduction of pet bonds.

This is a great day for renters. This is a Government that is pro-tenant, pro-renters. This is a Government that is giving renters, who might not have had a chance because their landlords were a bit scared to take them on, the chance to get into that first rental property, that second rental property. This is keeping the nanas and pops, the mums and dads in the market. They’re our best landlords, and this will attract others to put their capital into the residential property scene instead of in the bank, instead of in property syndications, and instead of the sharemarket. This is a great day—this is a great day—for the property sector, this is a great day for the tenant, this is a great day for small business, and this is a great day for this Government. I commend the bill.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Housing security is under threat when National is in Government. New Zealand’s 1.7 million renters are the losers out of this bill; mega landlords are the winners. If that member Cameron Brewer was to be believed, then National’s economic plan depends on property speculation alone. The only plan that we’ve heard in this debate for the housing market is to heat it right on up so that landlords can make their gains on property. There is no plan for extra houses to be built, no additional homes for the families who need them—just pump those prices higher.

Chris Bishop also has been claiming in this debate that no-cause evictions were a pro-tenant move, but we all remember him being called out on that in the reporting, which found that when he said that front-line workers were calling for this when they were working with homeless communities, that wasn’t actually true and those claims hadn’t been made by people. This was, in fact, an ideological stunt from the National Party to message straight to the landlords who support them that they are on their side, and under them, tenants will get a harder, rougher ride.

This bill brings in changes that bring back 90-day no-cause evictions. We all know that it will be harder for tenants to request that fix-up to the shower. It will be harder for the tenants who are parents to make sure that the kids have repairs to their windows and important things like insulation for their roofs. And it will be harder for those people who are locked into cycles of intergenerational renting now. This Government’s policies will not help those families. It will not help the most vulnerable people in New Zealand who now will never ever realise the dream of homeownership that all Kiwis should be entitled to. This bill is a shame.

This change means that renters can be evicted now and not even know why. They will never be told by their landlords what has gone wrong in those 90-day periods. They will never be able to dispute it. They will never be able to claim back the extra costs that it costs to move. They will never be able to claim back for the time it takes to find another home. They will never be able to not bear the costs of trying to find their children a new school and new sports arrangements for Saturday mornings—for the loss that it costs to families who relocate from a community they have invested in. This not only costs renters but it costs the entire community, because it means that we have another generation of people who face a level of precariousness that this country should never accept.

In communities like the one I represent in Manurewa, transience is the game. We have entire neighbourhoods of people who have not lived there for more than six months. That feels hard. It feels hard to walk around streets where people don’t know each other, where they don’t have a connection to the place or to each other, where relatives live far away from them, and where their support networks are not there and the support services that are in those communities are stretched to breaking point.

I want to talk about the effect that this will have on tenants in the long term, because we know that reporting has unpicked the claims that the Government has made about flexibility in the market and that, in fact, this will have a chilling effect on tenants who want to get things fixed. There are already wet, unsafe homes for families, and 12,000 building and construction jobs since election day have gone. If you were trying to get something fixed up in this market, you certainly won’t be able to now, even if you’re a tenant with a landlord who wants to help you get it fixed. Because it is up to them if they want to help you.

When the Minister Tama Potaka introduced this bill, he talked about mōkai. As Mariameno Kapa-Kingi said, the meaning of “mōkai” is not just “pet”. The best translation for it is “serf”—someone indentured who lives on their lord’s land. Is this the kind of future that we are creating for renters in this country, where they are dependent on someone so high above them who will always own the land and always own the homes, and they will never be able to enjoy not only the wealth but the security that comes with owning your own home?

We are telling parents that they are going to be locked out of homeownership and will never ever be able to have the kind of security that we wanted for them a generation ago. I say “we” because both major parties in this House, until now, have been committed to Kiwis getting into their own homes. We heard from that member who has just resumed his seat that he is for the party of mum and dad landlords. Now, that’s the rhetoric. It’s not about homeownership in this country any more, and it couldn’t be clearer with this bill. National will prioritise the rights of landlords over renters and over ordinary homeowners. I cannot commend this bill to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call in this debate and to actually correct some of the fallacies that we’ve been hearing from the other side of the House, because we’ve heard crocodile tears across the board. I understand that it’s hard, when you’ve been in Government and you’ve seen your policies being repealed—you put policies in place that you thought were the right, the best, solution. Clearly, though, all we need to do, despite the most brilliant speech you might hear from the other side of the House, is look at the facts, and the facts quite clearly show us that while the Labour Party was in Government, the average rental increase per week was $170 over that period—$170. Hard-working Kiwis were having to pay that much extra out of their pay cheque every week to cover the cost increase.

Alongside that, those Opposition members, when in Government, made many changes to the residential tenancy requirements. We just heard from the last speaker, Arena Williams, about wet, damp homes. Well, they brought in the healthy homes legislation, so those issues should have been addressed. Clearly, that hasn’t been effective. We saw the changes around the 90-day notice periods and the fixed tenancy periods, and yet we look at the social housing wait-list and you can see that was an utter failure. That social housing wait-list quadrupled while Labour was in Government. How can anyone on that side say that their residential tenancy policies were a success? They clearly failed.

I know that can be hard to accept but it would be, I think, a measure of the Opposition if someone was to stand up over there and say, “Look, we didn’t quite get it right. We’re not sure if you will have it right, but we’re going to support trying something different, because what we did did not work.” Yet I haven’t heard that from a single member of the Opposition. We’ve heard all sorts of outrageous claims about how terrible this will be and what might go wrong, but the reality is, looking at those simple statistics, that we saw thousands more Kiwis in emergency housing, 20,000 extra Kiwis on the social housing wait-list, from 7,000 to 27,000—a quadrupling over their time in Government. [Interruption] And we’re hearing all this interjection right now. The truth can be hard to accept.

We need to put Kiwis first and that is what this Government is doing with these changes to enable tenants to have an opportunity to get into a property they might not otherwise get if the landlord was not prepared to take a risk. We see landlords now that will come back into the market and will be prepared to put their asset up for rent—an asset that they have worked hard to earn their whole life, to finally buy a rental property to try and get a bit of extra investment, and put that back into the market now with these changes. Despite all the rhetoric from the other side, their attempts simply failed. This bill, I am confident, will improve the situation here in New Zealand and I am very much pleased to see it progressing through the House. I think it is a great day for tenants and landlords in New Zealand. Thank you.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Toitū te Tiriti. It’s amazing what you hear from the Government members in this Chamber this morning—a Government and a National Party that brought New Zealand to have the worst housing record in New Zealand history, a housing crisis that we still experience today, with the number of houses that they didn’t build. And they’re doing it again. They are taking this country backwards on housing. They haven’t built any houses.

Under Labour, we saw the largest public-housing build programme that this country has seen since the 1960s. I stand by that record. I stand by that record, because, on their record, not only did they not build houses, they sold off New Zealand State housing stock. They are shameless, and today they stand here wanting to be empathetic to renters. They want to be empathetic to renters. The truth is that all the National Party and this Government cares about is giving landlords a $2.9 billion tax break, looking after their mates, and looking after Philip Morris.

Let’s get real. Let’s look at the housing programme in Auckland. Let’s look at what Minister Potaka has done. I look across to the Government members from Auckland and I look at the Massey programme housing build that’s been put on hold. Why is that not being built any more? I look at Takanini. Those numbers of houses are in the dozens, my friend—that has been stopped. That is on your watch—that is on your Government’s watch. What about the houses that aren’t being built any more in Mount Roskill?

Rima Nakhle: What do you mean? They’re all building.

SHANAN HALBERT: They’re not all built. Fifty-two projects, 1,727 units, have been put under assessment under this Government—1,727 houses in Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland. I raise this because when we talk about this particular piece of legislation today, I just wonder what the heck National’s housing plan is, because all this is going to do is boot tenants out the door without any explanation. It’s going to increase the homelessness that we experience in our largest city in this country, that we’re already struggling with. What we need to do is build more homes.

The thing is, the member across the way talked about how many houses that fast track will build. Well, zero at the moment. They’ve stopped 1,700 in Auckland alone. How does that make sense—how does that make sense? The reality is, under this Government, they’re just looking after landlords. They actually don’t care about tenants—they don’t care about tenants. You know, it’s very clear, under this Government. The reality is that almost half of the people that need these homes—we’re still short 22,000 houses in this country—are Māori; 48 percent of people in need of housing in this country are Māori, and, under this Government, work has stopped.

They’ve sent all of those thousands of construction workers off to Australia—all of those construction workers—so how are we going to build houses in this country? This particular piece of legislation just makes it worse. It just takes us backwards on getting to where we need, which is building more houses; putting more people in warm, dry homes. This is an absolute shocker—absolute shocker—and I do not support this bill.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thanks, Mr Speaker. Look, it is a pleasure, actually, to stand in support of the second reading of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. There’s a couple of reasons in particular why it’s a pleasure for me today, even though I don’t have the pleasure of having been on the Social Services and Community Committee, which listened to the submissions on this bill. The reason is this. I’m not going to talk about pets. We’ve heard about that a lot, and I’m one of the people that don’t have a pet and don’t really—

Hon Member: Aw!

RIMA NAKHLE: Yes, we won’t get into that. What I am going to talk about is this. I’m going to talk about what Labour and the Opposition members are saying is the reason why they don’t support this bill—despite the really good points that this bill is raising—which is because of the 90-day, no-clause notice.

Now, I want to ask the House: what’s wrong with having a balance—what’s wrong with finding the balance between rights of the tenant and rights of the landlord? Do you know what? Absolutely, we need to make sure that we get the power balance right, because there can be an imbalance—I agree 100 percent. But, if we think about 90 days’ notice, let’s just say that I am a landlord and I say to someone on 7 April, “You’ve got 90 days’ notice.” From 7 April, we go to May, June, and July—that’s 90 days, from 7 April to 7 July. We’re not saying, “You’ve got two weeks.”; we’re not saying, “You’ve got one day.” There is a balance we’re trying to strike here.

There’s something that the Opposition members have failed to delve deeply into, and this is the sadness of it all: what about what we’re doing with respect to family violence? We’re removing the barriers to leaving unsafe situations by confirming that a tenant can leave a tenancy if their child or their dependant is in danger of domestic violence. That hasn’t been focused on, and it’s a shame that the Opposition has not focused on that, because people that are victims of family violence are actually the most vulnerable people. We commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the amendments recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee, by majority, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Contracts of Insurance Bill

Contracts of Insurance (Repeals and Amendments) Bill

Third Readings

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Contracts of Insurance Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I move, That the Contracts of Insurance Bill and the Contracts of Insurance (Repeals and Amendments) Bill be now read a third time.

I am pleased to stand before the House today for the third reading of the Contracts of Insurance Bill. It has been a long time in the making and it is an exciting day. Six years of waiting has finally come to fruition, and it’s great to be standing here to be able to deliver this outcome for the industry and for policyholders across New Zealand.

This bill, once passed, will mark a turning point for New Zealand’s insurance landscape, modernising and bringing clarity and fairness to a sector that touches the lives of nearly every New Zealander. Today, we present a bill that addresses longstanding concerns with our insurance law. Our current insurance legislation has laws that root back over a century and are spread across six different Acts. This bill creates a modern, unified framework designed for today’s consumers, businesses, and insurers. In doing so, we are creating an insurance sector that can operate with confidence, transparency, and accountability.

I want to first of all thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their diligent work on this bill. I want to especially congratulate and thank the chair, Stuart Smith, and members of the committee, who have refined and improved the bill. Thank you also to the many people who submitted at the select committee stage. This includes consumer advocates, industry representatives, and legal experts, whose insights have been invaluable in shaping this legislation. The committee’s recommendations have strengthened the bill considerably, addressing key concerns such as the use of genetic testing information and updating certain technical provisions.

One of the key or most significant changes the bill makes relates to disclosure of duties. Under existing law, consumers must disclose any information that might influence a “prudent insurer”, an ill-defined standard that has led to unintended and often harsh outcomes. The bill now introduces a new standard requiring consumers simply to take reasonable care not to misrepresent information. This is a more balanced requirement that respects the rights of policyholders, while allowing insurers to make informed underwriting decisions. For businesses, who face different and more complex insurance needs, the bill introduces a fair presentation of risk standard, aligning with best practices internationally and providing a more structured approach for commercial insurance policies. These changes aim to reduce the likelihood of claims being denied due to misunderstandings or unintentional non-disclosure.

Insurers will also now have to set proportionate remedies to respond to any breaches of disclosure obligations, depending on the circumstances. If a policyholder makes a minor or honest mistake, insurers can no longer void the contract, but must respond in a way that fairly represents the nature of the error. This creates a fairer environment for consumers while ensuring that insurers can better manage risks appropriately.

Another noteworthy addition to the bill is the changes to account for genetic testing. Following select committee submissions, the bill has been updated to safeguard Kiwis’ access to life and health insurance if they’ve taken out a genetic test. It should be noted that genetic testing is a highly valuable emerging technology that can unlock significant health and productivity benefits. In many cases, we may wish to encourage Kiwis to take genetic tests to allow them to benefit from early disease detection, more precise diagnoses, and targeted treatments. However, there are overseas examples of insurers limiting cover or increasing the cost of premiums due to genetic testing results. While we do not have evidence that this is routinely happening in New Zealand, the bill now includes provisions which mean that the Government can, if needed in the future, regulate the use of genetic testing results by insurers.

By adopting this flexible regulatory approach, we are not locking ourselves into rigid legislation that may become outdated as science advances. This approach allows us to keep pace with the rapid developments in genetics and to adapt our protections, as needed. Canada and Australia have adopted similar approaches, and these changes bring New Zealand more closely in line with international best practice. I want to thank those who brought this issue to the committee. It was a matter that we had to deal with during the process, and I think it’s a great outcome.

Another important component of this bill is that for the first time, insurance policies must be settled within a reasonable time. Insurance exists to protect people when they need it most, and ensuring timely payments is central to that purpose. The bill does not impose a rigid time frame, recognising what is reasonable varies in the size and complexity of the claim. This flexibility is essential, particularly during times of major crises, when large volumes of claims may strain resources. Instead, the bill relies on the principles of fairness and accountability. I’d say to many people who might be listening that the courts have the ability to decide what is fair in the circumstances. Like other changes, this move brings New Zealand in line with our international partners.

Transparency is a guiding principle of this bill. Insurance policies are often technical and difficult for consumers to navigate. Unlike many jurisdictions, New Zealand has not had specified legal requirements about the presentation of policy by insurance companies, but this bill amends that. Insurers will now be required to write and present contracts in plain terms. This is about empowering consumers, providing them with the tools to understand, compare, and select policies that best meet their needs.

Creating a fair and stable insurance market means balancing consumer protections with the practical needs of insurers. While the bill includes strong consumer protections, it also acknowledges the importance of stability for insurers. For example, broad exclusions for insurance contracts under the Fair Trading Act’s unfair contract terms regime remain in place. This decision is about protecting the ability of insurers to price their risks accurately, avoiding the potential for premium increases that could limit access to coverage for consumers.

In conclusion, the Contracts of Insurance Bill represents a landmark moment for New Zealand’s insurance law. It reflects six long years of consultation, numerous reviews, and the input of numerous stakeholders. This bill is a testament to this Government’s commitment to modernise our laws and create a fair, transparent, and robust insurance market. I look forward to seeing the positive impact this bill will have on everyone, particularly New Zealand, as they go and get new policies. I am proud to commend the Contracts of Insurance Bill to the House for its final reading.

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

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take my final call in the debate and the work of Parliament on the Contracts of Insurance Bill, or the two bills that it has now been split into. I want to begin my contribution by acknowledging the work of this Minister and also the previous Labour Ministers who have worked for a long time on a very complex piece of law that, as the Minister says, stretches back many, many decades in New Zealand’s legal history, and this is the first time that it will be consolidated in this way. For that, we can all celebrate because Parliament should be interested in the clarification of this law so that it is clear and also consistent for the consumers who rely on Parliament to set the tone in a law governed, generally, by contracts between contracting parties with very different amounts of power in the negotiation as to what the contractual terms will be. That is a good thing.

What we cannot accept here are two changes, in particular—which would remove key advances for consumers—from the time when this was presented in more general terms to Cabinet, to now, when the Finance and Expenditure Committee has given it a thorough going over and, essentially, has poked holes in a net of protections which were designed to help the little guy in the situation where different groups of insurance consumers around New Zealand were getting different deals from their insurers about the same kinds of issues, whether that’s their home insurance, their car insurance, or their life insurance. It’s right to put on record that those two things—which we cannot accept—really come down to timing and delay, and the provisions around when insurers are required to pay out to consumers in their arrangements.

Those will be a small group of people and not very often. Not every year will New Zealand have the kinds of big disaster events which create huge delay for consumers. There won’t be thousands and thousands of people affected by that in those events, but there will be some people who are affected very, very deeply, and this is a change which has been made since Cabinet considered it which will significantly impact their rights to be able to receive payouts for their insurance and to have their claims advanced in a timely way. It will, essentially, go back to the position that it was in prior to when this legislation was being drafted, where it was all down to the insurers and it’s down to the goodwill of those providers to pay out quickly, and we know that in New Zealand’s small market, that does not happen all the time.

The second issue is the change—and the Minister quite rightly points out that a positive change overall is that, now, this law consolidates the market practice currently. What insurers do now, generally, in the New Zealand market is that they won’t void an entire claim because of a mistake, and that’s a great position for the law to be in. It’s really important that we acknowledge that insurance contracts are contracts of the utmost good faith and that has always required insurers to approach things with fair-mindedness, and that will often mean that for someone who has made a mistake without knowledge and intent of the nature of the mistake that they’re making, their entire claim won’t be voided and, therefore, not paid out. That’s a really important point of established law already.

What this legislation had the opportunity to do was to make it very clear that where someone like me, a policyholder, had made a disclosure that was deliberately fraudulent and I had made a claim where I knew that I was going to receive a benefit—in this case, a contract for insurance that I wasn’t entitled to—and that that would result in me getting payouts that I certainly wasn’t entitled to but I knew that it would result in that, then that was the thing that insurers would be able to rely on and not pay out for. That’s a really clear standard. Many of our laws rely on that fraudulent standard, and that deceit with a document or a statement that you have made is a really important standard.

Now we’ve gone back to what is quite unclear in the law. It’s the dishonesty standard, and whose dishonesty—objective or subjective dishonesty. This was all part of a pretty extensive committee stage where we didn’t advance what was intended here by Parliament. It is a shame because it leaves what is otherwise a really useful piece of law to consolidate the position in New Zealand, which is now back at square one, where a lot of the power is in the insurer’s hands to litigate these issues and we’re back to a position where the consumer doesn’t have the protection that they could have and should have had.

At the risk of also overstressing the importance of the genetic testing changes here—because this is a real once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to consolidate insurance law generally—genetic testing is the issue now, but we do not know how it will develop over time, and we do not know whether we will need extra legislation to deal with problems that arise in 10 or 20 years.

I would like to put on record Labour’s very, very tentative support at the committee stage for the regulations, which were not permissive. They required the Minister to think very carefully and use a set of criteria if he were to introduce regulations which would permit the use of genetic-testing information because we agree that this is an important emerging technology. We want New Zealanders to be able to use it, and we do not want them to be discouraged because their insurers would have access to that information and might deny them cover. It’s also thinking about the rights of vulnerable patients in this area. It’s communities of patients who will be affected by this; not just individuals. There are certain diseases and certain genetic conditions which will have the effect of people not being able to get insurance at all in some jurisdictions, and for that we’d want to be very careful about the way that information was used.

Since the committee’s deliberations, Australia has announced its intention to, effectively, ban the use of genetic testing by insurers and consider that after a five-year period. We think that’s materially irrelevant to the decision of the Minister here. I asked him at the committee stage whether he would consider taking out what the committee had recommended because of that, and he said no. I want to make it clear that when he uses his power—which he is required to under this legislation—to enact the regulations within two years and Cabinet needs to consider it again, a permissive approach will be roundly resisted by the sector of patients who are particularly interested in this and by the Labour Party members. It will be a headache for the Minister of Health if there is a permissive approach taken. That was certainly not the intent of the select committee at the time, and it was not the intent of Labour when it supported those regulation-making powers at the committee stage. However, we do agree that it’s really important to have something in our law that deals with this important issue, and it wouldn’t be good for New Zealand to have no protections whatsoever.

In conclusion, this is a useful way to advance New Zealand’s law and consolidate it here in legislation, but it is a missed opportunity to protect the consumers that it was all framed around when Labour began work on this and as has been framed in the Minister’s comments publicly and in the media. Because he has continuously said to this House and to the media that the legislation is about empowering consumers, the law should be read in that way, and it should be read as a consolidation of the consumer rights that now make up the market practice in insurance in New Zealand. Consumers should be able to hear the Minister’s comments when he says that this is about protecting their interests and have some confidence that this legislation advances that.

We do not support it, ultimately. We will not be voting for it, because we think it’s a missed opportunity to have fleshed out and developed those protections for consumers that New Zealanders really need, especially in our small insurance market. We think the process which this legislation has gone through has fallen short and it has not meant that consumers have had the opportunity to be able to advocate for the changes that they need in the face of reorganised submissions from the insurance industry, and for that reason, we’ll be voting against it.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on what is now two bills, the Contracts of Insurance Bill as well as the Contracts of Insurance (Repeals and Amendments) Bill. Like the previous speaker Arena Williams, the Green Party would have supported this legislation should our amendments have been accepted by the Minister. Unfortunately, our amendments were not accepted by the Minister, and so we will not be supporting this legislation. However, I will speak on some of that later.

In saying that, this is legislation that is a long time coming. It has been in the works by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and by various interested groups for a number of years, and it was introduced by the previous Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, who also took part in a lot of the work that was done during the committee stages as well. It is incredibly comprehensive legislation and it does modernise areas in terms of insurance contracts in Aotearoa New Zealand.

There are definitely elements of this legislation that the Green Party believes are going to be good for consumers and for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand, one of which is having a clear separation between what is considered a consumer contract and a non-consumer contract. I think that level of clarity and, particularly, some of the structure and the boundaries and the scope that is being placed within that will, hopefully, be able to give reassurances to personal contracts that people tend to have, whether it is a contract for health insurance, life insurance, contents insurance, etc., etc.

Other than that, there are also other things that are considered to be an improvement, and one of the areas that I wanted to mention is around proportional remedies, which is outlined in Schedule 2, at clause 5. I think in this particular case, not having a contract being declared void should there be an error or should there be something that was not declared previously would also mean that it provides more reassurance, and it’s going to be better for the consumers in terms of that proportionality.

However, there are a number of areas that the Green Party feels are lacking in this particular bill, and one of them is laid out in clause 14 under Part 2. This is something that we discussed quite a bit during the committee stage, but then could not come to an agreement on it, and I think both the Green Party as well as the Labour Party have tabled amendments around the discussion of “fraudulently” versus “dishonestly”.

In our opinion, having the previous, original draft of this bill specifying “fraudulently” and then it being, in some ways, watered down to “dishonestly” does not provide the level of confidence from a consumer contract perspective that would allow people to be able to make those kinds of claims and not having insurance companies find ways to wriggle out of certain contractual agreements. As we can see, there is definitely a level of power imbalance between, particularly, consumer-based insurance contracts and also insurance companies, and to give you an example of that, one of the things that just occurred this last weekend was the fact that one of the tourists who was touring Aotearoa New Zealand, particularly in the Lakes District, just outside of Queenstown, had their vehicle washed away by a car and had some additional disputes with the particular rental company.

I think in those kinds of cases, it’s really easy, particularly if you are a tourist—and particularly if you are a tourist whose English is not your first language—to be coerced or to be threatened in a way by a particular insurance company or by a particular company on the basis of your insurance contract. I think that in those sorts of cases, having that extra level of consumer protection is really, really important, and I think that for here, having that wording being retained as “fraudulently” instead of “dishonestly” would really give the consumer just a little bit more reassurance. Unfortunately, this was one of the bottom lines for the Green Party to support this legislation, but our amendment was not supported.

A second part of this is around the genetic testing, which has been mentioned before. This is a serious concern for the Green Party as well, particularly when it comes to genetic testing and the dangers that this imposes to consumers. We are kind of disappointed with the fact that the select committee sort of made some recommendations, but didn’t go to the extent that we would have liked to see it go. There was strong evidence from the submissions that we have seen that support such a prohibition or failing to implement this, in favour of having the regulation-making power and the responsibility that is being placed both in terms of the consumer but also in terms of the insurance companies when it comes to elements of genetic testing and the mandate to declare any sort of predisposed or pre-existing conditions.

When it comes to this particular legislation—and I mentioned this before in terms of this scenario—something else that we thought was actually quite important is laid out in the second bill, the Contracts of Insurance (Repeals and Amendments) Bill, particularly around clause 183, which is inserting a new Subpart 6B in Part 6 of the Financial Markets Conduct Act. This is around the fact that there is now a duty on insurance companies to be able to assist policyholders to understand insurance contracts.

However, one of the things I mentioned previously in the scenario with the tourists and the issues around some of the rental vehicle concerns is the fact that, although we do see that some of the policies can be simplified and be clear in terms of the language, the way that it is explained and the scenario that, potentially, it relates to still has some gaps in it, because, again, it is easier for an insurance company, or for anyone who is more at the corporate level, to make certain assumptions or use certain legalistic phrases to the contract holder or to the policyholder to say, “Well, that was X.” or “That was Y.”, for example—you know, “That was reckless. You were travelling somewhere that you shouldn’t be travelling.” Again, it is to do with when we are implementing this and operationalising it, it’s a certain level, and we will actually be really interested to see how that is going to be teased out and implemented properly, with the benefits to the consumers and with the reassurance that it will place on the consumers.

There are a couple of other things that I would like to touch on. One of the things that also has been sort of addressed in this particular legislation is around the brokers, and this is under Subpart 2 in Part 4 of the Contracts of Insurance Bill. We think that the balance when it comes to addressing the duties of the broker hasn’t really been balanced correctly, because in some ways there is still a lot of responsibility and accountability being placed on insurance companies. However, when we’re looking at brokers and the intermediaries, what was originally in the draft version and the MBIE report was not adopted in the latest version of the bill, and particularly, when it comes to where there are some precautions and there is some scope being placed around notification of insurance if the premium is not paid. However, we still don’t see that there’s the right balance and the right accountability being placed on the duties of a broker in the context of when they fail to make that premium payment when it is due and they fail to notify an insurance of the premium payment. So I think that is something that could have been further enhanced in this particular bill.

Finally, I still want to address the one of the core issues that we hear from the submitters around the changes to the Marine Insurance Act 1908. Understandably, we want to see this consolidation of the various insurance legislation, but then we have heard from submitters, particularly around the fact that, yes, having some changes to the warranty of seaworthiness when it comes to some of the repeal of the Marine Insurance Act is OK, but the fundamental change in clause 127 potentially will create further issues, and particularly when some of the marine insurance contract is on internationally standard terms such as the English law institute clauses. That level of clarity wasn’t really being teased out during the committee stages. It is also unfortunate that there are a number of other amendments that were placed during the committee stage that weren’t adopted. So, unfortunately, although some parts of this bill are good, the Green Party will not be supporting it.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak in support of the Contracts of Insurance Bill and its related bill, the Contracts of Insurance (Repeals and Amendments) Bill. This is an exciting day, I think, for New Zealanders interested in insurance and actually involved in the insurance sector. As has already been outlined by some previous speakers, this has been six years in development—six long years in development—and I do want to pay tribute to the current Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Hon Andrew Bayly, and also to Dr Duncan Webb, who also has played a role in getting this to us today.

This legislation is about modernising and making more simple the insurance settings in New Zealand and making sure we are in line with countries around the world that we do compare ourselves with: the UK, Canada, and Australia. It is about making policyholders understand in simpler language what their responsibilities are and also what the responsibilities of insurers are. Insurance is very important in our society, and whether that’s home and contents insurance, life insurance—all kinds of insurance—we want to make sure that it is easily understood, well understood, and that we have a set of laws that are modern and fit for purpose and that can actually serve New Zealanders well. So that’s what we’re doing with this legislation, and it’s very exciting to have it at its third reading, and hopefully, it will pass the House and we can have it in place to really be serving the needs of New Zealanders going forward.

As has already been outlined this morning, it does set to put in place some new duties, both on insurers and those companies providing insurance—so the insured and the insurers—and it does also put in place some new provisions, which I’m going to talk about in a minute, which are actually dealing with a new type of technology, or a new issue, that did come up during the select committee process. And so, overall, we think this is very worthwhile legislation to support. As I said, it is going to modernise the settings under which insurance operates in New Zealand.

As has already been outlined a little bit, one of the areas I was obviously particularly interested in is around genetic testing. Prior to coming to this place, I actually did work in the healthcare sector and have learnt quite a lot about genetic testing and genomics and the exciting potential it brings. Obviously, as has already been talked about, Subpart 4A in Part 3 of the Contracts of Insurance Bill does deal with the ability of the Minister to make some regulations actually dealing with excluding genetic tests from insurance, and why is that important? Well, I was actually lucky enough to be engaged with the stakeholders that bought these issues to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Again, it has been an area of interest for me for some time, and I was well engaged with them. I actually encouraged them to put this issue before the select committee because it is a really interesting emerging issue and it is really where science and insurance cross over. So, by putting in this provision, we’ve actually futureproofed New Zealand’s law.

As Arena Williams, the speaker from Labour, has said, Australia had been going through a debate about what they would do on this, and actually, we are in advance: if we pass this law shortly, we will actually have some legislation in place that can do what they have only announced they’re going to do. Again, I think the way the select committee dealt with this issue—and I know the Minister was very willing to engage on it. The solution we’ve come up with, I think, is the right way, because it’s going to allow some flexibility to deal with this issue, which is very important. I know that the stakeholders interested in genetic testing and genomics are going to be engaging again with the Minister and the Government on this issue once this legislation passes.

I’m going to leave my contribution there, and just say that this is important for the insurance sector, whether that’s those providing insurance or seeking insurance. This is very worthy legislation which modernises our approach, so we commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Just before I call the next speaker, could I note the ACT members are both wearing their badges. I’ll forgive the fact that we’re in a special sitting.

Todd Stephenson: I apologise, Mr Speaker. I rushed down from my office and forgot.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I didn’t want to interrupt your sterling words.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Contracts of Insurance Bill and Contracts of Insurance (Repeals and Amendments) Bill. One of the most important things in any relationship, particularly a business relationship, is trust. What I feel that this legislation will do is change the perception that is out there about insurance companies. In recent conversations with a colleague in the insurance industry, I asked her the question of what is that perception like. Is it getting better? Do people still have this “I hate insurance companies” kind of feeling? And she said, “Well, it depends on their experience with an insurance company. If it hasn’t been good, then it is not a good feeling. They still do not have the trust. If it has been that people have had a great experience or a good experience with insurance companies, then they do not have that negative belief about them.”

I’m very fortunate to have had good experiences with insurance companies, but it doesn’t stop me from being really vigilant when my bills come in. I make sure that I read through them. That is one of the reasons—I think I’ve already mentioned—that I won’t do a monthly payment. I’ll do it once a year so that it makes me stop and take a good look at what I’m signing up for. Unfortunately, a lot of people do not do that, particularly seniors. I have often mentioned my father ringing me to say, “Have you got a minute? Can you do me a favour?” I always knew that it was something about reading the fine print.

I feel that what this legislation will do is it will create transparency. It does outline so many things in the legislation in much more clarity. For example, there is clarity about what is a consumer and what is a non-consumer contract. It gives more clarity on disclosure. It gives more clarity on remedies. It specifically outlines—it has a range—if it’s something that is deliberate versus something that is intentional. You get slapped on the wrist, depending on what it is that you fall under in that scheme. What I’m really thrilled to see is that there is going to be a shift. It may take time, but at least we are making steps. I’m sure that, in time, as we go further down the road, there will be things that we will see that need to be changed, but it does take time, it does take testing, especially with consumers.

On that note, I will commend this legislation to the House. Part of me is kind of going, “Oh, it’s not going to appear on my weekly reading list.” It seems to have been on my list for many weeks. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou katoa. This is a brief contribution, so I want to start with this: necessity does not beget accessibility, and I think that is certainly true in this case. Insurance is a privilege. It’s such an expensive exercise. I was just listening to my colleague referring to either monthly payments or yearly payments. That scenario is an exception in what I know and understand in terms of insurance, whether it’s housing insurance, whether it’s contents and all of those things. Particularly for whānau Māori, it is not a common thing, unfortunately, though it is a necessary thing.

We note in the discussion the plain language and the importance of having plain language. I’m assuming that that means plain English language. I’m assuming that that is the case, which is an interesting point, isn’t it? If modernisation is true, then I would expect that in the modernisation concept, te reo Māori is another language that needs to be understood and embedded in the way in which we think about language. When I hear “plain language”, I’m hoping they’re suggesting te reo Māori is the plain language, but it is not. Then it’s another expression of the divide—

Ryan Hamilton: Oh!

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —which is about reo, which—and I can hear somebody moaning; maybe they need to exit the House. But, if you don’t know, then you simply don’t, and therefore you remain ignorant to what I’m expressing. But I’m happy to have the conversation outside this room. I want to make the point that, in this regard, if modernisation is true—and the kōhanga reo and the kura kaupapa mokopuna that are coming through would say to you, if you were to understand te reo Māori, that modernisation in te reo Māori is a real thing. Let’s really be real about modernisation.

This legislation promotes equality between—well, alignment maybe—insurance contracts and other contracts. We’re yet to see whether that is true, because, again, this legislation is relative. It’s relative to the whole—in fact, the previous speech that I took was about residential tax and all of those things. That was a big bill. You know, it’s not transformative, not in this instance. It doesn’t go far enough, really.

Do we feel better off because of this legislation? Not necessarily—not necessarily—so we don’t support it, despite the ideas or the ideology the opposite side of the House carries. It’s simply that they just do not know and understand our reality. Nō reira i runga i tēnā, tēnā tātou e te Pīka. [So, on that note, thank you, Mr Speaker.]

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking a second call on the Contracts of Insurance Bill and the Contracts of Insurance (Repeals and Amendments) Bill. I want to begin by acknowledging my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan, who has spoken for us on the first law and, I think, has outlined the nuances with which we’re traversing in this debate. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, the former Minister who started to work on this legislation last term.

This is legislation that I think exemplifies the outcomes and the changes that we see when a new Government comes in and gives the bills that a previous Government has been working on a new coat of paint—an ideological new coat of paint. We can see that in the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill—

Ryan Hamilton: Not relevant.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —and we’re seeing it in this one. They may think that it’s not relevant, but, actually, this bill did see changes as we’ve changed Governments, and we think that some of the changes tilt the balance beyond just modernising our insurance laws and protecting consumers, to actually undermining consumer rights. My colleague has already outlined the changes in the language in relation to dishonesty and fraudulency—and I see the member nodding, right? So, like, they do know; they’re just being glib—very much on brand for them. I think that submitters were quite outspoken about the challenges that changing that language creates.

Other members have spoken about how “dishonesty” is quite a catch-all phrase that seeks to undermine the rest of the language around, for example, taking reasonable care in terms of responsibility for policyholders. This will actually undermine consumers, and I want to put it into context, as well. While there may be many types of insurance that one can access, as we see more extreme weather events, more and more families will be in contact with insurance companies and will have to make claims and will have to navigate really complex situations, and often situations of distress. When people are in distress and they’re having to provide information, I think that is why, for example, this change of language would have better protected people, because it allowed, I guess, a more nuanced way of operating where if somebody provides information that is wrong and it wasn’t done with fraudulent intent but they may have been facing distress, the previous language would have been far better when it comes to supporting consumers.

Other members have talked about the genetic testing provisions and the many advocates who were calling for a prohibitionist lens as opposed to having a regulatory framework for it. I think it’s worth noting that the Albanese Government recently moved to create a total ban on the use of adverse genetic testing results in life insurance. Mr Speaker, I know we try to avoid straight-out reading, but because I am going to quote from a press release, I am just going to read a couple of the lines on the arguments for it. They were really clear that “Genetic testing can be a life-saving step for members of the community. This valuable technology supports medical practitioners to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a range of heritable conditions, cancer predisposition syndromes, and cancers. No Australian should be discouraged from undertaking testing out of fear it may impact their ability to get life insurance.”

I think that that sentiment should apply here, and for all the assurances we’ve been getting from, for example, the ACT Party, in a previous contribution, actually, there is no guarantee that a regulatory framework will actually end up tilting on the rights of consumers, because part of having regulatory frameworks is that, ultimately, the Government of the day can easily change them around if the entities in charge of supporting those regulatory frameworks are not adequately supported to ensure that that there is adequate consultation. We could end up with pretty perverse consequences, and individuals with resources can then lobby to get the outcomes that they want.

I want to note, as well, that when it comes to genetic testing and the changes in Australia, even the companies were in favour of taking a prohibitionist approach. I think that this should serve as a reminder that, actually, we can move to legislate on the side of consumers, and, yes, the companies can follow in line when politicians are brave enough to actually not allow things like genetic testing to, potentially, be used to undermine people who may have a family history of health conditions and who may be wanting to access this technology for lifesaving purposes. My colleague has touched on other nuances in this legislation. With that, I just wanted to say that we won’t be supporting this legislation further.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I rise to support the Contracts of Insurance Bill and Contracts of Insurance (Repeals and Amendments) Bill in this third reading, on what is a very momentous day for our insurance sector across New Zealand, both for the insurers and the consumers. As the Tukituki MP, insurance has been extremely important for many people across our electorate in the wake of Cyclone Gabrielle. I would just firstly like to acknowledge the Finance and Expenditure Committee members and our chair, Stuart Smith, for helping navigate this important legislation through, and, of course, Minister Bayly for all of his leadership and taking action as a Government to turn this legislation, which has been talked about and considered for over six years, finally into action.

Of course, for me as the Tukituki MP, we did see Cyclone Gabrielle cause a lot of devastation and a lot of people were impacted hugely, and insurance became extremely, extremely important. It is really, really important that we have robust, modern insurance laws. We can’t have people waiting unreasonable times for their insurance. A key feature of this legislation is the requirement of insurers to pay any sums due within a reasonable time. That is really a key part of this: when disaster strikes, people are going through so much emotion and stress and they really don’t want to be having to have the extra emotion and extra stress of having to wait for their insurance, because they just want certainty to be able to get on with their lives.

I just thought that it was quite important to acknowledge some of those communities that still are going through a very, very tough time in my electorate, and some still are dealing with insurance, and that is Pakowhai, Ōmahu, Waiōhiki, Twyford, Joll Road, Puketapu. We do have another member from our area in the House today, Katie Nimon, and we are still dealing with constituents who have insurance issues. Just the other day, I had a mother in my office who was struggling because they wanted to build back their house but the premium on the insurance was just so high. I was in Ōmahu the other day. There were many there that are underinsured. I was in Pakowhai the other day and they’re still waiting to go from a category 2C to a category 1, so many of them there are still facing insurance issues, insurance concerns. This bill is really going to help with creating more fairness, more transparency, which has been touched on a lot within this debate today.

It also shifts the responsibility on to the insurer, which is really, really important, because, you know, when disaster strikes, you don’t want to be thinking about, “Oh, is that insured? Did I cover that? What was involved?” It’s really, really important that there is a lot of clarity within the policies and that people have certainty and that they know exactly what is insured and what isn’t. Of course, it also prevents the denial of insurance. This was a little bit of an issue, and so it is important that we do have these robust laws, which can iron some of this out, and, you know, just ensure that customers aren’t second guessing what their insurance is and what’s covered and what’s not covered.

I think it’s important, as we adapt to climate change and the reality of more of these events happening in New Zealand, that we also need to adapt our insurance laws, and that is why today is very, very important for our insurance sector and for everyone across New Zealand. These changes will also have a really positive impact on our economic landscape in New Zealand, which, of course, is a key focus of our Government, but after seeing so many families struggle and go through insurance issues across Hawke’s Bay, I am really, really proud to commend this legislation to the House today, because I think it is going to make a huge, huge, positive impact for so many New Zealanders.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s good to be able to speak about this legislation today even though the Labour Party will not support it at this third reading. I want to draw the House’s attention, first of all, just to these two documents here—the two bills that now make up this overall legislation, the Contracts of Insurance Bill and the Contracts of Insurance (Repeals and Amendments) Bill. Particular to the Contracts of Insurance (Repeals and Amendments) Bill, clause 169, it says, “The following legislation is repealed: (a) the Insurance Intermediaries Act 1994 … (b) the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 … (c) the Insurance Law Reform Act 1985 … (d) the Life Insurance Act 1908 … [and] (e) Part 3 of the Law Reform Act 1936.”

One of the very important jobs that this piece of legislation does is to update, amend, and consolidate a whole heap of previous insurance law, bringing it all into one place. It’s a pretty important project—a project that has been a long time in the making and has taken, most recently, two Ministers of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to bring this to the House: the former Minister, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, under whose supervision the great majority of this legislation was drafted, and then, more recently, the Hon Andrew Bayly, who, following the change of Government, picked up the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s legislation and amended it somewhat and brought it to the House. It’s very much a project that has gone on across the House.

I suppose, with that, a person might reasonably expect that the whole House might support this legislation. In fact, Labour did support this legislation at the first reading, but by the time it had gone through the select committee process, we were unable to do that any more as a party—my colleague Arena Williams has gone through some of the detail on that. I, however, just want to talk about a somewhat higher level, and that’s to think about who we legislate for. This is something that my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor said to me once: “We legislate for the margins.” We don’t legislate for the easy cases, we don’t legislate for the mainstream, we don’t legislate for the straightforward stuff, we don’t legislate—I would hope—in favour of the powerful. We legislate for people who need assistance. We legislate for people who find the law puzzling, we legislate for the vulnerable, and typically, when we legislate, we try to legislate in favour of the consumer rather than the company, and there’s quite good grounds for doing that. It is because, typically, consumers as individuals have far less power than the organisations they are dealing with.

In the original version of this legislation, there were a number of clauses in it which ensured that consumers of insurance were protected and were given some valuable protections and some more rights to ensure that they could deal effectively with insurance companies. Unfortunately, the new Minister has walked that back. Now, it’s still pretty good legislation, but the bit where we cannot support it is where he has walked back the provisions that would have supported ordinary consumers—ordinary people who find insurance law hard to follow; ordinary people who are puzzled by contracts; ordinary people who might struggle with reading and writing, might struggle with the day-to-day activities of finance, might be so busy living their lives that they cannot pay attention to the detail. The legislation as originally put forward by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb would have protected these vulnerable consumers. This legislation brought to the House by the new Minister walks that protection back. It’s a real shame.

Actually, it was a telling point from the previous speaker, Catherine Wedd, who, when she stood up to talk about what this legislation did, said it was a good day for the insurance sector. It took a while for her to clarify that she did intend it to cover consumers as well, but first up in that person’s mind was the insurance sector—interesting.

I do want to pick up something else that one of our other colleagues—Mariameno Kapa-Kingi—said earlier on. There’s a really interesting phrase she said: “insurance is a privilege.”—insurance is a privilege. Actually, it is becoming that way. Of course, Mariameno Kapa-Kingi talked in terms of families, of households, with individuals who can no longer afford insurance. That is a real concern for us. We know that, when vulnerable people are stretched in their budgets and are trying to make ends meet, one of the first things to go is insurance. Then, of course, that becomes a real problem when disaster strikes. We do actually have an issue there and we need to have a serious look at it as a Parliament.

There’s another aspect of that which we need to consider seriously as a Parliament—I hope this Government will do it and continue some of the work that has already been done—and that is around looking at ongoing insurance in the face of the climate challenge that is facing us all, the climate challenge that they are walking back from. Nevertheless, we are going to have whole classes of vulnerable people in New Zealand for whom insurance will be a privilege because the places in which they live are vulnerable to climate change.

With that, I urge the Government to consider that issue in real depth. It’s something that’s really important. Having completed this piece of work, flawed though it is now—that’s, I suppose, a good start; it’s just a shame we can’t support it wholeheartedly as we would like to. I urge the Government to turn their mind to some of the real challenges that we are going to face with insurance in this country in the very near future.

NANCY LU (National): I’m very proud to stand to do my final call on the debate for the Contracts of Insurance Bill in this House. This bill—and putting it, you know, long story short—is a bill that is about facilitating the well-functioning insurance markets for both the insurers and the policyholders. This had been commented through the debate before me.

This bill is really about enabling consumers and businesses to be more effectively protecting themselves against risks in New Zealand. That’s the whole point of insurance, which is about protecting ourselves against risk. Here I will give a very, very simple but, I hope, effective example for many of our viewers and listeners on TV, which is that, when this bill is passed, consumers who are the policyholders will no longer have to guess what information they will be responsible for providing to the insurers that is relevant to their insurance policies. This is very, very critical, because, at times of risk, or at times of danger, when we need the insurance to be effective, as a policyholder, we won’t have the time or the energy or the concentration to be able to think about the information that we are providing. When this bill is passed, the onus will be now on the insurers to be asking the right questions, to be asking for the information, and it is for the consumers to provide based on the questions that are being asked. This is a very critical mind-set shift that I hope the viewers and listeners will understand. This bill is about minimising the costs and the impacts, also to the insurers, in the insurance market in New Zealand.

It is a very significant reform, for six years of review and consultation through the different Governments, through the different Ministers, and also select committee members, to consolidate the different views, the perspectives, the changes so that the New Zealand insurance contract laws can be more modernised and aligned with the international jurisdictions around the world. This bill is the collective effort across the House, across the different Minsters, and also the many, many pieces of public and professional feedback that had been provided to the select committee. I’d like to thank the various Ministers, particularly Minister Bayly, for seeing this bill through, and also to all the Finance and Expenditure Committee members and particularly all the public feedback. I fully commend this bill to the House and look forward to seeing the positive impact that this bill will bring to New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

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

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s really nice to be able to have an opportunity to speak on this legislation. This legislation started as a bill that was pulled out of the ballot as a member’s bill by Dr Duncan Webb, and that’s because he had worked on this material for some time and it was a very sophisticated bill. It was then adopted by the current Minister and there have been some changes which the Labour Party is not necessarily that happy about, because the thrust of the bill is to protect the vulnerable consumer, and the changes that the Labour Party are concerned about are ones that erode that principle. That is of concern.

I’ll just take one of those and that’s the issue of delay. Delay is absolutely one of the enemies of the ordinary person, and we’re seeing a lot of this as a theme, actually, out there at the moment. We’ve just been talking about delay as a tactic used by lawyers in regard to the abuse in care claimants, that it can do terrible damage when lawyers get hold of delay, and it can do terrible damage when insurance companies are also in control of when the money gets paid out and they delay. That’s an issue that we need to join the dots on.

The insurance area is one we’ve long recognised as one where people are vulnerable, and we’ve had a duty of the utmost good faith for a very long time. This legislation consolidates a whole lot of Acts and it makes sure that principles that we’ve already had are built on, and, hopefully, the majority of this bill provides that environment. The only reason that the Labour Party isn’t going to support it today is because it could be better. The original bill was better.

I would like to just briefly talk about the addition of the genetic testing issue here. This is a really big issue, and I think there’s probably more that needs to be considered by this House at some time, on this point. There are philosophers that suggest that the best way to organise our society is to think of ourselves as blind in a situation—we don’t know who we are. We could be anybody in this scenario. We could be the person who has Huntington’s and we were genetically tested for that. We could be the person who is absolutely fine. We’ve got to think in terms of our boots, which boots we’re in, how we could structure insurance if we could be either of those people in the system, or our children could be, or our parents could be, and we’d probably want a blind insurance system. We’d probably want one where in fact you didn’t get punished, you didn’t actually let the insurance companies know what the genetic testing was, and that would spread the cost across our society and community in a way that was fairer.

That’s an issue where I can see there’s an intent to make sure that as things happen in this area, we think about them, and we regulate for them. I share Arena Williams’ tentativeness about the support of that, because it is such a big move to leave something unsaid by the House and leave it to regulation. It is a very important thing to note here, because we’re not really speaking to the people viewing this—I’m sure there’s all three of them who are watching the insurance legislation—but we’re actually speaking into the Hansard, and we’re making sure that, on the record, we’re noting issues of concern and issues where perhaps the courts would interpret the legislation in the light of what we say. For me, one of the ones that stands out in this is this very new area where we’re not sure where it’s going, and where, in fact, it could mean that people who are vulnerable end up uninsured, or where companies take advantage of being able to collect information and insure only those where they’re actually going to have a good payout, and, in fact, they’re going to leave the ones that are uninsured for the other system.

We have to be really careful about those things, and I am pleased to see this here, but I do want to just highlight that as an issue that we’re going to have to think about more and relate to other areas of the law that we’re shaping at the moment, where we’re going to have to think really clearly in a changing world, where more information is able to be gathered than ever before, what do we want it to look like, what’s our role as leaders—and at the heart of that is working people in this country. It’s people without capital, it’s the consumer, and it’s the disempowered. At the heart of that, our job is to make sure of it for those people, who we could be in that blind situation. Thank you.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): It’s a privilege to see this legislation go through the House and now to third reading, and I’m very proud for New Zealanders and, of course, the Minister who brought it to bear and the great committee which has been mentioned today.

I actually not often get to mention the Regulations Review Committee, which, by all accounts, is largely fairly dry, but it’s got a fantastic chair in the Hon David Parker over there and Jenny Salesa. We actually got to look at the regulation-making power that came through from the Finance and Expenditure Committee with regard to the genetic testing and regulation-making powers and such things as “Henry VIII” clauses and whether there was an inappropriate delegation of power. Actually, with the appropriate mitigations that the Finance and Expenditure Committee accepted, we felt we got the balance right, where, with genetic testing, rather than make a rule, when it’s such a dynamic environment, we’ve actually enabled the Minister to have some discretion and some nuance through these regulation-making powers.

I think we’ve struck a really good balance in such a dynamic environment, which is genetic testing, where we’re not saying the insurers will be able to just eliminate the ability to genetic test, but we’re also preserving the right of individuals to have genetic testing and still have insurance access. That’s a very fluid environment and we’re happy to support this.

Some of the members opposite talked about the Hon Duncan Webb’s bill being better. Unfortunately, in their three years, they didn’t advance that case, despite his 15 amendments at each part. I can say with confidence that he certainly did contribute to the iteration of the committee and by and large, I think, in his heart will actually support much of what we’re doing today. One of the things in the old bill, for example, was that consumers had to disclose any information that might influence a prudent insurer—but who understands that? The left talk about looking after the little people. These bills actually look after the little people and put the onus on the insurance companies to ask the hard questions, and put the onus on them, where it should be. They put it in simple language, and, of course, we mandate that insurance settlements must be paid within a reasonable time frame.

It really strikes that balance between consumer protection and certainty for the market, and, of course, many of you may have forgotten that some of the statutes in the existing insurance legislation are over a hundred years old, like the Life Insurance Act 1908. These are great omnibus bills which tidy up a lot of that.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: In the Marine Insurance Act, it’s still there.

RYAN HAMILTON: Were you around then, sorry, Duncan Webb? You seem to have a comment there. The most significant changes that this legislation encapsulates and tidies up is around regulation, technological advances, economic pragmatism, the claims process, clear time frames, insurers accept, access, and settlement claims. I commend it to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia orana, Mr Speaker, thank you very much. Look, we absolutely support improvements in insurance law, and this legislation, which is the product of both political and officials’ work, is clearly an improvement. I guess our point is simply that this is very much, as the former speaker said, not just a once in a generation opportunity to improve insurance law but it’s the first time that all of our insurance law, or almost all of our insurance law, has been brought together in one place. The Marine Insurance Act 1908 still sits off to one side as a specialist piece of insurance law, but pretty much the rest of it, particularly in respect of how it interfaces, rather than the regulatory side, now sits in this piece of legislation.

Certainly, it’s good to see codification of the disclosure rules, which have kind of developed over time but have never been really clearly or satisfactorily articulated. The idea now that there are different rules for consumers is a good thing, and certainly the onus should, in a modern environment, be on insurers to make sure that they ask the right questions and, where there are gaps, they fill in the gaps and an innocent non-disclosure doesn’t lead to a failure of the entire policy. That is good.

I know that my colleagues who sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee did a very good job and they made suggestions for improvement, including around the distinction between an insured or a policyholder acting in a dishonest way versus a fraudulent way. One of the challenges with the use of “dishonesty” is that it’s a much more graduated concept, from, you know, “ought to have made an inquiry” at the low end to “positively intending to do something outright dishonest”, whereas “fraudulently” is a clearer term and would’ve been better, but we’ve got to where we’ve got to.

I do want to talk about the remedies for policyholders, because, whilst in my pretty extensive time in practice I saw occasional cases where an insurer would decline for non-disclosure, the greatest wrongdoing I saw was obstruction by insurers of the settlement of a claim in a timely way. They would be continually saying, “We just need to do a few more inquiries, a bit more investigation. We haven’t quite decided what to do with it yet.”, and so you wouldn’t actually know, in many cases, even whether the insurer accepted the claim for months and sometimes even years. Now, that’s utterly unacceptable, and whilst there is in this legislation an articulation of the current law, which is that the claim needs to be resolved within a reasonable period of time, we’ve missed an opportunity. We’ve really missed an opportunity to say exactly what that means.

My own view is, and it was in my member’s bill—still is in my member’s bill, which we’ll get to eventually—was that there should be a brightline, that a reasonable time is 12 months unless the contrary can be proved. It really puts the onus on the insurer, because to simply take a long time whilst the money, essentially, stays in the bank is harmful in many, many ways, and not just financially. One of the things that perhaps this House doesn’t realise is that insurance isn’t just about restoring property; it’s about peace of mind. If you’ve got a business or a home or something else that’s been destroyed, something substantial, and you’re still working through it, the degree of anxiety that that can cause when you don’t know what the future looks like, whether you’ll be financially secure or not, is really, really significant and can be quite destroying.

Of course, the remedy for that is the other thing—again, a missed opportunity. This piece of legislation could’ve said that in consumer contracts there are damages—proper damages, substantial damages—for breach of settling the claim in a reasonable time. At the moment, the courts can and do award damages, but they are trivial damages—$10,000 or $20,000 for what can be real heartache and distress. Interest is mentioned, but, again, not clearly; in a throwaway kind of way.

Of course, the biggest outrage in this piece of legislation is the win that the insurance sector got in carving out exclusion clauses from the Fair Trading Act unfair contract term provisions. We have a framework where insurance contracts are drawn in, in part, into that framework, but exclusion clauses are allowed to be unfair, which makes absolutely no sense. It’s an absolute nonsense.

The other thing I’ll comment on is the consumer business distinction and just the difficulty that that poses for small businesses. There are certainly instances where small businesses face pretty much the same obstacles and barriers of knowledge and complexity that consumers do, and there’s no real assistance for them in this legislation.

Lastly, genetic testing, which at the moment, it’s fair to say, is not a huge problem in New Zealand, but increasingly there is the ability to have huge amounts of information about someone’s health status through genetic testing. This empowers regulations to be made, and I would simply say to the Government: please, make those regulations—make them as soon as possible, because we need to address this. This is one of the things that the select committee did very well: listened to submissions, got on and said, “We do need to do something about genetic testing.”—something that I hadn’t put in my bill, that Andrew Bayly hadn’t put in this bill, but the select committee picked up on it, and that is good process. Make those regulations so that we can protect people’s personal information and make sure that they take advantage of the huge health benefits of genetic testing without putting at risk their health and life insurance. So, it’s better legislation, but not as good as it could be—but what do you expect?

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to close out this debate in what is often a dry topic but a very important topic indeed. This is the third reading of the Contracts of Insurance Bill and the Contracts of Insurance (Repeals and Amendments) Bill.

The importance of the insurance market can’t be underestimated. It provides an ability for peace of mind, as my colleague from the opposite side mentioned before; the ability for businesses, consumers, and households to share risk; but, also, it provides opportunities, economic opportunities, for those in this sector. I’d like to, again, just acknowledge the work of many into this legislation: the Minister Andrew Bayly, members from the opposite side, the hard-working members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and those who submitted on this bill—stakeholders, private individuals, and organisations alike.

This is important legislation. It’s one that modernises contract law for the insurance sector. It improves transparency for consumers and it brings our regulations up to international best practice. What does it do? Well, that has been traversed quite substantially in the House today. For those of you at home, those two of you who are watching online, this legislation seeks to provide policyholders with a range of improved rights and insurance.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Tell us about them.

DAN BIDOIS: One of those, in fact—let’s talk about them, OK?—is around the right that insurers must present policies in a very clear and plain language way. For anybody who’s actually been looking in the insurance market, it is a very opaque and difficult to understand industry, and I think this legislation seeks to make amends for that.

On the opposite side, it provides a range of measures for consumers, mainly around the duty to not make misrepresentations to insurers and to a duty to be fair in presenting the risk to insurers. This is all about making sure that the balance is right around insurers, but also policyholders as well, to ensure that there is an efficient, well-run insurance market for New Zealanders. This is good legislation. I commend it to the House today.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Contracts of Insurance Bill and the Contracts of Insurance (Repeals and Amendments) Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Bills

Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill

Second Reading

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): E te Māngai o te Whare, I present a legislative statement on the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I move, That the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill be now read a second time.

Tiritiri-matangi, Hauturu-a-Toi, Aotea, Ngā Pona-toru-a-Peretū, Te Rāhui-kākā, Rangitoto, Motukorea, Te Motu-a-Ihenga, Motu-tapu-a-Taikehu, Ōtata, Motuhurakina, Te Ārai-roa, Te Pou-nui-a-Peretū, Pākihi, Kāramuramu, tatū atu rā ki Ngā Poito-o-te-kupenga-a-Taramainuku, a Toi-te-huatahi.

Te Moana-nui-a-Toi-te-huatahi i hoea mai tana waka, a Paepae-ki-Rarotonga, ki Aotearoa Niu Tireni nei, i kawe atu i tana mana ure-tārewa ki roto i ngā iwi taketake, a koia hoki ko Huiarangi. I tēnei wā e kīia nei ko tōna maunga Pigeon Mountain, i moe tahi me tēnei moana ataahua.

[Tiritiri-matangi Island, Little Barrier Island, Great Barrier Island, the peaks on Rangitoto Island, the Parrot Reserve on Rangitoto, Pakihi Island, Kāramuramu Island, and including the island chain known as the Floats on the Net of Taramainuku, and Toi-te-huatahi.

The Great Bay of Toi-te-huatahi, who sailed his canoe, Paepae-ki-Rarotonga, here to Aotearoa New Zealand, and conveyed his patrilineal authority within the indigenous peoples, that is the celestial Huia. These days his mountain is known as Pigeon Mountain, who cohabited with this beautiful ocean.]

The purpose of this bill is to contribute to the restoration of health and mauri to the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana / Te Moananui-ā-Toi te rua tahi and to acknowledge customary rights within seafloor protection areas and high protection areas. It establishes 19 new marine protection areas that, in addition to existing marine reserves and the cable protection zones, will nearly triple protection in Tīkapa Moana. These areas are a critical contribution to protecting biodiversity and reversing the decline we have seen in the gulf.

The bill is designed to support the gulf with modern marine protection measures that reflect the needs of both the environment and the people. The gulf—Tīkapa Moana—has a diverse array of habitats, benthic, including kelp forests, fragile fields of corals, and others which support a great variety of ika—fish, karengo—seaweeds, and other species. It sees many migratory and transient specifies such as leatherback turtles or honu, manta rays, and humpback whales—wēra.

Aotearoa New Zealand is known as the seabird capital of the world. One third of all seabirds, manu moana, that breed in Aotearoa nest in the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana. It’s an important area to Aucklanders, people from Te Tara-o-te-Ika—like my colleague Scott Simpson—and to all New Zealanders. It has sustained the social, cultural, and spiritual wellbeing of mana moana and tangata whenua for centuries.

It supports the largest metropolitan area in Aotearoa New Zealand and plays a critical role in our economy. It’s a global tourism hotspot, boasting spectacular holiday destinations like the Coromandel and the Hauraki Gulf islands, and places like Man O’ War—an absolutely fantastic place on the western side of Waiheke.

Hon Member: Tāwharanui.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Yes, and Tāwharanui and other beautiful beaches up and down the eastern seaboard of regional Auckland. I look forward to Ryan Hamilton taking me to Waiheke shortly.

Approximately 70 percent of all recreational fishing in Aotearoa was carried out in Tīkapa Moana, and a recent assessment put the value of Tīkapa Moana at $100 billion. The population of the Coromandel has been steadily increasing and Auckland has almost doubled since 1990—I look forward to the reopening of Cathedral Cove soon, Mr Simpson. Forecasts indicate that by 2030 more than 2.8 million people will be living within 80 kilometres of Tīkapa Moana. This brings with it increases in recreational fishing, discharges, and land-based pressures. Climate change impacts are predicted to include increasing heatwaves, invasive species, and more frequent storm events. I don’t like the sound of Caulerpa, or golden clams. The gulf is already battling these invasive pressures of Caulerpa and other matters. We must take action now.

I would like to acknowledge the many years of effort, of energy, of resource into this bill. Starting from Tai Timu Tai Pari marine spatial plan—Sea Change—mana moana, mana whenua, organisations, businesses, local government, and individuals have all had significant roles in ensuring that this bill is the best that it can be. Can I acknowledge people like Nicola MacDonald and Paul Majurey and others who have contributed to that mahi.

Hon David Parker: And Eugenie Sage.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: And Eugenie Sage, yes, and Laurie Beamish from the great tribe of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki.

I also acknowledge the excellent work of the Environment Committee in considering this bill and the roughly 7,000 submissions received on it. I thank the submitters for their contributions and their mahi and whakaaro for this too. The committee—great committee—have recommended changes to the bill, focused on making these protection areas more effective and efficient. I tautoko these recommendations—many of them. Some highlights that merit our attention include making it clear in the bill that careful anchoring can occur within the seafloor protection areas and high protection areas.

We’re going to carefully monitor the effectiveness of the new high protection areas and seafloor protection areas, commonly known as HPAs and SPAs. These are new tools. Unlike marine reserves, they allow for some taking within the ocean, so we’re going to ensure that they work. A report will be published at least every five years, detailing the outcomes of monitoring and research to date. We’re cutting some of the bureaucracy and making it easier for councils to continue to fulfil their roles in protection areas by ensuring that they do not require permits to monitor or enforce a regional coastal plan or resource consents or to undertake activities relating to environmental monitoring.

Also—and this is very important to me and many of my colleagues in Tāmaki-makau-rau and out there in Moehau, Te Tara-o-te-Ika, and also a bit further north of Tāmaki-makau-rau up in Mahurangi—we are going to clarify customary rights by ensuring that protected customary rights and customary marine title rights, as provided for under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 are upheld. This includes exempting any activity carried out under those rights from the prohibitions in the bill—that is, these rights are uninterrupted. The bill also ensures that the establishment of SPAs—seafloor protection areas—and HPAs—high protection areas—do not impact on any existing application for rights in these areas, requiring affected people to be consulted on any new future management actions proposed in the high protection areas so that anyone who may be impacted has a say.

While I support and tautoko many of the recommendations of the select committee, I have further considered the appropriate balance between the environment, communities, and the economy and will be putting forward the following amendments to be considered at the committee of the whole House stage, providing greater clarity for how the bill gives effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi, by including signposting provisions and ensuring that settlements that have been made under Te Tiriti o Waitangi—Treaty of Waitangi—settlement processes are upheld. That includes those whānau and those iwi that have had a great experience over many years with doing the mahi up in Tāmaki-makau-rau: people like the Waiohua Tamaki people, who have marine seaboards, like Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, people from the Hauraki iwi and the Hauraki sourced iwi like Ngāti Pāoa and others, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngaati Whanaunga, and also those people from the Ngāti Whātua dynasty—the whānau up at Ōrākei, Takaparawhau, and other places throughout Raki Paewhenua, the North Shore, and beyond.

We are removing the ability for the bill to regulate customary non-commercial fishing beyond what is currently provided for in the Fisheries Act—my view, again, is on ensuring that the customary fishing provisions are undertaken per the Fisheries Act and there’s no new additional impost or restrictions on the exercise of those customary rights and responsibilities.

Finally, we are providing for carefully managed and limited ring-net fishing in two high protection areas. These are the items that we are going to propose. There may be one or two others by way of the committee of the whole House. Again, it’s an absolute pleasure and a humble privilege to consider and to promote the second reading of this bill. I now commend it to this Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that that motion be agreed to.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I rise in support, on behalf of the Labour Party, of the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill as reported back from the Environment Committee. This was a bill that Labour introduced to the Parliament last year. I want to acknowledge those that have been involved with this piece of legislation through to this point today. I think all members of this House will agree that this has been a bill that has been a long time coming. Many have had to wait some time for this to make its way through the process, but it does seek to restore the wellbeing of the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana.

I’m not an Auckland member of Parliament, but I know that my colleagues from Tāmaki-makau-rau know, perhaps more than many others know, the significant role that the Hauraki, in particular the Hauraki Gulf, plays not just in their rohe but indeed for the rest of the country. It is very clear that action is needed to ensure that, moving forward, this taonga continues to be protected for the future, reflecting on what has happened in the past.

The select committee process: I want to acknowledge, as the Minister has identified, the submitters that submitted to this process. There were a lot of submissions, more than 7,500, and 79 submitters that were dealt with orally. The select committee, which I’m not a permanent member of but was part of some aspect of these submissions, did spend some time in Auckland, did spend time visiting the Hauraki Gulf and sitting here in Wellington as well. Being in Tāmaki-makau-rau, hearing the passion of submitters, I think is something that will be very memorable to those members that were there for that. There have been individuals, groups, and organisations that have worked for an extremely long time to see what this select committee report has brought to the Parliament today, and I actually think the passion was very evident there and continues to be evident as well.

When we look at what some of these submitters had talked about, they talked about the depleting of fish stocks. They talked about the number of fishes that were on the decline and that continued to be at risk, noting that snapper and cray were virtually extinct in the current climate. They talked about the reduction to marine life, to bird life, to changes and loss in relation to the natural habitat of the area. They talked about the impact, and they were able to show the impact of sedimentation and what that impact would mean for the water body. They talked about pollution and how that had changed over time as well. They also talked about the urban development changes and the direct impact that that had had on the Hauraki Gulf.

I remember, in Auckland, I took this photograph. [Holds up photograph of two jars of water] One submitter did this to illustrate the change. They brought water from the Gulf and they put it in two jars. They’re both the same type of water, but one had, effectively, some marine life, if we could call it that, and identified the undisturbed nature that that would mean. It’s very clear that those that have been involved in this passion and existence over many years really do understand the difference that change will bring for this particular area. That’s why this select committee has reported back to this House in this report with all of its recommendations in a unanimous fashion. I want to acknowledge the Hon Scott Simpson, who’s the local member of Parliament but also the chair at the tail end of the Environment Committee as well.

What is really concerning, though, is just hearing from the Minister this afternoon, basically confirming his intention to make some changes. Now, he announced that a month ago. One of the changes he announced was, basically, to permit a commercial sense of fishing in some of the high protection areas that had been established by this bill, and he’s confirmed that for the House today. Mr Speaker, I know you and other members of the House were on the steps of Parliament this morning, where members received more than 30,000 signatures that indicated, via an open letter to the Prime Minister and also a petition, the ridiculous nature of the changes that the Minister has just indicated. This is a backward step in terms of the future for Tīkapa Moana. This was not something that was raised through the democratic select committee process. It is not something that the Minister had foreshadowed at any stage. That does beg the question: why now? This is an important piece of legislation, and I know that, really, if the Government intends to go down this path, then it really is a disservice to all of those submitters who engaged with the process in good faith, gave up their time to share their views. Basically, what we’re going to have is a huge retrograde step backwards that is going to continue the depletion of what is happening up there.

Now, when we talk about having high protection areas (HPAs)—and the suggestion was that there would be no fishing, no commercial fishing in those areas—for the Government to now backtrack on that and say, “We’re going to continue to have commercial fishing in those areas.”, it will continue to cause irreversible damage for the future. It’s very clear that this is a Government that has on their agenda a direction that is not supportive of the community needs in that particular rohe and in that particular area. Knowing that individuals, organisations, iwi, and others have put their names in a pretty short space of time, just on a month, to signal that, I really do hope that the Minister and the Government take direct cognisance of that when it comes to the committee of the whole House stage, because it is important.

New Zealand used to be a leader in the marine protection side of things and space, but by international standards, less than 1 percent of our exclusive economic zone has a level of protection that meets international standards. What does that mean? Well, it means that it basically puts us behind some other countries in the world—countries like the US, the UK, Japan, and Russia, amongst some others. The Government in this Parliament need to acknowledge the special status of Tīkapa Moana / Hauraki Gulf, and they need to confirm that it is irreplaceable. They need to place on record that they are serious about the future of this particular jewel or gem. Because of the amendments that the Minister has signalled—and we’ll wait until they’re tabled and we have a look at those—this is going to be very much a retrograde step. It would have to be the Minister resiling completely from the comments that he has just made in this House to basically confirm the intention to continue a level of commercial fishing in those HPAs. That is rather disappointing.

I know the Minister probably will say, “Well, it’s to provide local support in the area.” Well, there needs to be a decision that is taken by the Parliament, and indeed by the Government, that supports the submissions that have been made and this process that has been democratic, and it is extremely disappointing. I do hope that those that availed themselves of the select committee process will make their views known. We know that they already have; more than 30,000 of them have this morning.

The reason why the Labour Party supports the bill and will vote in support of it today is because this report, unanimously—every single party in this Parliament has signed up and agreed that what was presented should be passed into law and that the amendments that were made by a unanimous vote, not majority but unanimous—through that select committee process should be incorporated in the bill. On that basis, and on that basis alone, I do commend this bill to the House.

LAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. If there’s one thing that Kiwis are truly united on, it’s the love for our moana, our oceans. As humans who are really trying to figure out this crazy world, our understanding and awareness of not only the immeasurable value that healthy ocean ecosystems play in our existence and our ability to provide for ourselves but also the pivotal role that tangata whenua and tangata Moana hold—that our very narrow and siloed systems can actually start learning from—is growing. We are really slowly but surely getting better at marine protection, and this bill, the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, was really demonstrating that evolution in practice. It was at least set to be marine protection that actually upholds customary rights—or, in other words, the rights of Māori in exercising tino rangatiratanga and their rights to gather and practice mahinga kai, and that form of enabling, that form of appropriate recognition, means that we as a collective of tangata Tiriti and tangata whenua are in the best possible position, where we all benefit.

Speaking about oceans, I really need to share one of the privileges of my life, which was when I spent 13 months living and working, running the biodiversity and science contracts for the Department of Conservation, on Rangitāhua / Raoul Island, in the Kermadecs. It’s a little rock that’s a five-day boat ride away from any kind of civilisation. The whole island itself is alive. It’s an active volcano full of bird and plant life and surrounded by teeming ocean life. There’s dolphins, there’s groper, there’s humpback whales, there’s turtles, and in that time I got a snapshot of what a semi-intact marine ecosystem looked like and felt like. When anyone experiences that kind of marine life, you can’t help but be reminded not only of how much we have lost closer to home, in places like Tīkapa Moana, but of how much we have to gain if we actually create the right settings to allow these ecosystems to restore and recover. When I heard the stories of people’s experiences and memories of what Tīkapa Moana was, I was reminded of that experience and of how important it is that we actually hold on to that connection and that experience for our kids and for those who come after us.

It was a real pleasure to be part of the select committee process on this bill, and particularly because we inherited something that had already been through so much community consultation, deliberation, and development. This bill really has been over a decade of collaborative work between tangata whenua, environmental groups, industry, commercial and recreational fishers, and others involved in the sea change process that began way back in 2013. I really want to acknowledge every single person, every single group, every entity who has been part of that process along the way that has resulted in where the select committee got to with this bill, in the face of such serious ecological challenges. I’m sure my select committee colleagues across the House will agree with me that we really were conscious of that. We were very respectful of the part that we had to play, which was, essentially, at the end of such a long process, with so many people having been involved. Ultimately, that resulted in what my colleagues have already referred to: this unanimous decision to report the bill back to Parliament with so few substantial changes.

Like my colleague Tangi Utikere, it was then so hugely disappointing to hear the Government’s announcement of this amendment to actually allow commercial fishing in these high-protection areas. I really want to amplify and share the outcry we’ve heard from individuals, from groups, from hapū connected to Tīkapa Moana who do not want to see this amendment enabled. We’ve heard these 30,000 voices in the petition that we just received today, and we’re hearing that this kind of change would completely undermine the purpose of the bill in restoring the health and the mauri of Tīkapa Moana. Government parties should know that it’s not too late to reverse this, to actually uphold the integrity of the process.

If this bill actually did pass through unscathed by this last-minute amendment, this would be a really happy moment for the Government and particularly for the National Party, because the Sea Change Stakeholder Working Group developed the Sea Change - Tai Timu Tai Pari Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan under a National-led Government in 2017. That foundation is now forming the protections under this bill. Instead of a happy moment right now, we have New Zealand First acting a little bit like an invasive species on this democratic process which is in progress. They’ve somehow managed to override the process and make specific carve-outs for specific companies. This doesn’t need to happen, it shouldn’t happen, and it was great to hear the Minister say earlier that not only must we take action now but we want to ensure that the high-protection areas and the seafloor protection areas actually work.

We have this natural wonder here on our doorstep, as Tīkapa Moana. It’s an essential and traditional source of mahinga kai. We’ve heard about the immense economic benefits—the $100 billion of economic value that this has for the Tīkapa community. This bill is not locking it all up and throwing away the key. The protections proposed in this bill will actually ensure that the gulf can withstand the environmental impacts that have been documented time after time in the State of the Gulf reports. They’re not news to us. It’s climate breakdown, it’s sedimentation from misuse of land, and we need to increase the protection with this network of sanctuaries so that marine ecosystems can actually recover. We would only be going from 0.3 percent protection to 6 percent of full protection within the gulf. This enables fishing within the other 94 percent, which seems very, very reasonable.

This bill is not about restricting our access to this incredible taonga. It’s about giving the gulf a chance to recover. Te Pāti Kākāriki would have liked to see it go much further. We would have liked to see, particularly, bottom trawling banned from the gulf because of the very clear impacts that it has on the ability for marine ecosystems to recover. We had really clear information from officials during this process that that would have been a positive thing for the gulf. Despite that, where we’re at now is where fishing, both commercial and recreational, will be possible. What will change is that the gulf’s most vulnerable ecosystems will finally be given some breathing space that they so desperately need to regenerate. I want to just quote something that we heard outside on the steps of Parliament earlier today, from Tangata Moana campaigner Bianca Ranson. She said, “It’s time to restore the mauri of the gulf. The Government as a whole, as in us here in Parliament, have this opportunity to do something really special. It’s not too late to ditch these unnecessary amendments that undermine where the collective community have gotten to to this point.”

Yes, Te Pāti Kākāriki are pleased to see this bill pass, and we will be supporting it at this point, but we really want to see serious consideration from the Government to enabling and upholding the integrity of the process and the bill. Kia ora.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m proud that the ACT Party is part of a Government that is finally taking action to restore the health and vitality and abundance of the Hauraki Gulf.

The ACT Party supports the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, and I want to let people listening or watching at home know—and a reminder for those who are not on the Environment Committee considering this bill, which I had the privilege to be on—that this is not a bill that creates marine reserves. This is a bill that introduces to the New Zealand conservation system a new concept of adaptive management. Within these marine protected areas, this bill, and those acting and using powers under this bill, will still have to deal with invasive marine pests like Caulerpa and deal with indigenous species like kina, which, when out of control, create kina barrens and destroy reefs and habitats, and themselves contribute to the poor condition of the gulf. This is groundbreaking, it is unique in New Zealand, and while we all wish for the bill and the protections to go further, we are trying something we haven’t tried before.

I want to acknowledge the work of the select committee. The select committee reported this bill back unanimously. We did seek significant changes from the Department of Conservation. We got excellent advice from the Ministry of Primary Industries, from their fisheries professionals, and we were able to take that on along with the considerations and concerns of submitters to produce what I personally felt, and what I recommended to our ACT caucus, was a bill that we could support. However, it has become clear that there is further change needed in order to take on board some of the rights that exist amongst existing users.

The select committee had the benefit of taking a field trip out on the Hauraki Gulf, organised by the Department of Conservation (DOC) and some of their staff. I want to acknowledge the work of those DOC staff in leadership roles providing excellent policy advice and explanations about some of the matters we needed to consider. I want to acknowledge their work and the fact that they were able to create a sense of collaboration and unity of purpose between policy makers or policy writers and elected members whose role was to interrogate that policy. That was an excellent, excellent opportunity.

Being out on the Hauraki Gulf gave me an opportunity to share with some of the other committee members from outside of Auckland my personal experiences of growing up in Auckland, spending decades on the Hauraki Gulf as a sailor; windsurfing around some of those Hauraki Gulf islands on multi-day experiences with nothing more than a backpack and a raincoat; scuba-diving, being able to get a feed of scallops, get a crayfish, and how proud I used to be bringing that back to the boat to show my mum and dad and uncles and cousins; and why it’s so gutting for me, and so many other people who love the Hauraki Gulf and grew up with that experience, to know that that’s not the case now. Just a few weeks ago, I was kayaking off East Coast Bays, up to Ōkura estuary, and wondering where all of those dolphins and other creatures are that used to be so prolific in the gulf, but which I see only rarely these days.

I also want to acknowledge the work not just of officials and committee members but of Sea Change and the Hauraki Gulf Forum and others, particularly those who I’ve met with outside of the committee work to get their insights into what were the motivations and what were the trade-offs that are already being made before this bill had come to our committee. I want to acknowledge their work.

I want to acknowledge those passionate, sometimes incredibly intense, submissions that we received from people who love the Hauraki Gulf as much as I do and who all had different perspectives based on whether they were involved in commercial fishing, whether they were recreational fishers, whether they were people who lived on islands in the gulf and their families had lived there for many, many generations. We took all that on board and I hope we reflected in this committee report, as far as possible, the things that were important to you and that you wanted us to know.

I also want to acknowledge the concerns that iwi and hapū raised about maintaining access to their kaimoana as part of their customary rights which are already established as part of Treaty settlements. I’ve heard a number of concerns raised by those who say, “Well, how is it that iwi and hapū have this access to continued fishing in the Hauraki Gulf but others, like recreational and commercial fishers, potentially are excluded?” Well, of course, Treaty settlements are the vehicle to establish customary rights. The ACT Party is proud to stand up for people’s property rights and customary rights. We believe in the rule of law.

We also heard from the Department of Conservation that there are sufficient protections in the legislation that’s proposed, so that environmental baselines will need to be established before a customary take can be any more than a mana-enhancing exercise rather than something substantial. It was very, very important that we reflected that in our report back, and I hope that many people who are concerned about what they perceive as a risk of customary take will have their concerns allayed once they get to know more about the protections for biodiversity that are in place that must be balanced against the opportunities for customary take.

We’ve also heard concerns expressed today from the World Wildlife Fund and other non-governmental organisations about the potential for commercial fishing in some of these marine protected areas, and I want to acknowledge those concerns. I also want to point out that the Hauraki Gulf is a source of food for Auckland and for others, because not everybody can afford a boat, not everybody can afford the fuel, and not everybody can afford a fishing rod or has the time and the skills to get out there on the water. That’s why being able to access kaimoana in your local fish shop or supermarket is particularly important for communities which don’t have access to the ability to get out on the water. We are trying to balance the needs of people against the rights of the environment and all of those creatures that live in it—to live their best lives too.

I just want to acknowledge that, overall, despite all of the concerns that still remain about whether this bill will deliver on our ambition to restore the gulf, this is the best step forward that any Government has taken to protect the gulf since the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park legislation was passed over 20 years ago. That itself—the simple statement—wasn’t sufficient; this is action. If you think about the 80:20 rule, the first 80 percent is a lot easier to do than the last 20 percent. This bill represents the 80 percent—what we can achieve now through legislation while we work on adaptive management to realise our ambitions to restore the gulf over decades. The results will take decades to assess and verify.

I was really pleased to hear the Minister of Conservation, Tama Potaka, point out that this bill now includes provision for five-yearly reassessments of progress. Previously, that was only going to be undertaken at the first 25-year milestone. As an environmental scientist and then a civil engineer and an environmental engineer, I really wanted to make sure that we were doing regular check-ins to monitor environmental performance, because there’s no point in just passing a piece of legislation, crossing your fingers, walking away, and hoping for 25 years. We want to know what’s going on in our gulf and we want to know what else we might need to do to adapt and change.

To those watching and listening at home, again, I’ll reiterate: ACT is proud to support this bill and we look forward to continuing the debate at the committee of the whole House stage. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, now in its second reading.

I am blessed. I am absolutely blessed because I have a beautiful, big, blue backyard. It is called the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana, and some of those in the Chamber today also share my beautiful, big, blue backyard. Those of us that know and have lived around the Hauraki Gulf, and me, Mahurangi, we are certainly passionate about this piece of legislation coming through the House, and I will quickly acknowledge the Minister for bringing this through and the former Minister in the previous Government for starting off this piece of work.

Mahurangi, I mentioned. I’d also like to mention Tāwharanui, Ōmaha, Mathesons Bay, Pākiri, Scotts Landing, Baddeleys Beach, Leigh, and Goat Island. It is Goat Island, in particular, that was the first marine reserve that was created, and I must acknowledge the amazing kaumātua from my region, Laly Haddon. It was the work and his dedication behind the creation of New Zealand’s first marine reserve at Leigh.

My daughter growing up in the region, the schools all go to Goat Island—we’d go to the Marine Discovery Centre. Our visitors all come in and explore because it’s the most amazing piece of our big, blue backyard—snorkelling, looking at all the fish, looking at all the amazing kelp, all those sorts of things, jellyfish, stingrays. It is most fantastic. The work that Laly Haddon started—in 1975 it was established and then it officially opened in 1977. He received a QSM in 2009 for his work. He is well connected not only to my leader, Winston Peters, but also to Shane Jones. I really wanted to make sure I began my contribution acknowledging the work of Laly Haddon.

This is a really significant piece of protection work for the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana. It’s been years in the making. I won’t go through all of the comments about the select committee because, really, it’s been a great select committee that has done a really thorough piece of work on this. It will create a network of 19 new marine protection areas and we should be celebrating that in the House today. That is a milestone. It will nearly triple the space that will be protected in Tīkapa Moana, and that is something to be absolutely proud of. We all have had a role in that. Pollution; sedimentation; in particular, climate change; harvesting; utilisation activities—they’ve all had an impact.

Those of us that use the gulf on a regular basis, particularly over summertime, are expecting an influx of visitors to our region. We have to get out there really early in the morning, before all the visitors arrive from Auckland and around the country as well. I’ve shared with you now some names of beaches. You don’t just have to go to Ōmaha; there’s a whole bunch of others you can go to. Do enjoy that when you come up.

I’d like to acknowledge a couple of women who have been fundamental and dedicated and passionate in terms of the protection about the Hauraki Gulf. I’d like to mention the co-chair of the Hauraki Gulf Forum, Nicola MacDonald—I’ve got to know her quite well over the course of the year—as well as from the Environmental Defence Society, Raewyn Peart, who’s been a very dedicated ambassador of looking after the gulf.

I’d like to acknowledge the Environmental Defence Society. When the Minister acknowledged that the bill would come back to the House, they were delighted that Cabinet agreed to the passing of the Hauraki Gulf marine protection bill. They have seen, even though there is a small amendment coming, that, actually, this is, overall, to be celebrated. It is to be celebrated.

I’d just like to speak very quickly on ring netting, just to put some facts on the table, because it’s really important that we’re not just being hysterical about this. It’s a small reason to ensure that affordable, nutritious protein can continue to be supplied to local communities. Now, ring-net fishing happens only in the winter on the East Coast, because the fish aren’t there in the summertime. It’s fished at night and there are only five fishers who will go out and fish through a very short period of time, over a few months over winter only, and they’re in tiny little 6-metre boats. It’s not trawling; it’s not the big commercial fishing. It is very small.

It is enabling this affordable nutritious protein kahawai, grey mullet, at $5 to $10 a kilo—so it provides that local community with protein that they ask them for. Also, the licensed fish receiver who provides this affordable, nutritious protein supplies to around 34 marae in Auckland, particularly during the wintertime, and it mitigates hapū needing to go out and send their whānau out into the waters in the winter when the conditions are rough. They are able to get their customary take there so they can supply hui and tangi. It made sense to make this a recommendation, and I look forward to the Minister bringing those amendments to the House. It’s a very small amendment that is being proposed. It is a practical and a pragmatic one.

Talking about practical application of how we change the state of the gulf, the Hon Shane Jones has recently announced a new permit, a special permit, to deal to the kina barrens, because we know the kina barrens, they munch through all the kelp and they create this habitat, which is a massive loss of habitat and biodiversity. The very first kina barren special permit has been approved, and the very first community day will be happening this Saturday in my neck of the woods in the Mahurangi, with the Te Kohuroa Rewilding initiative. They’ll have their first kina barren day on Saturday at Mathesons Bay. I’m very pleased about that.

We also have invested a whole lot of money—around $15 million—into dealing to exotic Caulerpa, which is a problem. Caulerpa has bloomed across the gulf. This is a massive problem. This Government is providing practical ways in which we can take care of our moana, because it is a treasure. It is a treasure.

I’d just like to finish my contribution with the words of Laly Haddon, that we all have to protect it and be the kaitiaki. We all have to be the guardians of it because the pressures are here. This bill balances the needs of the community, the environment, and the economy. I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 1.02 p.m. (Thursday)