Wednesday, 20 November 2024

WEDNESDAY, 20 NOVEMBER 2024

WEDNESDAY, 20 NOVEMBER 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

Visitors

Malaysia—Senate of Malaysia

Tonga—Parliament of Tonga

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would want to join with me in wishing a welcome to the delegation from the Senate of Malaysia who are present in the gallery. I’m sure we would wish to welcome the Hon Dr Mo’ale ‘Otunuku, member of Parliament from the Parliament of Tonga, who is present in the gallery.

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

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

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

CLERK: Petition of Maringi Te Rangi-Ataahua James requesting that the House stop any work on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill and instead work towards entrenching He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni and Te Tiriti o Waitangi into our constitution.

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

CLERK:

2023-24 annual reports for the:

Human Rights Commission

Predator Free 2050 Ltd

Topu Tonu - Ngāpuhi Investment Fund, and

2024-25 statement of performance expectations for Tupu Tonu - Ngāpuhi Investment Fund.

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

CLERK: Report of the Environment Committee on the petition of Greenpeace Aotearoa.

SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced.

Personal Explanations

Oral Questions—Mistakenly Attributed Quote

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct a statement I made in the House yesterday.

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

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Thank you. Yesterday, in a supplementary to question No. 4, I attributed a quote to Mr Chris Quin. I now understand that this was a mistaken attribution and was inaccurate. It should have been attributed to an unnamed investment executive. I apologise to both Mr Quin and the House for this mistake.

SPEAKER: I’m sure the House thanks you for that correction.

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 his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to crack down on gang activity. At midnight tonight, a raft of tough new laws will take effect. Gang insignia will be banned in all public places, courts will be able to issue non-consorting orders, and police will be able to stop criminal gang members from associating and communicating. Greater weight will also be given to gang membership at sentencing, enabling courts to impose more severe punishments. Gangs aren’t community groups. They’re not Rotary. They thrive on destroying the lives of other New Zealanders, whether that’s by peddling drugs or through brutal acts of violence that leave communities in fear. We promised to restore law and order, and tomorrow, police will have more powers to do exactly that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement: “Casey Costello is very focused on lowering smoking rates and I’m comfortable”; if so, is he comfortable with the news that both daily smoking and vaping rates have risen under his watch, with 16,000 more daily smokers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say that the Minister is working incredibly hard to make sure that we deliver on Smokefree 2025, but we know that the last group of smokers to come off daily smoking is going to be incredibly hard to move. But we’ve got a great plan and we’re working hard at it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement that he and Casey Costello will “deal with that really hard-core group of smokers as we try and get that target down to 5 percent. All she’s done is propose alternatives”; if so, are efforts to target that hard-core group by proposing so-called alternatives working?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’d say to the member is we’re very focused on four attempts as we try and deal with this last, hard-core group of smokers. That involves us increasing quit attempts, it means we’re improving access to quit support, it means that we’re supporting people to stay smoke-free, and we’re going to reduce the uptake of smoking.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What is the return on investment on the $216 million tax break to tobacco companies his Government has given, apparently to encourage smokers to quit, when it has demonstrably failed, with the first rise in daily smokers in New Zealand’s recent history?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, the member has difficulty understanding economics, and that was clearly obvious by the economic mess that he left behind after six years in Government. What we have accrued, as you know, is an accounting accrual, essentially, for a loss of excise tax, should we be super successful in taking people off cigarettes and into alternatives. That’s a good thing. We’re just making sure that we are fiscally prudent and managing the economy well—as we do—instead of the mess that you left behind.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How difficult is it, Prime Minister, for someone to work out that if the last calculation accurately at the time was $6 million, it could never get to $216 million in the next day in the way that that last question was phrased, and, second, that we are in the best three performers in the world because of legislation that was written by New Zealand First and not the Labour Party?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would just pick up on that point that the member raises, which is that when you look at comparable smoking rates from around the world, the UK sits at 11.9 percent, the US at 11.6 percent, Canada at 8.3 percent, Australia at 8.3 percent, and we’re at 6.9 percent. We’re making good progress.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So is he asserting that the fact that more people are smoking now than when he became Prime Minister, and the Government is, therefore, collecting more tax from that, is a sign of success?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. What we’re saying is that we have more work to do with a very strong cohort of daily smokers. We need to redouble our efforts and work even harder. It’s a harder task, but we’re doing everything we can to do that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will he admit that he was wrong to submit to New Zealand First and scrap New Zealand’s world-leading smoke-free legislation, just as he was wrong to submit to the ACT Party and support the Treaty principles bill?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question. I’m proud of our coalition partners and I’m proud of the work that this coalition Government is doing to clean up the ungodly mess that that member left behind after six years of economic mismanagement, letting crime get out of control, and delivering worse outcomes for New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What does it say about his negotiating skills or, indeed, his priorities that he is willing to provoke conflict between the Crown and Māori and increase the number of Kiwi smokers just to form a coalition with parties who had nowhere else to go anyway?

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

Question No. 2—Children

2. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) to the Minister for Children: Will she commit to retaining strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations, as recommended in the select committee report on the repeal of section 7AA; if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The repeal of section 7AA is about ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children in care is at the forefront of all decision making. I’ve always said that strategic partnerships should continue, and I’ve made my expectations clear to officials that they should continue the good work that is being done in this space, if the agreement is working in a positive way to the betterment of children. I also made it very clear in my first reading speech that nothing in this bill prevents Oranga Tamariki from retaining its current strategic partnerships or from entering new partnerships with iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations. In regards to specific recommendations in the select committee report, I want to thank those who made submissions and those who appeared before the committee in person, and I also want to thank the select committee for their careful deliberation and consideration on the bill. I will consider the recommendations and take advice before making any decisions on next steps.

Kahurangi Carter: Why does she not recognise the value of reporting on outcomes and disparities for tamariki Māori, given she has now recognised the need for strategic partnerships?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: In regards to reporting, we have a number of ways that can be reported on issues in that space. We have a report from the Independent Children’s Monitor in this space, we have the National Care Standards report that reports on outcomes for Māori and young people and their whānau, we have an annual Oranga Tamariki report that reports in this space, and under section 448B of the Oranga Tamariki Act, the Minister for Children is required to report on whether the legislation and Government policy meets the needs of children and young people.

Kahurangi Carter: So does she believe that requiring the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki to consider and report on outcomes for Māori limits the ability to serve tamariki Māori, and, if not, would she also reconsider retaining this 7AA requirement?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: In regards to the first part of the question, what I think is important for the CE of Oranga Tamariki to concentrate on is making sure that the children that come into the care of Oranga Tamariki are safe, healthy, and loved.

Kahurangi Carter: Will she commit to reconsidering other aspects of this repeal to better reflect select committee evidence, Whanaketia, and Waitangi Tribunal findings that tino rangatiratanga over kāinga and protection and active partnership must be enshrined in care, and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: When it comes to Māori children in care, I can tell you: Māori children are no different to any other child. They want to feel safe, they want to feel loved, and they want to feel like they belong. And they want to know that when they wake up tomorrow, they’re going to be safe.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she accept Dr Luke Fitzmaurice’s select committee submission argument that “There is no clash between tikanga and safety … In reality, the two are intertwined.”, and, if so, how can she go ahead with repealing any aspect of 7AA?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No, I don’t disagree, and I’ve never said that the two clash. What I have said is that the safety and wellbeing of children must be first and foremost when we’re making decisions about all children in care. Every child deserves to feel safe and loved.

Kahurangi Carter: Will she admit, now select committee has reported back, that it was a mistake to introduce a bill that would fully repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, and, if not, why not?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: As I’ve said, I will consider the recommendations and take advice before making any decisions in the next step. But, no, I stand by my decision, because I’m proud of the fact that we are redirecting Oranga Tamariki back to their core purpose, which is the safety and wellbeing of children.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Acting Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement, “we had set a very clear plan that it will allow the books to return to an OBEGAL surplus in 2027/28”; if so, is she committed to reaching an OBEGAL surplus no matter the cost?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Acting Minister of Finance): On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I stand by my full statement, which was, “we had set a very clear plan that it will allow the books to return to an OBEGAL surplus in 2027-28. If we had stuck to the spending plans of the last Government, that date would have been pushed out until 2031, an unacceptable outcome.” In answer to the second part of the question, no.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the chief economist of Treasury correct when he said, in order to reach that goal, that the “implied speed and size of this decline is generally unprecedented in recent history in New Zealand.”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, as the fiscal strategy report in Budget 2024 makes clear, the Government is not going to be a slave to a surplus target. It is correct that over the last few years each update to the economic forecast has involved a deterioration in the outlook, which then flows through into the fiscal forecast. The member will have to wait and see what happens in the half-year update. I’m also advised that the person that the member just quotes, the Chief Economic Adviser of Treasury, is giving a speech tomorrow which gives the background to some of the forecast revisions, and in particular the role of Treasury’s assumptions about underlying productivity trends. I know the member will be reading it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she plan to shift more services to user-pays to help reach surplus?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I’m not ruling out revenue measures like user-pays. The Government, as a general rule, believes that people who benefit from services should pay for them. For example, we have outlined a programme of work around toll roads, which the member will be well familiar with, all of which is designed to align the beneficiaries of infrastructure investment paying for it. That is one example of user-pays: toll roads.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Would shifting publicly run services like education or health to the private sector help her reach a surplus?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, I reject the assumption behind the member’s question. The Government has a public health service and a public education service. We are focused on driving better performance and delivery out of those two very significant items of State spending. The Ministry of Education is extremely focused on our education system actually (a) getting kids to attend school, and (b) making sure when they’re there they learn how to read and write, unlike the focus of the last Government. The man sitting next to me is very focused on delivering better value for money out of the health system.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Will she guarantee no reduction in front-line services to reach surplus?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the driving focus of this Government’s fiscal reprioritisation so far has been to make sure that services flow not to the back office but to the front line.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Acting Minister of Finance: What information has she recently released to improve agencies’ accountability for Government investments?

Hon Member: Wake up.

Hon Chris Bishop: My apologies.

SPEAKER: The Hon—

Hon Chris Bishop: I’m not used to being so high up the batting order.

SPEAKER: That’s good. Just wait till you’re called. We waited for you; you’ll wait for me to call you. The Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Acting Minister of Finance): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Minister of Finance, this morning I released the September Quarterly Investment Report (QIR), which outlines key information on large central government investments. The Quarterly Investment Report is a key mechanism for the Government to intervene to ensure projects are on track. It’s also a tool for the public to hold agencies in the Government to account for investment performance. It’s the second QIR we’ve released publicly. The first was in August, and we’re going to continue to publish these reports to provide the transparency that taxpayers deserve out of the investment that the Crown is making.

Stuart Smith: What does the latest Quarterly Investment Report show?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the latest QIR shows the significant investment activity across the pipeline. There’s 198 investments in delivery with a combined budget of $85.7 billion, and 176 investments in planning worth close to $80 billion. I do want to say, though, that the data also shows there are still issues with the quality and completeness of data reported by Government agencies. It’s not good enough. Good data is critical for good decision making. We are a Government that is focused on better long-term planning, more fulsome reporting, and stronger monitoring. We will be demanding, as a Government, better information from central government agencies to allow Cabinet to make better decisions.

Stuart Smith: How will quarterly investment reporting hold agencies to account?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, today’s release includes chief executive attestations. These are a formal signal as to whether or not agencies’ investment practices meet Cabinet rules. It’s really important that we learn what Government agencies are following Cabinet rules and what Government agencies are not. One example, to pick up some data from the report, is asset management. It is true to say that agencies and, by extension, decision makers do not know enough about the condition or age of the Crown’s assets and plans to maintain them. This is something the Government is extremely focused on and doing a lot of work on. Asset management and asset maintenance have been something that has been underdone by central government for too long.

Stuart Smith: How are central government projects tracking for on-time and on-budget delivery?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, we all want on-time and on-budget projects. The latest data shows that 83 percent of investments are on budget and there’s still $2 billion of cost escalation, and the September QIR shows that 87 percent of investments are tracking to their currently approved time frames, but only 54 percent are tracking to their original time lines. There’s a long history of grand pronouncements, including by the previous Government, where projects are meant to be delivered by a certain date but then exceed those. It is true to say that we need to do a better job across the Government around this. We have work under way to improve project cost and time lines. This is business as usual, good standard investment practice. We are fixing the foundations of our infrastructure investment system.

SPEAKER: Franco Hernandez.

Francisco Hernandez: Francisco Hernandez, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she also intend to hold Ministers accountable for Government investments; if so, will she hold herself accountable for making slash-and-burn cuts to critical public services that we rely on, like the Dunedin Hospital rebuild, while she’s giving billions of dollars of tax giveaways to landlords and hundreds of millions of tax cuts to tobacco companies?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, there’s any number of factual inaccuracies in that question. Firstly, the Government is not slashing and burning. Secondly, in relation to the Dunedin Hospital, the member seems to have missed the fact that, in March, the Government committed an extra $290 million to the project, bringing the total appropriated amount for the new Dunedin Hospital project to $1.88 billion. In fact, the member highlights exactly why the Government is focused on the Quarterly Investment Reports and rebuilding the foundations of our infrastructure investment system. The Dunedin Hospital project, as has been publicly now released, was subject to no less than four gateway reviews under the previous Government; the last three of which highlighted it as a red-amber project. To put that into vernacular, a red gateway project means that it is at significant risk of critical non-delivery. The last Government received all of those gateway reports and did precisely nothing about it. We have now inherited a situation—

SPEAKER: Yup, that’s good. [Interruption] That’s enough. [Interruption] That’s enough! Ministers need to keep their answers relatively concise. There’s a trend to get very long answers. I look at the seconds being taken up in answers and they are progressively getting longer, which is not—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: And preferably, keep them true.

SPEAKER: When I’m talking, no one else is.

Francisco Hernandez: Is the reason why the Minister is ranting instead of answering the question because she’s afraid to hold Ministers to account because she knows that her directive to prioritise needs not race, and slash-and-burn cuts to the Public Service will lead to underinvestment in Māori health, education, and wellbeing?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. That question cannot be allowed to stand. You cannot get up and make a lot of baseless allegations without any evidence at all, and I don’t care whether you’ve got any experience; we’re going to have standards in this House. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’m pleased that everyone else has got an opinion. Keep them to yourself. Would the member like to rephrase his question. Bring it into order.

Francisco Hernandez: Absolutely. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister afraid of holding Ministers to account—

SPEAKER: No, you can’t do that. You’re out.

Francisco Hernandez: Is the Minister—

SPEAKER: Sorry. No, you just lost it. You can’t make a statement like that.

Question No. 5—Education

5. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with National MP Erica Stanford, who, in May 2023, said, “The public and school bus systems are failing us. Every day buses are cancelled leaving people stranded. Kids are being left behind when trying to get to school”; if so, why are school bus routes to close up and down the country?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): As the member knows, I made that comment as the local member of Parliament for East Coast Bays in relation to a public meeting that I held in my electorate when a shortage of bus drivers was impacting Auckland Transport, both public bus and public school bus routes. The quotation is directly in relation to the provision of public transport for children. To the second part, Auckland Transport does not operate up and down the country; public buses and public school buses do—however, I do not have ministerial responsibility for those.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she agree with Claudia Heaps, a Hawke’s Bay mother, who said that “I can’t believe they would make something as basic as getting to school a challenge for kids, especially in the light of talking about improving attendance records.”; if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I would say to that mother and all parents across the motu that these decisions are operational. The policy has not changed and if a child is eligible for the ministry’s transport assistance, they will get it. The only time that a ministry-operated bus route will close is because a public bus has been established, the number of students has dropped below eight—where, then, we pay members of that family a conveyancing allowance—or if a route was merged with another route.

SPEAKER: Question number six—

Hon Jan Tinetti: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry, apologies. My sincere apologies.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she agree with Rural Women New Zealand president Gill Naylor, who said, “In rural areas, there’s no public transport options, there’s no footpaths or cycleways, our roads are not safe for kids to be biking to school.”, and, if so, why is she allowing rural school bus routes to close?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I would say to that person the same answer I gave to the person in the second question.

Hon Jan Tinetti: What options are there for schools who have had their school bus routes cancelled and now have students stranded at home and unable to learn?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I said in my second question, if a route is stopped it is for those reasons, and what we do when the numbers of children drop below eight is we pay families a conveyancing allowance to help them get their children to school.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Why is the Minister not taking any steps to protect rural school bus routes and is allowing them to be cancelled on her watch?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We are taking responsibility and that’s why in February of this year I’ve instigated a work programme to make sure that bus services for eligible students are fair and equitable across the country, and that work programme is under way. I would also like to point out that the member who asked the question had six years to sort it out and did nothing.

Hon Simeon Brown: What reports has she seen on Auckland’s public transport network becoming more convenient for students?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In relation to the primary question, I’ve seen great news for students in Auckland who take the bus, train, and ferries to get to and from school. This week marks the first week that students in Auckland have more ways to pay on Auckland’s public transport network; in addition to HOP cards, students can now tag on and off using contactless debit cards as well as Apple Pay, Google Pay, and their smartphones and smartwatches. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

SPEAKER: I was too polite to cancel that question, but I should have. The primary question was essentially about rural bus transports—

Hon Chris Penk: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, you can’t take one, there’s a queue of them, all right?

Hon Chris Penk: I’ll get in line.

SPEAKER: Yeah. Well, certainly the answers have been up to that point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: My point of order is that when the Minister was trying to answer, fully seven people over there were shouting—not separately, all together at the same time. I don’t know how they heard each other, let alone heard the Minister, but we couldn’t hear her.

SPEAKER: Yep, that is an ongoing problem, and I mentioned that yesterday.

Hon Chris Penk: Thank you, sir, point of order. Large swathes of the Auckland region are in fact rural in nature, for example, the former Rodney District and the former Franklin District.

SPEAKER: Right, well, thank you very much. You must flick that through to Wikipedia so I can find out myself later on.

Question No. 6—Regulation

6. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Minister for Regulation: What recent announcements has he made?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): With great pleasure I’d like to inform the House that yesterday I announced the next steps in the Government’s plan to improve the quality of regulation by opening consultation on the proposed regulatory standards bill. To lift productivity and wages, the Government’s agreement is to include a commitment to pass the regulatory standards bill. This bill has four components: a set of principles for responsible regulation, a mechanism to ensure regulations are consistent with the principles, justified departure from the principles, and a recourse to enable New Zealanders to seek an independent assessment when a regulation does not meet the principles and statutory powers for the ministry. Consultation on the proposed regulatory standards bill is open until Monday, 13 January 2025.

Todd Stephenson: What are the principles of responsible regulation?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The principles fall into three categories. The first is the principle relating to the design and content of legislation, such as the importance of the rule of law and that fair compensation should be paid for the taking or impairment of private property. Second is the principle of good lawmaking, such as ensuring regulation should produce benefits that exceed the cost of imposing that regulation. The third is the principle relating to regulatory stewardship, such as eliminating regulatory burden and compliance costs and ensuring that regulatory systems are fit for purpose.

Todd Stephenson: How will the regulatory standards bill improve the quality of new regulations?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The regulatory standards bill is fundamentally an exercise in transparency. There’s nothing in the bill that requires the regulator to follow the principles of regulation. However, it does require regulators to consider the principles and publicly justify why they shouldn’t apply to any particular rule that they’re imposing upon New Zealanders. If we raise the political cost of making bad laws by allowing New Zealanders to hold politicians and regulators accountable, the outcome will be better lawmaking, higher productivity, and better wages for all New Zealanders.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to reduce harm caused by gangs and to make communities safer?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): At midnight tonight the Gangs Act 2024 will come into force. This legislation will reduce the ability of gangs to cause fear, intimidation, and disruption to New Zealanders by giving police additional tools to deal with the mayhem on our streets, and to keep our communities safe.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Why is reducing the harm caused by gangs a priority for this Government?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, indeed, because gang members make up less than one quarter of 1 percent of the adult population, yet they’re linked to 18 percent of all serious violent crime, 19 percent of homicides, 23 percent of all firearm offences, and 25 percent of all kidnapping and abductions. These are abhorrent statistics, and this Government is focused on restoring real consequences for crime. We cannot succeed in our mission to reduce the numbers of victims of serious violent crime without dealing more effectively with gangs.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What additional tools will be available to police at midnight tonight?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, at midnight tonight the display of gang patches in public places is prohibited, and in the case of repeat offences, possession is prohibited. Police will issue dispersal notices to break up gang gatherings that disrupt the public, and issue non-consorting orders to prevent specific gang members from associating. New Zealanders deserve to be able to go about their lives without fear of being intimidated and preyed upon by organised crime, and the police now have the additional tools they need to do the job.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What other legislation comes into force at midnight tonight?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, alongside the Gangs Act 2024, the Sentencing Amendment Act 2024 will come into force. This makes gang membership on its own an aggravating factor in sentencing. Gangs have for some time been able to behave as if they were above the law with minimal consequences whilst peddling misery in our communities. As of tomorrow, the time is over.

Question No. 8—Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions

8. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) 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 accept the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care’s findings, including that one of the contributing factors to neglect and abuse in care was the lack of legislation specific to care settings that gave effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi; if not, why not?

SPEAKER: The Hon Erica Stanford. Can I ask the Ministers to make sure the mikes are facing—yeah.

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): Last month, the Government said that we broadly accept the findings of the royal commission’s final report, with further work required to respond to those findings that are legal in nature. Findings regarding breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi or failure to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi are included in findings that require further work. The Government expects to receive further advice on these in 2025.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she think that the repeal of section 7AA, which explicitly removes Te Tiriti provisions and the requirement to reduce disparities for tamariki Māori, is consistent with the royal commission’s findings, and, if so, why?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: My role as the lead coordination Minister for the Government response is to lead the coordination of Ministers and our coordination of our response to the royal commission’s recommendations. I am not responsible for irrelevant portfolios of other Ministers or decisions irrelevant Ministers make.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she think that it is acceptable that the young serious offenders (YSO) bill has no references to Māori or Te Tiriti when officials advise that 80 to 85 percent of those eligible for the YSO declaration are likely to be Māori, and is this consistent with the findings and recommendations of the royal commission?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I refer the member to my previous answer.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, we accept that there are lead Ministers to particular pieces of work. But when the supplementary question to the Minister specifically refers to whether that piece of work is consistent in the report of which this Minister is the coordination Minister, and therefore responsible to the House to answer, I’m not sure that’s an appropriate response.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Speaking to the point of order. The member who asked the question asked about the royal commission’s findings. I am the Minister responsible for the recommendations of the royal commission’s report, not their findings.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Speaking to the point of order. On that specific question, I said, “Is this consistent with the findings and recommendations of the royal commission?”

SPEAKER: Look, I think you’re always going to get some difficulty when there are multiple Ministers involved in a particular issue, but the reality is we have a lead coordinating Minister. So some other commentary might be helpful from the Minister.

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

SPEAKER: Well, I just ruled on the point of order.

Hon Simeon Brown: Yeah, it’s a point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, what’s the new point of order?

Hon Simeon Brown: Well, the point of order here is that the Minister is getting asked about a range of things where she is not actually the Minister responsible for those particular items. She is the lead coordinator of the report—and when the questions start going into a range of different individual issues, the only comment she’s going to be able to answer to that is, “I’m not actually responsible for those particular issues.” I’m trying to seek your guidance around how much the Minister can actually provide advice to the House when she’s actually the lead coordinator and not going to be responsible for each of those individual questions.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s an interesting sort of proposition, but unfortunately I have an idea in my head that “coordinator” means the person who organises. Is there another point of order or another question?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Just speaking to that—

SPEAKER: We’ll have another response to the question.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The primary question talked about findings, and in relation to findings and keeping with the primary question, as I’ve said, we broadly accept the findings, but I am the coordinating Minister that has—[Interruption]—responsibility for the recommendations of the report, and that was not in the primary question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. The point remains that, first of all, yes, the primary question did reference findings—that’s been approved by the Clerk’s office and yourself. The supplementary in question not only referenced findings but also recommendations which this Minister is definitely responsible for.

SPEAKER: That’s right, and the Minister just said she was. I don’t think a Minister can be responsible for the findings of a report. It’s the recommendations of a report that the Government’s accepted that makes the ministerial responsibility clearer. Is there another question?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. Therefore my question was—

SPEAKER: No, hang on. I’ve just ruled on it. So—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Which was?

SPEAKER: I appreciate that you may not be happy with that, but do you have another supplementary?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: I do. Is she concerned, as the lead coordination Minister, that the Minister of Education is making legislative changes to downgrade Te Tiriti when the royal commission found that past education Ministers failed to respond to the identity, language, and culture of Māori, and that led to harm?

SPEAKER: Well, you can answer in so much as there is responsibility. The question is very broad.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, my responsibility as a lead coordinating Minister is that I don’t have responsibility for individual decisions of those Ministers.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she accept that the disregard of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its neglect in the design, development, and implementation of the care system went to the heart of the abuse and neglect experienced by many Māori survivors and their whānau, and that she is failing as a Minister of the Crown to change the systems that led to harm in care?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I said in my primary answer, we do broadly accept the findings of the royal commission’s final report.

Question No. 9—Police

9. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Police: What new tools will Police have from tomorrow to crack down on gangs?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): At midnight tonight, it will be illegal to wear or display gang patches and insignia in public in New Zealand. Police will also be able to issue gang members with non-consorting orders and issue dispersal notices. The coalition Government promised a gang crackdown; tomorrow, that will be in full force.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How will non-consorting orders help police fight organised crime?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Non-consorting orders are able to be issued by the court against known gang offenders, preventing them from communicating and consorting with each other to commit violent and organised crime. These have proved very effective in other jurisdictions at preventing the flow of illegal activity and will enable police to dismantle gangs from the inside.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What benefit will dispersal notices have for the public?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Police will be able to issue a dispersal notice to any known gang offenders congregating in a public place. This will mean that police can disperse gang gatherings and avert disruption to the public before it happens, by telling members to go home and not come back for seven days.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Are police ready to enforce the new laws?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, they are.

Tamatha Paul: Supplementary—supplementary, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question—

Tamatha Paul: Tamatha Paul.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I know—bad day today. Tamatha Paul—sorry.

Tamatha Paul: All good, no worries. Was the Minister listening at the abuse in State care apology last week when the connection between abuse in State care and the formation of gangs was made?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, I was, and I met with and spoke with three gang members that were at the abuse in State care apology. All three of them indicated to me that they wanted to leave the gang, and all three of them indicated that, actually, the gang lifestyle had not been a positive impact in their lives.

Tamatha Paul: Does he recognise, then, that this approach to cracking down on gangs and locking them up in prison is not going to achieve the reduction in gang membership that he says he wants?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’d just make an observation that in the last 12 months, the police have been cracking down on gangs, and it’s had a massive positive impact in terms of making the communities that they operate in—because these are organised criminal organisations that are perpetrating violence, that are involved with the dealing of methamphetamine; they’re a wrecking ball in terms of misery inside communities. Actually, communities are feeling much safer because the police are cracking down on them.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Justice: Is he confident that the Human Rights Commission is politically independent; if so, why?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Yes. As the member will know, section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1993 requires the Human Rights Commission to act independently in performing its statutory functions and duties.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does the Minister consider that it is consistent with the duty to ensure the independence of the commission under the 1993 United Nations Paris principles, that the appointee is the Chief Human Rights Commissioner, Dr Stephen Rainbow, who was recommended to him for appointment by the ACT Party?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, perfectly. Everybody in this country’s free to nominate somebody and then Cabinet makes the decision about that.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Does the Minister consider that he acted consistent with the duty to maintain the independence of the commission, as required by the Paris principles, when Dr Stephen Rainbow was recommended for appointment by the Minister, despite the fact that an expert interview panel found that he did not have the skills and qualifications to be a viable appointment and did not consider him appointable?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes. We’ve been over this before. The independent panel are very senior legal people who I respect greatly. They made some recommendations, and in one case we took up that recommendation with Gail Pacheco. In terms of the chief commissioner, ultimately Cabinet made the decision that they were looking for a slightly different set of skills, and in particular a focus on communicating effectively in terms of human rights. So we went with Dr Rainbow. And I’m proud to say I’ve got every confidence that he’ll do a better job than appointments from the previous Government.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What actions did the Minister take after Dr Stephen Rainbow was informed that he wasn’t a preferred candidate for the Chief Human Rights Commissioner role that led to Dr Rainbow re-entering the selection process?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I certainly didn’t inform Mr Rainbow about that. And if he was informed by anybody, they were obviously premature, because no decision had been made until the decision to appoint Dr Stephen Rainbow.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question asked what actions did the Minister take subsequent to Dr Rainbow being informed he wasn’t a successful candidate. The Minister didn’t address that at all. He talked about who informed Dr Rainbow of that fact. It’s quite an important point. I’d ask that the Minister address the question of whether or not he took any actions to restart that process.

SPEAKER: Well, it would be reasonable to assume that if he’s telling the House who informed Dr Rainbow, that it wasn’t him.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister aware of Dr Rainbow’s long history of hard left-wing activism, stretching back to the 1970s, including membership and candidacy for the Labour and Green parties; and can he assure the House that Dr Rainbow will be able to represent the views of all New Zealanders in his role as Human Rights Commissioner, and not give in to the kind of communist tendencies that some of those parties have occasionally exhibited? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Let’s just be very clear: that question’s not getting answered.

Hon Willie Jackson: Kick him out!

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what, it’s not far off. It’s unbelievable. When questions are asked, you’re silent.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Previous Speakers have consistently ruled that accusations of communism are a breach of Parliament’s—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Right. The next person who speaks when there’s either a question being asked or a point of order taken will be leaving for the week.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: So I make no commentary on the fact that it was done through an attempt to ask a question, but the point remains that previous Speakers, when members have accused either parties or members of this House of communism, they have been made to withdraw and apologise. Now, I accept that the Minister was asked to stop part way through, but nevertheless it was clear where the accusation was being made. On this occasion, I would ask that you would consider that as an appropriate response.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, point of order. The honourable member’s right, with one exception: it is when the person who is the recipient of the allegation makes the complaint, not someone else. He or she’s got to find it an offence, as some in the past have not. So that’s the distinction here.

SPEAKER: I think the whole thing was, to say the least, messy. We will move on to question No. 11.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s a different point of order to the one that’s just been raised with you. Mr Speaker, earlier on in the media today, I noticed that David Seymour was giving direction to you through the media to be more strict in your application of the Standing Orders. The question that David Seymour asked was not only out of order but was, in fact, disorderly. So I wonder whether you might like to reflect on David Seymour’s request that you be more strict in punishing those who violate the Standing Orders.

Hon David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Just give me a minute. I always reflect on advice that comes from members. And I find it not exactly easy to wade through the conflictions inside that advice. This better be useful as an addition to the current point of order.

Hon David Seymour: Well, Mr Speaker, I merely make the point that I would not and have not attempted to give direction to you.

SPEAKER: OK, it must have just felt like that!

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Did the Minister take any action to ensure that Stephen Rainbow re-entered the selection process after he’d been told he wasn’t the successful candidate?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the action that I took was to continue the process and to develop a recommendation to Cabinet to appoint a person for the Chief Human Rights Commissioner. The member may go deeper and deeper into the weeds on this; the reality is that we’ve made three excellent appointments to the Human Rights Commission. The Race Relations Commissioner had been empty for more than a year after the resignation of Meng Foon—remember Meng Foon? We’re very confident that those three appointments are going to give some real strength to the commission and they will carry on in a politically independent way to safeguard and stand up for human rights in New Zealand.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Is the Minister confident that the commission will retain its A accreditation by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions under the Paris principles, given that Dr Rainbow was nominated by a governing political party, he was put on a shortlist by the Minister against advice, and his appointment was made despite an independent panel saying he was not a viable appointment?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, I am quite confident. We went to stand up and defend our human rights in Geneva in April this year. We did face some criticism on our human rights record from Russia, but I’m confident that we’ll be able to continue to have a very high regard in the international sector.

Question No. 11—Trade

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question—

SPEAKER: You can wait until the House gives you the respect of silence.

11. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Trade: What actions has the Government taken to grow New Zealand’s economy and increase farm-gate returns for farmers and growers?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade): The Government is relentlessly focused on reducing trade barriers, unlocking new markets, and supporting Kiwi businesses to grow. A big part of this is reducing non-tariff and technical barriers (NTBs) to trade, which we estimate affect $9.8 billion worth of New Zealand exports each year, with the primary sector facing the greatest impact. This is why we have started a programme to resolve trade barriers and increase farm-gate returns for farmers and growers. This year, the Government has successfully resolved 16 barriers to trade, affecting $733 million worth of exports. This directly supports our ambitious target of doubling exports by value in 10 years; and with one in four jobs tied to trade, it returns more money to the back pocket for thousands of New Zealanders.

Mike Butterick: What actions has the Government taken to support primary exports and reduce other barriers?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, we’re returning more value to the primary producers and other exporters. Since June, we’ve reduced regulatory burdens on wine and spirits exports to the EU; resolved barriers on medical device exports to Mexico; restored onion exports to Indonesia, New Zealand onions’ largest market; restored access for up to $250 million worth of log exports to India; extended tariff-free access for New Zealand digital exporters to all World Trade Organization members; resolved compliance measures to secure blueberry access to Korea; restored $88 million worth of frozen deer velvet exports to China; and achieved a 12-month reprieve for costly EU deforestation regulations, saving farmers and exporters up to $200 million. Reducing these barriers is part of the Government’s plan to grow the economy, to lift incomes for all Kiwis, and to create jobs.

Mike Butterick: What additional actions are the Government taking to address trade barriers?

Hon TODD McCLAY: New Zealand exported $98.2 billion worth of goods and services this year to June 2024. Over the next 12 months, we will continue to focus on targeting over $900 million worth of NTBs, including seeking a permanent exemption to EU deforestation regulations, removing a ban on structural timber exports to Australia, restrictions on cosmetic exports to China, and we’ll continue to take action against Canada dairy restrictions. We’re focused on removing barriers to trade and making it easier for farmers and growers to supply high-quality, safe food to the world.

Mike Butterick: What action is the Government taking to restore Canadian dairy access?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, Canada continues to fail to meet its obligations to New Zealand under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership in respect of dairy exports to Canada. Last year, under the previous Government, New Zealand started a formal dispute procedure under this agreement with Canada, and we won a panel ruling in our favour. Unfortunately, Canada continues to not comply with their obligations, and, as a result, New Zealand dairy farmers are missing out on market access that was negotiated and granted under that trade agreement. This is a matter of principle. New Zealand takes its obligations seriously and we expect others to also do so, and we will stand up for New Zealand farmers and exporters. We’ve therefore taken further action which forces Canada to meet with us formally to make changes to allow exports or to pay New Zealand compensation for the trade harm they are causing. The ball is now squarely in Canada’s court. The New Zealand Government reserves the right to take any action we deem appropriate, including imposing tariff sanctions on Canadian exports to New Zealand. I say the time is running out for Canada to honour their obligations to New Zealand farmers.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to restore law and order. A year ago, Kiwis demanded fresh leadership and a new approach to a major rise in violent and retail crime that occurred in recent years. Since then, we’ve made big changes and we’re already seeing results. Foot patrols have increased 30 percent, ram raids are down 60 percent, serious assaults have dropped 3 percent, and aggravated robberies are down 11 percent. There are more changes coming: tough new gang laws take effect tonight and stronger sentencing is on the way. There’s always more to do, but the signs suggest that restoring law and order means that we’re getting New Zealand back on track.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can he define what tino rangatiratanga means, given his Government has introduced a bill to redefine tino rangatiratanga?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said, the bill is being introduced at first reading, it won’t be supported at second reading, and therefore it won’t become law.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. My question was asking for the Prime Minister to define what tino rangatiratanga means, not to discuss the second reading of the bill.

SPEAKER: Yes, but you asked two legs in that question. The second part was in relation to the legislation being introduced, and the Prime Minister gave an answer to that.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There was not two legs to that question. There was only one leg to the question, which was, “Can he define what tino rangatiratanga means, given his Government has introduced the bill to redefine tino rangatiratanga?”—there was not two legs in that question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, there is.

Rawiri Waititi: So the question was clear and he didn’t address it, nor did he answer it.

SPEAKER: The first leg was the question, “Could he define”; the second was “given”. So he’s responded to the second leg of the question. Sorry, I’m not being difficult; I’m just telling you what the rules are. I know that’s challenging for some.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can he define what tino rangatiratanga means?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Unqualified exercise over land and taonga.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: The Prime Minister was respectfully welcomed at marae across all the country, so why couldn’t he offer Māori the same respect when welcoming them to Parliament yesterday?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said yesterday, many of the organisers were affiliated with that member’s party, Te Pāti Māori. You can hold me to account on this Parliament many days in any given week. My message to the hīkoi was very straightforward, which is the bill is being supported at first reading but not beyond that and won’t become law. And the last thing, as I say, is I engage with Māori up and down the country on a range of issues.

Rawiri Waititi: Prime Minister for the whole country, or not?

SPEAKER: Stick to my rules.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: For clarity, is the Prime Minister saying that any members of Te Pāti Māori or members of the public who affiliate to Te Pāti Māori will never be met with by the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I’m not saying that. We sent a delegation out from the National Party that represented our position, received the hīkoi here at Parliament—it was good.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister been told that tino rangatiratanga means the chief’s word is gospel; not every Tom, Dick, Rawiri, or Hone?

SPEAKER: I think the point is made. Is there another supplementary?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will he reconcile the damage he has done to the Crown’s relationship with Māori after not showing up to the largest hīkoi in the history of New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I’d say is that the way that we build a stronger relationship with Māori and the Crown is by focusing on things that matter most to Māori. And what matters most to them is how they lift their incomes, how they secure better housing, how they get timely, quality access to healthcare, how they improve educational outcomes. Those are the things that matter to Māori and to non-Māori, and that’s what this Government is doing. And, you know, frankly, I haven’t heard anything from that member talking about why only 12 percent of Māori students are at the standard they need to be at going into high school. That kind of matters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister not astonished that umbrage is being taken to his not being out there yesterday when he was, like others, never invited to be part of it, unlike in any other Māori setting?

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. We’ve got a point of order going on so we’ll all behave ourselves.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you. Looking at Speakers’ rulings 197/5 and 197/6, which I think have been consistently broken by the Deputy Prime Minister, I just wanted to test and seek your guidance about the fact we’ve got a Deputy Prime Minister who keeps referring to the standards of this place, yet continues to ignore the very same rules that he claims to abide by—specifically, in this case, those two Speakers’ rulings.

SPEAKER: Look, I’m not sure that I’ve heard the actual Speakers’ rulings that were being quoted.

Ricardo Menéndez March: 197/5—

SPEAKER: 187/5.

Ricardo Menéndez March: 197/5 and 197/6. I can read them out loud.

SPEAKER: Sorry, what is your number? What page is it?

Ricardo Menéndez March: Page 197. So—

SPEAKER: What, sorry?

Ricardo Menéndez March: 197/5, which reads: “The whole idea of supplementary questions is not to make a range of political statements about an issue but to dig into an issue, to test a Minister’s answer.”

SPEAKER: Oh, OK. So for those who are perhaps listening or viewing who are uncertain what that means, there’s a Speaker’s ruling that says supplementary questions should not be used for making political statements. The fact is, when there was a slightly political statement made, I didn’t allow the question. I can’t know what the question is until it’s made. The second point is that if we were to get strict on that, then there would be a significant number of questions that don’t get asked. So I thank the member for calling that to the attention of the House, it’s something everyone should bear in mind, but there’s nothing further to do here.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is he ignoring the 270,000-strong petition to kill the Treaty principles bill when more people signed it than voted for the ACT Party?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we have a coalition agreement—we’re supporting the bill to first reading. We honour our commitments and our agreements to each other in this coalition Government, and we’re saying we’re not supporting it at second reading. It won’t become law unless the Opposition parties vote for it.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Right, sorry, lost my way there—just one or two other things going on.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree with New Zealand First that there are no Treaty principles, only articles, and, if so, will he be replacing the principles he’s removing from 28 pieces of legislation with the articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We want to have maximum clarity so we can get things done in this country and that means that when we have a Treaty principles reference, it’s specific to the legislation that it’s involved with.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he still believe he has lived up to his own statement that “The Treaty is our past, present, and future. It has shaped the country we have become, and the obligations it imposes on both sides will always be with us”, given his Government has introduced the Treaty principles bill, which serves to redefine the Treaty and to remove the Treaty from 28 pieces of legislation; is he misleading the country and being fallacious?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question: yes.

General Debate

General Debate

STEVE ABEL (Green): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

I sometimes feel—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I wish you would!

STEVE ABEL: —that’s very kind!—that the sum of this House is, in fact, inferior to the conscience of the individuals within it.

Hon Todd McClay: Speak more highly of yourself.

STEVE ABEL: I’m speaking of the member opposite, even. I’m saying that if it had been put to this House as a true conscience vote—that is, whether this House would support the nasty Treaty principles bill—I believe that members on the whole would have voted it down overwhelmingly. But, more than that, I even believe that if the motion was put to this House that Māori never ceded sovereignty and it was actually allowed to be voted on as a genuine matter of conscience, even now the House and the members of it would vote in support of that motion.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s drivel. That’s arrogant drivel. That’s arrogant white man’s drivel. What do you know about it?

STEVE ABEL: Well, I would love it if the Deputy Prime Minister would support that motion being put, and let’s see what happens. This Government, and, unfortunately, the expressions from both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in the last iteration of this question time, is anachronistic. It is behind the times in terms of the feeling that is now embodied in the people of this country. What was manifest in that magnificent hīkoi yesterday that turned up here in its tens of thousands was that the majority of New Zealanders support a principle of unity, of kotahitanga, of standing together in the embodiment and the manifestation of the promise of our founding agreement, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That indeed will sweep away the hatred and the division embodied by the likes of Hobson’s Pledge. It will sweep it away in a movement of unity that establishes the true promise of Te Tiriti.

What we have here is an unstoppable commitment to the recognition that we as a nation are stronger when we stand together, and that was the promise that was always embodied in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The small-minded selling of snake oil that suggests that somehow Te Tiriti is a threat to equality is exactly that. It is snake oil. Te Tiriti embodies a principle of equality in Article the Third, and what is more, we have the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We have those things that guarantee equality. In its fundamental sense, Te Tiriti is about relationships, and no one meaningfully wants to have a relationship that does not see self-determination for the other party to that relationship. Who in their hearts wants their children to be raised in a nation where there is not justice for Māori? Not I, and I’m sure that in all of our hearts we do not want to see that.

What we have here is, I believe, the last vestiges of that backward thinking that is embodied in the policies of this Government, not just the Treaty principles bill but the removal of section 7AA in terms of Oranga Tamariki, the backward step in the marine and coastal environment, and the 2004 legislation that began the first large hīkoi. Well, it didn’t begin the first large hīkoi—there were many hīkoi before that, but it was the last time until yesterday that we had a major hīkoi. There was also the revoking of the Māori Health Authority. All of these actions are actually examples of a Government that has got it completely backwards on what the priorities are for most New Zealanders.

In its essence, the Treaty is about our founding relationship. Te Tiriti underpins a just society. It holds diversity as a strength. It honours a simple principle—that the power of our nationhood begins with the bond of respect. It upholds the right to self-determination for Māori, the first New Zealanders. It is a living document that ensures dignity and belonging to all of those who make Aotearoa home. It is—and I will say this time and time again because no one has ever said it better—in the words of Moana Jackson, a profound and visionary base upon which to build a country. From yesterday, we have a movement that will take us to constitutional transformation that will fulfil the obligations and the promise of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

SPEAKER: There is currently quite a volume of noise coming from the gallery as people organise to observe what’s happening for the rest of the afternoon. I just ask the people in the gallery to talk in a whisper rather than a loud voice, if that’s OK.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Well, Mr Speaker, thank you very much. It’s a pleasure and a privilege to speak in the general debate, and I note that it is my first opportunity this year. I was reflecting for a moment, whilst not listening to the speech of the last member, Steve Abel, that, ultimately, of all the things I’ve been asked to do in this Parliament—of course, with the exception of being the member of Parliament for Rotorua—the greatest privilege and responsibility I feel is as the Minister of Agriculture, because, every day, I get to come to work as the Minister of Agriculture, supported by every single member from each of the parties in the coalition Government to work hard, to make the lot better for our farmers. Today, on behalf of the Government, I would like to say to the farmers of New Zealand that we understand how hard you work and we’re grateful for the work that you put in and for your significant contribution to New Zealand—not only to our economy but to every part of life in New Zealand.

Our farmers have been doing it hard and, over a period of time, much harder than they need to. Yet, they get out of bed every day, they take risks, they work hard, they care about their animals, they care about the environment, and they deliver for New Zealand. Whenever New Zealand has had problems with the economy, irrespective of the Government, it’s the farmers that dig deep, produce high-quality, safe food and fibre to export to the world, and they rebuild the economy, and they’re helping this Government pay off the huge hole of debt run up by the Labour Party when they were there.

It’s very easy being the Minister of Agriculture in a National - ACT - New Zealand First Government because we are the Government, we are the parties, that understand farmers and how hard they work. We have been working as hard in the last year as they have. I won’t go through the whole list, but these are just some of the things that we’ve been able to do to help them because we trust farmers. We know they care about their land, we know if we set sensible rules, they will work to them, and, in many cases, they’ll do much more than a Government would ask them to do to meet their environmental responsibilities and to grow the economy.

We’ve disbanded He Waka Eke Noa, and even members opposite, in Labour, are pleased we’ve done that, because I don’t think they wanted it in the end either. We’re removing agriculture from the emissions trading scheme. We’re restoring common sense to intensive winter grazing and stock exclusion rules. We’re committed to rebalancing the hierarchy of obligations under Te Mana o te Wai to recognise the rights and responsibilities of all water users. We’ve commenced an independent review of biogenic methane. We launched a select committee report inquiry into banking. We’ve invested more in catchment groups. We’ve invested more in rural support trusts. We’ve introduced pragmatic rules for on-farm water storage. We’ve established a pastoral group to work with the Government—actually in partnership—to find solutions to the challenges of climate change. We’ve begun reforming rules around biotech, we have implemented sensible changes around significant natural areas, and the list goes on, and it goes on and it goes on.

This year, we will hear very soon about agriculture’s contribution to the economy—more than $55 billion worth of exports all over the world; high-quality, safe food that consumers around the world not only want, they are willing to pay more for, and they’re doing that as a result of the reputation of New Zealand producers and New Zealand farmers, and this is a Government that backs them. We’re actually saying we’re not going to leave them alone, that we have their backs, and we’re going to work harder for them to get more money through the farm gate because we want our farmers and growers to earn more this year and next year for their hard work than they have previously. We’re going to reduce costs and get what they earn up.

Already in the area of market access, we’ve got some runs on the board in just 12 months. For instance, we’ve got the EU free-trade agreement (FTA) into place many months sooner than we were told we would, which means that kiwifruit and onion producers got $46 million extra this year in tariff savings that they wouldn’t have otherwise. That New Zealand - UAE FTA, which we negotiated in just 4½ months, gives the best access on day one to that market of any agreement that New Zealand has ever signed. And the conclusion of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) agreement with those Gulf States after 18 years means that our exporters will do better.

I have a prediction for the sheep farmers out there who are doing it harder than anybody else around New Zealand—they will remember the years when, actually, all of our lamb used to go into Iran. I think the GCC and, particularly, Saudi Arabia, who have a great desire for the food that we produce and the lamb that we grow in New Zealand, will actually replace what Iran was, so that we can sell more. The Government is doing that, with the Prime Minister leading, hustling on the world stage, with the Deputy Prime Minister out there bringing down our barriers so that we can have better access, and with me as the trade Minister. We’re doing that so our farmers can earn more and our sheep farmers can do well. The Agreement on Trade and Sustainability—

SPEAKER: Very good—the member’s time has well expired.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. First of all, I’d like to mihi to our people who rose in the last nine to 10 days and arrived here in a huge korowai of love.

Ka nui te mihi aroha o tō tātou Kuīni, Ariki Nga wai hono i te po [Many compassionate acknowledgments of our Queen, Queen Nga wai hono i te po], who saw her people walking, who felt the pain of her people, and led with them. Huge acknowledgment to the communities who dipped into their pockets, who dipped into their w’ānau pockets, and who made sure they supported our whānau.

A huge mihi to Toitū Te Tiriti kaihautū, who, with the experience of the OGs, carried the pouwhenua o Te Rōpū Matakite. You mobilised, you showed, with determination and dignity, that you could care for each other, respect the mana of the whenua you moved through, and the reconciliation and the respect that got you here. We have immense pride in the way you mobilised and arose, and we showed that we are not outnumbered. In fact, we showed we can organise ourselves. You know and I know that there were at least 70,000 to 80,000 there—the police, clearly, left the rangatahi and the children out—but we’ve become used to that narrative from this place, and despite our staff being blocked from being able to give out water and toilet our kaumātua, and being blocked from being able to look after our disabled community, we still looked after you with dignity.

E te iwi, you have every right to rise, every right to be angry and deeply hurt. This Government has betrayed iwi Māori. It has unleashed a wrecking ball through te iwi Māori. The Prime Minister has traded the mana of Te Tiriti. He’s exposed our mokopuna to harm for a bill it doesn’t even intend to support. He thinks so little of te iwi Māori that he has unleashed an unprecedented attack on our mokopuna, which we are forced to defend. Be very clear who the attacker and who the defenders here are, and we will expose to the world the cruelty of this Government.

Te Puea and Tā Apirana collaborated. They strengthened and they joined forces to mobilise an affirmative action to unite and strengthen our people. This was the price of citizenship.

Kōhanga reo was created as a movement of young parents over 40 years ago to mobilise an affirmative action reclaiming te reo tikanga for our babies, and here we have, accumulated over nine days, an affirmative call to action that landed and was realised at Parliament yesterday. Our babies of 40 years ago are leaders today. They are smart, they are savvy, in two worlds ki te ao [in the world], and that threatens those who thrive off a one-world view.

Governments in this House have crossed many, many lines. In the past, they have moved bills to confiscate our whenua. They have moved bills to imprison our tūpuna without trial. They have moved and apologised for the way that they have treated te iwi Māori.

Tino rangatiratanga is not found in David Seymour’s bill. Tino rangatiratanga is not found in Luxon’s coalition agreement. Tino rangatiratanga is not found in that uncle—it’s not found in New Zealand First. Tino rangatiratanga is not determined by the Kāwanatanga.

Tino rangatiratanga is in you. Tino rangatiratanga is in me. Tino rangatiratanga is in our mokopuna. That’s where tino rangatiratanga is, and anyone that tries to silence our mokopuna in this House will see the wrath of te ao Māori and the wrath of our tikanga.

Tino rangatiratanga is about us. It belongs in our homes, in our marae, in our hapū, and in our communities. We are our own rangatiratanga, and I get that not everybody wants to celebrate their rangatiratanga, but we are it, and that’s what’s next, whānau mā. What’s next and what comes next is us asserting our rangatiratanga. “Ko te kokonga o te whare e kitea, engari ko te kokonga o te ngākau kāore e kitea”. [“The corners of a house are clear to see, but the corners of the heart are invisible”.]

There is no aroha for our people in this House. There is no aroha when we sit there and we have to see our staff blocked from being able to manaaki, to give water to everybody, because what the last nine days has been about, whānau mā, is everybody—everybody who fights and wants to have the right to live with peace, and aroha, and dignity.

This is what it’s about, whānau. You are the affirmative action. You are the next step. You have the ability to march and put yourself and register on the Māori roll. That is the only way we’re ever going to clean up this paruwaru. That is the only way you’re going to be able to assert and make sure this Government and future Governments never try to tinker, or tamper, or tutū with our Tiriti and our mokopuna.

E te whānau mā, e te whānau mā, that is the affirmative action. You have it within yourselves. It takes two minutes to go home and to get on and make sure you register to go on to the Māori roll. Do not let them have the last say, e te iwi Māori.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the requirement for interjections to be rare and reasonable still apply during the general debate?

SPEAKER: Probably less so.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Less so? OK.

SPEAKER: It’s generally a very robust debate, as the member will be well aware, but if I’m being asked to make a statement now about what might be coming, then, you know, it’s obviously a moveable feast.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: No, not at all. No, it’s what has been; not what’s coming.

SPEAKER: OK, right.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Yesterday’s hīkoi wasn’t grassroots; it was—

SPEAKER: Sorry, I have called you, so we’ll stick with that, but it was a Labour call. My apologies. The Rt Hon Winston Peters will start again.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yesterday’s hīkoi wasn’t grassroots; it was a Māori Party astroturf. What most in the mainstream media are not reporting is that the organiser of the hīkoi is the son of sitting Māori Party MP Kapa-Kingi. He’s employed by the Māori Party and stood as a candidate for the Māori Party before. The company that fund-raised and coordinated the hīkoi was incorporated in September by the wife of Rawiri Waititi and the daughter of the Māori Party president, John Tamihere. This was a total commercial jack-up. Driving and flying to Parliament in their “car-koi” was nothing but a recruitment and fund-raising tool for the Māori Party, and the Labour Party ignorantly joined them at doing it.

The Māori Party just used and manipulated thousands of Māori yesterday for their pointless political stunt. They staged a protest against a piece of legislation that they already knew is not going to pass into law. The faux outrage is obvious for all those who can see it for what it is. Their aim was to gather anyone and everyone, no matter what their cause, including patched gang members. It’s the same reason they conducted a sham haka in the House last week—a disgraceful, pre-planned, and coordinated stunt that served only to intimidate and undermine the running of the House and grab as many headlines as they could.

They are a bunch of extremists and middle New Zealand has had enough. New Zealand is a democracy whether the Māori Party like it or not, and using Māori culture as an excuse for their disgraceful behaviour is an insult to Māoridom. I have never seen this kind of arrogant person in the House like we’ve seen with the Māori Party today. No ordinary Kiwi, Māori or non-Māori, should accept this behaviour and intent of this party of extremists. They don’t want democracy; they want anarchy. They don’t want one country, one people, one law; they want separatism, division, and the laws being based on race the way they see it. They state that specifically, and the Labour Party have fallen over themselves to try and join them in their race to the bottom.

There are some more conservative Labour MPs who know they are coming to a point of no return. Their party has already left middle New Zealand a long time ago, and their party is going to leave them hanging in the wind soon also. They must wake up at night in cold sweats, thinking about how much Labour is now fighting for the space on the woke far left instead of fighting for middle New Zealand. There are too many people there who don’t know what a working day is. They’ve never done a manual job, and they don’t know what poverty smells, tastes, and feels like—

Hon Damien O’Connor: Oh, that’s wrong.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and it shows all the time. No, no, that member knows. I know he knows. Take a look at his hands and I know he knows, but they don’t know.

Now, since 1867, Māori have been elected to Parliament, with just four winning a general seat until the introduction of MMP, and I’m one of those four. We saw the exponential growth of the number of Māori MPs with MMP. Right now, we have the record number of Māori in Cabinet—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: You can’t make a speech without reading.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —of any Government—more than all the Māori Party MPs combined. Yeah, I’m reading it because I wrote it. Unlike that member, I can write my own speech. I’m not an incoherent, thoughtless twit. I’ve got it out there because it’s going out shortly over the airwaves and I want the language to be as accurate as I planned it.

Here we go. We’ve got a record number, and all the party of extremists wants to do is act with utter contempt and ignorance of the process that has been made thus far in all we’ve accomplished. And what is their record for Māori? They’ve done, over the years, exactly nothing. Some of us can speak for days about what we’ve done, but not them. They are trying to tear down our country along with them. We are not going to concede or yield to these separatists, these people who spew an anthem of hate against other people. We will not be bullied by these cultural elitist extremists.

We stand for one people, one country, one flag, united as one, Māori and non-Māori, and as someone who can remember the Māori Land March—and all its beginnings in a famous court case in 1974 and 1975, over 50 years ago—and Whina Cooper being at a meeting one night in Pataua when we were getting ready to take on the then Labour Party Government and the Whangārei County Council, and she said, “I know what I’ll do. We’ll have a Māori land march.” That’s the background of this sort of behaviour—not this “car-koi” I saw yesterday—where she endeavoured to walk as many kilometres as she could. This is someone I know, not yesterday’s pretence where Te Pāti Māori also stayed at the Sofitel, flew down at the taxpayers’ cost, stayed the Sofitel, then back they go.

We are not going to take it any more. It’s the only way our country will ever succeed, and we will never give up fighting for that. In the words of The Seekers, “the carnival is over”.

SPEAKER: It’s my fault that the sequence of the afternoon’s debate has got out of sequence. There will be two Labour speeches consecutively over the next two calls.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an honour to be able to contribute to this general debate today. I know there are a lot of very important issues going on this week—the hīkoi yesterday, which I participated in; I’m sunburnt and I’ve got blisters from it. I want to acknowledge everyone who turned out yesterday. I also want to acknowledge the reading of a very important, significant bill for the Samoan community that will be coming up too.

What I want to speak about today is the anniversary yesterday of Pike River, which was 14 years ago, and the acknowledgment that the House made yesterday of the loss of those 29 men—acknowledging their families, their friends, acknowledging the people who took part in the rescue and recovery events following that, and still think of those family members every day. I want to acknowledge the House for unanimously remembering that fateful day.

Now, of course, that day changed the health and safety approach that New Zealand had. Since then, we’ve had significant changes to our health and safety legislation and significant changes, I think, to our approach to health and safety. These have largely been things that have had agreement across the House. Health and safety, I think, is an area that doesn’t need to be politicised. We are all of the view as New Zealanders that everyone deserves to go to work and come home safely, and we should all be working towards that objective.

Unfortunately, since our reforms that were undertaken by the then National Government after Pike River, we haven’t seen a significant decrease in the number of workplace fatalities or the number of workplace-related illnesses that people have contracted at work. I think the estimate that WorkSafe has, including illnesses and fatalities, is that around 10,000 people, over 10,000 people, have been killed as a result of those work-related injuries and illnesses. This number is simply too high. We must do better as a country.

It is very difficult to point the finger at one particular reason for this, because we do have very similar regulatory systems to countries that have much better health and safety statistics. What I mean by that is when they send their people out to work, they’ve got a much better chance of coming home safely than they do in New Zealand. Two countries that do have very similar regulatory systems to us are Australia and the United Kingdom, but we have 60 percent higher fatalities than Australia and a massive 500 percent higher fatalities than the United Kingdom. We must do better.

What we know now is that the Government is currently reviewing health and safety in New Zealand. What I would urge the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, and in fact members of the Governing parties, to consider is the fact that this does not need to be a thing that divides us politically. We need to make decisions to invest in health and safety. That’s not just me saying that as someone who is looking for bipartisan consensus to invest in health and safety. This is actually something echoed by the business leaders throughout New Zealand. In fact, 60 businesses recently wrote to the Minister and suggested that there should be more investment and better regulatory reform around health and safety.

Now, I know the Minister is looking at this and has recently concluded an exercise on what changes should be made to health and safety, but what I’m concerned about is the direction this is going in, considering the cuts that the Government has made not only in this particular area but across the public sector. Since last November, WorkSafe, which is our main health and safety regulator, has cut 113 roles and been ordered by Cabinet to find at least $5 million worth of savings. They’ve recently announced a second restructuring process that would look to reduce and change their workforce, and they are looking to change 180 roles. They’ve already lost 15 percent of their staff—an additional 10 percent of their budget through agreements with ACC. We need more investment and we need better regulatory reform in health and safety.

Businesses throughout New Zealand are saying this, they’re doing this, and they’re saying this in conjunction with unions. The reason that this is so important is we now have the same number of health and safety inspectors per head of population that we had during Pike River. We cannot allow another Pike River to happen under our watch. So I urge this House and I urge the Minister to come together to make sure we have the world-leading health and safety regulatory system that keeps our people safe at work so that when we say goodbye to our loved ones in the morning, we know with confidence that they are going to be able to come home safe at the end of the day.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and can I also acknowledge those who are here in the gallery this afternoon.

Yesterday, we greeted the Hīkoi mō Te Tiriti here on the lawns of Parliament—well, those that could fit on to the lawns of Parliament. We’ve been watching the hīkoi’s progress over the past nine days, winding its way across the country from Muriwhenua and Murihiku and activating large crowds across the motu. In what I believe to be the largest Parliament protest in history, we saw tens of thousands of New Zealanders converge on Parliament to send this Government a message. That message is “Kill the bill”. We don’t need your Treaty principles bill, your divisive, moumou moni, moumou tāima [waste of money, waste of time] bill.

The bill does nothing but take Māori-Crown relationships backwards. It undermines decades of progress we have fought hard for to recognise and compensate for past breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

As Chris Hipkins said, this bill is structured to facilitate anger, hatred, fear, resentment, and division, and the only reason we have this bill is because Christopher Luxon is willing to trade off Māori-Crown relationships, undermine Māori rights, and waste over $4 million simply because he prioritised his deal with David Seymour over the best interests of the New Zealand public.

While we are being deliberately distracted, let’s not forget that in the New Zealand First and National coalition agreement, the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, has agreed to a comprehensive review of all legislation and all references to Treaty principles in legislation, and what they have agreed to is to replace it with specific words—what words; who is deciding what those words are?—or to repeal it entirely. This is all because Christopher Luxon has agreed to this.

This Government has already done so much damage to Māori. They’ve disestablished Te Aka Whai Ora, an entity established to help address significant health disparities that Māori suffer in this country. They have directed Pharmac not to prioritise work on the Treaty, despite obvious health needs for Māori. They’ve downgraded Te Tiriti in our schools and in what we teach our children. They’ve started to rewrite and rebalance Aotearoa histories in schools. They’ve introduced a bill that will repeal the Treaty provisions in the Oranga Tamariki Act—section 7AA. This is the legislation that governs State care, where Māori are disproportionately represented because of our country’s colonial history. They have implemented boot camps, a failed experiment that impacts significantly on rangatahi Māori. All participants are rangatahi Māori. They are removing Māori wards in an attempt to diminish Māori voices. They are amending the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act to make it harder for Māori to exercise their rights.

Today, the lead Minister for the Government’s response to the royal commission could not even say that she accepts the findings that conclude that contributing factors to neglect and abuse in care were the lack of legislation specific to care settings that gave effect to—wait for it—Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Let’s make no mistake, this Government is hell-bent on taking Māori and race relations backwards, as if the only way they can maintain power is to divide us, but yesterday, what we also saw at the hīkoi was a beautiful demonstration of kotahitanga. The Treaty unites us. Don’t use it to divide us.

I want to mihi to all of those who came to Parliament and to all of those who could not be here but were supporting from afar. The message that you brought was powerful. It is one of hope and positivity for our future. I implore this Government to recognise and respect Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Recently, I had the pleasure in Ōtautahi Christchurch of opening the new Mapu Maia Pasifika mental health and addiction service. What a great service Mapu Maia is in the Pasifika community, because for us on this side of the House, what it speaks to is local solutions for local needs. We know that in mental health that is the approach we need. It’s about local communities being supported and empowered to look after themselves—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How much money was cut from the Pacific budget this year, Mr Doocey?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: —and Mapu Maia is a good example of that. The Opposition can call out, but what they need to take responsibility for is the dire straits of the health system that they left us after six years. They took a wrecking ball to the health system in the middle of a pandemic. Their own report said to reduce from 20 district health boards to between eight to 10. What did they do? In the middle of a pandemic, they took a wrecking ball to the health system and went down to zero. What they did was centralise.

Let’s look back at that last Government, which was a failed socialist experiment. Their only playbook was to centralise, whether it was the polytech reforms, whether it was three waters—that went down like a cup of cold sick—and, of course, the pae ora health reforms. In their view, Wellington knows best, but in local communities’ view, they know that they know best. That’s exactly what this Government is backing. When you look at the reforms we are bringing into the health system of bringing in regionalisation, of bringing back accountability and local decision making to the front line, that needs to be supported. What we don’t want is money stuck in the beltway of Wellington. We need to get that out into the communities.

That’s why this coalition Government made the decision to fund Gumboot Friday: $24 million to give 15,000 young people the timely mental health support they need. It was great to see in the health survey that got released yesterday the declining rate of unmet need for young people for mental health, because when you look at the issue, it is about timely access. We want to ensure that when young people have a need for mental health support, they can get that need. That’s why we’re proud to fund hundreds of councillors across the motu that can reach out, quite often within 24 or 48 hours, to provide young people with the support they need. That’s why this Government will ensure that we get money out of Wellington to the front line.

We recently started rolling out a new peer support service in emergency departments. That was not new money; that was old money stuck in the beltway because of the last Government. Who would believe with all the need around mental health, the last Government was just sitting on money in Wellington. That’s why we’ve got money out of Wellington to the front line.

Look at the recently announced mental health workforce plan. The Auditor-General came out in a damning report on the last Government: in six years, they hadn’t even put a mental health workforce plan. We put that out in our first year.

On top of that, we’ve committed to doubling the amount of psychologists in New Zealand and increasing the number of psychiatrists training by 50 percent; also, a $1 million fund to train further peer support workers. All of that was done out of baseline. That didn’t need any new funding. There was funding sitting in Wellington that the last Government wouldn’t put out to the front line. They can talk a big game in mental health, but on this side of the House, we know that Wellington doesn’t know best. We know the answer isn’t just centralising. We want to back local communities like the Mapu Maia service in Christchurch, who will provide timely Pasifika mental health and addiction support. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There is a dichotomy in life. All living creatures come and spring from the same source, meaning each of us is part of the whole. Since the first reproducing life emerged on this planet, we have been on a journey of diversifying into the myriad of species and ways of life that we see on Earth today. We humans have had a truly remarkable impact on this world, to the point that some have proposed a category of this epoch being the Anthropocene, the human era, to describe this time in Earth’s history. Humans in our civilisation have reached great heights of achievement, and have made mistakes along the way.

Zooming in on this country, from the first human arrivals, we have introduced alien species to it and exterminated native ones. This place has changed beyond recognition from the primordial land that glided away into the South Pacific from Gondwana. We must see what has happened, but we must move forward and have a realistic view of the environment. I do not speak in this House today of grand global changes; I speak in this House about the parks, the ranges, the fiords, ngāhere, roto, ngā māunga [forests, lakes, and mountains], as well as the animals that are held within.

It is an interesting question: what gives value to an animal? Many don’t think twice about swatting a fly or trapping a rat. Our Australian cousins shudder at our callous disregard to the life of their humble possum. There are many groups in New Zealand lauded and looked to for their environmental bona fides. In many cases, they do incredible work, but there is a group who has been overlooked. They are a diverse group from all parts of New Zealand and every walk of life, united in their pursuit of both that diversity and unity which is achieved when taking part in the most natural activity: hunting. Hunters are conservationists. Someone who hunts cannot help but care for the unified natural world because they are so much a part of it, and more than any human being could ever hope to be.

To be a hunter you need ecological insight and intuition, and to become a part of the ecosystem at a level that is totally unnecessary without the pursuit of an animal. Whatever game one is looking for, the hunter must understand the plants, the weather, the land, the history, the pursued animal, and the other species in the environment. It is a profound connection with nature. Hunters become part of, and care for, the environment because to be successful you must be a part of it.

To have hunters, there must be the hunted. In this country, these are mostly introduced species, the alien animals brought here by us, but these species have become as much a part of this land as we have. They are valuable. One value is realised in the effect of drawing thousands of Kiwis into the deepest parts of this country again and again, parts that are often only reached because of the animals they hold. To be a hunter, one must be in tune with the environment. The result is the people who see the changes first and in the greatest depths are often the hunters who walk on, crawl on, and sleep on the land as they move through its flora and fauna in the pursuit of those valuable animals.

These animals also have a more material value. Hunter-led groups such as the Sika Foundation harvest these animals and donate literally tonnes of healthy, nutritious meat to charities such as Meat the Need to share this bounty with communities who need it. The Fiordland Wapati Foundation uses their time and experience to run sections of Fiordland for the better management of the whole environment by sustainable harvest and predator control. Hunters for Conservation are educating recreational hunters to be the ethical management tool to sustainably manage ko te ngāhere te taonga—our treasured bush.

Other groups, like the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association and their members, devote great labours and resources to keeping our tracks and huts open so all Kiwis can get out into our treasured natural asset. Hunters and the animals they value should be valued by all of us.

When it comes to conserving our environment, I believe that hunters don’t just deserve a voice at the table, I think that we’d be crazy not to make a place for them. We can all gain from the deep connections, knowledge, and understanding which hunters have. Hunters come from all walks of life and the beauty of what it takes to be a hunter is that it is open to everyone. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): There’s a great line out of the Good Book, and it actually refers to the fact that warmth can’t be generated alone: ki te takoto tahi te tokorua tērā te mahana [we have seen heat but no warmth]. If I’m not mistaken, it’s from the Book of Ecclesiastes, and from the Māori Party we have seen heat but no warmth. There is no warmth emanating out to the broad New Zealand public, there is no warmth associated with people enjoying mutual respect, but there are ongoing accusations, ongoing reprising of historical events as if we live with them and under them as a yoke.

Stop, Māori Party—stop, Māori leadership—condemning New Zealand to live under the shadow of made-up history and threats and exaggerations, and stop coming into this House. To my relations: no, you are not self-appointed; no, you are chattering fools. You may celebrate the hīkoi, but we know it was used as a recruitment device by yourselves, and also the shawl-wearing Green false prophets.

Māoridom know, as my leader has just said, that the carnival is over; now it’s back to the grindstone of life. Put your hands upon the plough. Look after ourselves. Stop all these false expectations that somehow through a hīkoi, somehow through endless debates about the Treaty that work will emerge, investment will flow, security will be widespread. That comes from the sweat of thy brow. I love sounding in this old-fashioned way, because that’s what’s missing from that particular narrative.

I don’t know about you, New Zealanders, but I’ve had a gutsful of the fake feathers, as artificial as the political narrative served up day after day after day, as if the only way forward for New Zealand is to continually turn around and join with a small group of Māori bemoaning our history. We cannot dissolve our history away. Irrespective of whether you regard it as having a bleak colour or a joyful colour, the future lies in front of us. What about that future? One thing: Māori Party, Māori leadership, be quick to listen. Be quick to listen and slow to speak.

I heard some of the speeches at the hīkoi yesterday. They were definitely a non-climax. They were not befitting for such an occasion and they offered no hope, they offered no integration, and they certainly offered no sense of direction.

Of course, New Zealand First will be condemning the Waitangi Tribunal to a haircut. We are sick and tired of what’s been spilling out of those reports, which is driving New Zealanders apart but, more importantly, is not rooted in historical fact. Secondly, we most certainly will be proceeding. We will be proceeding to prune unnecessary references to the Treaty of Waitangi from the statutory foliage—sloppy references to the Treaty—to give focus, meaning, and confidence, because without investment, without growth, without jobs, without confidence, we are going to go continually down on a slippery slope where there is very little opportunity for the growth of our people in the future.

Now, I don’t want to speak ill of the individuals who took time off work, pulled their kids out of school, marched throughout the huarahi, the roads, to come to the head of the fish, but know this from me: a child that is not educated, not well adjusted, is a child condemned to a very miserable existence. Stop believing that numeracy, literacy, and a robust understanding of our broad history is inferior to a day of a hīkoi. Of course people can enjoy their democratic rights, but those rights must be observed in the context of obligations. The coin of reciprocity has duty on one side and rights on the other.

Māori leadership, it’s all very good to celebrate rights but teach our children, teach yourselves, that obligations and an ethic of service outstrips rights. It is time that service was emphasised and the words of dissention were sent to Coventry.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I start my contribution this afternoon, I just want to acknowledge those in the gallery who have come here today for the next part of the House’s agenda, the Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the contribution and work of my colleagues Cameron Brewer, Tim Costley, and Tom Rutherford, and members across the House for what will be a historic third reading this afternoon.

What I wanted to speak about in this debate is what delivery looks like; what a Government that is getting this country back on track looks like. From 1 January to 30 September 2023, versus 1 January to 30 September 2024, we have seen ram raids down 61 percent; we’ve seen aggravated robbery down 11 percent; and we’ve seen unlawful entry with intent, burglary, or breaking and entering down by 10 percent.

Tonight the clock is ticking. Tick-tock—tonight, the nightmare this evening will be for the gangs of this country, because despite what the Opposition want to try and convince this country of, it has taken something terrible for each of those members to have those patches. Those patches don’t deserve to be seen in public, they don’t deserve to be seen on the streets of this country, and they don’t deserve to be on the arms of New Zealanders being seen by law-abiding citizens; so tick-tock, tick-tock, because at 12 o’clock tonight, those gang patches will be banned from being seen by the public of this land—as they should be.

The Government has implemented tougher measures to combat gang violence and intimidation, including, as I say, the banning of gang patches in certain public cases, and we have given police powers to disrupt gang gatherings. The free ride for gangs is over when the clock strikes midnight tonight.

We’ve also seen an increase in police numbers. National has delivered on its commitment to boost front-line police numbers. During the campaign last year, I went into stores along Victoria Avenue that hadn’t seen their local MP when the doors had been raided and they wanted to know where the police were. Well, foot patrols have increased by 30 percent; and, as I say, ram raids are down by 60 percent.

I received this text message the other day. It says, “Hello, Carl. I was wondering whether to bother you with the observation that the bobbies are again noticeably on the beat in the CBD.” People are noticing it in the electorate, the wonderful electorate of Whanganui; they are noticing it across the country. They are noticing that National and this Government is delivering on our commitment not only to get this country back on track but to restore law and order to this nation.

We are strengthening sentencing laws and there are new laws that have been introduced. Currently before the hard-working Justice Committee is the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill and the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill. We’ve expanded youth crime initiatives, and much has been said on that already this afternoon in this House. They are working and they are delivering. They are aimed at breaking the cycle of crime before it escalates.

I have seen a focus on the support for victims. The Government has expanded support services for the victims of crime, including faster access to counselling and financial assistance, reinforcing a victim-first approach to justice.

As I bring this contribution to a conclusion, I want to acknowledge the contribution of Andrew Foster and welcome the new Police Commissioner, Richard Chambers, who I’m sure will continue to put in this work to see law and order restored across this nation. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, in Tokoroa, the Kinleith Mill announced that it is proposing to restructure, and 230 jobs will be lost in the mill if that occurs. The consultation period goes through to about January. Those 230 jobs are not the end of this story, because Tokoroa is a town of 14,000-plus people and it means that things like childcare centres and cafes and retail will all go by the wayside too.

We’ve seen this happen in New Zealand before, where the Government has turned a blind eye to the need to get in boots and all and assist in rural communities to keep their industry afloat. As a result of that—I was there; I remember that happening—little towns took a battering and so did the people in them. When you get entrenched unemployment as a result of Government neglecting its role to lead and nurture our communities, you get entrenched unemployment. That actually, ironically, leads to people going into things like gangs because it is a hopeless situation, and bad stuff happens. I’m not romanticising gangs when I say that, and I’m not excusing them, but bad stuff happens in communities when we neglect them, because poverty is actually a huge, huge part of a problem.

In Tokoroa, we have decent work. We have great jobs in that mill. I’ve been involved—I was actually a lawyer involved in that work for many years—so I know the value of that work and I know that this is an issue—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about Mt Albert?

HELEN WHITE: I’m looking at the Hon Winston Peters and I’m thinking that, actually, New Zealand First has a really positive role to play here. It knows the value of Government getting in beside and doing stuff like the regional growth fund. The Provincial Growth Fund could really help in this situation, and it would be a really good thing if New Zealand First would stop worrying so much about battering the Māori Party and get on with helping a place like Kinleith, helping Tokoroa, because it has some bargaining power at the table. I would love to see Shane Jones get in behind a bit of a rescue package here, because manufacturing New Zealand is in trouble. This is the fourth major closure of a manufacturing industry.

What I was concerned to hear was the comments and responses coming from the social development Minister. She was basically saying, in a nutshell, “Oh, you know, we’ll be there to support the unemployed.” She was not saying, “We’ll get in and we’ll make sure that unemployment doesn’t happen and we’ll build an economy and a manufacturing sector. We’ll build it on the basis of what we’ve got here: beautiful access to primary industries.” We have great dairy. We have great timber industries. We have absolutely great wool and meat industries. And guess what’s closing at the moment! We’ve just had one of our major meat works close. We’ve just had this closure: Winston Pulp International. It is a chance to get involved and make our economy one that actually pays off for the people in it.

I don’t want to hear any more about the gang patch issue and the crowing that things are right. I want to hear people saying that they’ll commit to decent jobs in this country, high employment, decent jobs, because once you start a cycle of entrenched unemployment, it isn’t good for New Zealanders, and I think we should know that in this House. That’s the difference between a platitude which comes out as “Oh, we’re so sorry. We’ll get this country back on track.”, and actually something real which is a concrete plan for manufacturing in this country, which brings about some hope for people, which actually produces something. Rather than talking about productivity, let’s get on with it. I suggest that it’s time to actually go up to Tokoroa, find out what’s going wrong, and put some money and some support behind the people there to make sure that we keep our primary sector on track, actually.

Just one final thing I’d like to mention is that all recycling of paper ends if this mill closes. It goes offshore. It is a terrible thing to do to New Zealand.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I begin, I’d like to acknowledge, as well, our beautiful members of our Samoan community in the gallery, a number of whom are from my neighbourhood of Takanini: hello and bless you and thank you for coming.

I’d like to begin with just reiterating what Minister Mark Mitchell said earlier this week. He said, “After nearly a year in Government, Kiwis have seen significant change across law and order with promising early results shown across some Police statistics”. In this statement, Minister Mitchell referred to a statement he made back in August of 2023 where the Minister told us Kiwis that if we did not start seeing a change in public safety within one year of his appointment as police Minister, he said—back then—he would resign.

Now, the magnitude of that statement that he made in August 2023 was quite compelling to me, for two reasons. First, because it showed how serious Mr Mitchell—our Minister now—was and is about his laser focus on improving safety for New Zealanders across the motu. Second, because he made this statement right in the crux of South Auckland, in the heart of my electorate of Takanini; he made it in Wattle Downs. The Minister—the MP back then—had come to Takanini to perform a few welfare checks with me on a number of businesses that had been grossly negatively impacted by criminal behaviour, and on that day when he made that statement, we were visiting Uday’s family in Wattle Downs. Uday had been violently attacked a few days beforehand where youths barged into his dairy early morning, bashed him with a bat, smashed up his dairy, and he was in hospital for quite some time afterwards as a result.

On that day, we also visited Stonz in Takanini where they had a smash and grab in broad daylight on a Sunday afternoon; Manjinder and Harpreet, their business in Takanini had been ram-raided many times and they shared with the Minister and with me that they dread going to sleep because of that 2 o’clock phone call from police in the morning saying their shop has been ram raided again; Sarith from The Coffee Club, his glass was smashed; 2degrees, where the staff told us that they were being intimidated daily by people demanding free products.

The new stats that have emerged this week have been welcomed greatly in my patch of South Auckland and East Auckland, Takanini, where ram raids, as we know, have gone down by 60 percent. What an achievement—what an achievement.

Speaking of patches, as we heard from my good friend Carl Bates, 12 a.m. tonight is when our Government’s ban on gang patches in public will begin, and with it we will start to feel more safe and a sense of real security across my electorate of Takanini. For too long—for too long—my neighbours have been feeling the most unsafe they have ever felt. When a father in Waiata Shores told me last year that he was too afraid to take his twins out to the local park because of the lack of safety, it shows that we’ve got a problem. When almost every home that I door-knocked that one day in Flat Bush had been a victim to vehicle crime, it shows that we have a problem with safety.

I’m proud of the work that we’re doing on this side of the House to restore law and order and to allow decent Kiwis to feel safe, and I’m privileged, indeed I am, to be part of the hard-working Justice Committee and see this work in action. This week we embrace our 27th bill, which is part of our work that has a focus on justice and putting victims, not criminals, first. We’ve seen a reduction in victimisations across the board. We’ve seen foot patrols increase by 30 percent and everything, all of this, is so that our neighbours in Takanini and across New Zealand can feel safe.

Thank you to our police for the immensely hard work that you’re doing. As we prepare for this gang patch ban, which will begin at 12 a.m. tonight, I know a lot of my neighbours will continue this feeling where they know this Government they voted for is making measures to allow them to feel safe. Mr Speaker, thank you very much.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): I move, That the Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

What a great day it is to be Pasifika in this Parliament. Actually, it is always a great day to be Pasifika, but let me begin by saying, before the Hon Barbara Edmonds says it, that this is the 682 backing the 685. Let me begin by giving a big kia orāna kōtou kātoatoa to all of my Samoan relatives today, and a big I-E-Ko-Ko!

This bill is about justice, reconciliation, and progress for our Samoan communities in Aotearoa, and I hope that the passage of this bill is a milestone in addressing historical injustices, acknowledging intergenerational harm, and fostering accountability for past actions such as the Dawn Raids. It’s also about community involvement and the broader importance of strengthening relationships between Aotearoa and our Pacific neighbours while also promoting unity in our pursuit for justice for our communities.

This bill is a significant step for Pasifika justice here in Aotearoa and around the Pacific. I also want to acknowledge the rarity of this bill receiving unanimous political support across the House in the second reading and, of course, in the committee of the whole House. As we say in politics, it’s best not to count your chickens before they’re in the umu, but I am confident that there will be enough support—hopefully, unanimous support—for this bill to get through its third reading.

I want to also emphasise that I didn’t know previously—because this is the only bill that I’ve ever had pulled out of the biscuit tin—that it’s rare for an Opposition MP to get a bill this far. I want to acknowledge the very strong advocacy of the community today. It was your advocacy and your ability to talk right across the political aisle that is the reason why we have gotten to this point today. I say a big fa‘afetai tele lava to all of you.

Often people ask me the reasons for me putting this bill in the biscuit tin, and there are a number. As a first-term MP, you try to put something together to put into the biscuit tin, and in the last parliamentary term we were working on the Dawn Raids apology, an incredibly heavy and painful subject for our peoples. As I was doing that, Samoans my age were reaching out to me going, “Well, while you’re doing this, there’s actually all these other issues, and in particular this very specific issue for our communities that we want you to address.”

Today, I want to acknowledge the Samoans of my generation who are, like myself, first-generation Pacific Islanders born here in Aotearoa New Zealand, who have similar experiences as me and who asked me to put this bill into the biscuit tin. I want to acknowledge a number of them today. A friend of mine, Tai Pritchard is here as well. Other friends of mine like Tony Fala are here, and Renee Dingwall as well, a Green Party councillor who asked me specifically, a lot, to actually put something together and put this in the tin.

I also acknowledge all the Samoans I went to Auckland University with, along with the Hon Jenny Salesa—she’ll know all of them—people such as Lotu Fuli. A number of us ended up in the Foufou a Pulotu o Niue, which was the Niuean Students Association; people such as Terry and the others. You had an enormous impact on me, on why I should put forward this bill in solidarity with you and your communities. Most of all, today, I am thinking of my brother—our brother—Fa’anānā Efeso Collins. This one’s for you, uce—this one’s for you.

There is a historical context to this bill, and I want to acknowledge Falema‘i Lesā, who I think might be in the gallery somewhere today. I want to acknowledge her commitment and the work that she did in 1978 to challenge the Government when they took away her citizenship. I want to acknowledge the workers of that time who came to the select committee, who presented and talked about how they rallied behind Falema‘i and her legal team to get the pūtea together, to get the funding together, to take the case to the Privy Council. They won that court case and they were right. They were New Zealand citizens, and they had their citizenship removed.

I want to reflect on the weight of the debates that we’ve had in this Chamber, the weight of the conversations that we heard through the select committee process, and I want to celebrate and acknowledge the extensive consultations that we had with the impacted community. There were powerful testimonies from the Samoan community during the select committee process. I want to praise the authenticity and the passion of young people—of our rangatahi—who came to the select committee process with their vision for a better future. If I can say to our Pasifika communities, seeing the strength and the intelligence of those young people, I am certain that the future of Pasifika communities is in safe hands.

I want to acknowledge the involvement of many former MPs. I acknowledge you, Arthur Anae, for your steadfast commitment to continue to push on this issue. I note that there was a 2003 petition which had nearly 100,000 people and also a demonstration outside the steps of Parliament. I want to acknowledge the other former Samoan MPs who have participated or shown their support throughout this process, such as the Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban; Terisa Ngobi; and Aupito William Sio, who was actually one of the first people I rang when the bill was pulled out of the biscuit tin.

I want to acknowledge Te Pāti Māori for being one of my first responders when I asked them if they would support the bill, and acknowledging the connection between tangata whenua and tangata moana. Tēnā koutou katoa. I also want to acknowledge the role of engagement with Vaovasamanaia the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the considered conversations with myself. We had a number of conversations with myself and the Hon Jenny Salesa. In 1982, I was just a kid, so having the experience of the right honourable Deputy Prime Minister was valuable in trying to find a way to navigate a way forward in this.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene messaged me this morning, and I know that if she could have been, she would have been here—if she could have been, she would have been here. Suga, sister, I know that you are probably listening today. This bill is also for you. This bill is also acknowledging the work that you have done in the select committee and in your communities to get people to move forward as well.

I would like to acknowledge the ACT Party who, in the first reading, surprised the nation, I think, with their support. Dr Parmjeet Parmar, I would like to recognise your contribution and the contribution of the ACT Party. The select committee process was amicable, I think, and I’d like to acknowledge Cameron Brewer, Tim Costley, and Tom Rutherford for their work behind the scenes, trying to wrangle their lot to get this over the line in a way that suits and benefits them, and, of course, Andy Foster, whose tabled amendment got up when my two didn’t. Congratulations to him for making sure that those tabled amendments got over as well.

Before I end, I have to say that the thing with these types of things, as members of Parliament we get up and we talk and everybody thinks that it’s all about us, but, actually, the real heroes are the staff. The real heroes are the workers. I’d like to acknowledge the staff that have helped to support me, our chief of staff, our directors, our communications staff, but I want to acknowledge Samu Telefoni, who is here today. When I started this, I started this with Samu. I am an Atiuan; he is a Tongan—so you have an Atiuan and a Tongan supporting our Samoan family.

I would also like to acknowledge Leaara Kauika-Stevens, who did a lot of the heavy lifting behind the scenes, making sure that I’m organised, along with Samu as well, and the massive amounts of support that we’ve had from many of our young Māori and Pacific staff as well: Jack, Poppy, Tamahina, and Chargn, and all of our Green Party staff.

The Greens are proud to have championed this bill, and we hope that it goes some way to atoning for the past wrongs of this Parliament, by the State, against Pasifika communities. Let’s savour this small but significant victory and carry forward the momentum to achieve possibly even greater things. When we unite in the pursuit of justice there is so much more that we can accomplish. Mr Speaker, fa‘afetai tele lava. Meitaki ranuinui. I commend this bill to the House.

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

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker, distinguished guests, and Your Excellency, Samoa’s High Commissioner to New Zealand. Thank you for your submissions, thank you for your patience, thank you for your belief in the process, and thank you for your graciousness. The National Party is pleased—very pleased—to support this third reading of the Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Bill. We believe we have landed at a good place after a lot of work from a lot of people.

The bill will restore New Zealand citizenship to individuals born in Western Samoa between 13 May 1924 and 1 January 1949 yet were not in New Zealand in 1982, whose citizenship was removed with the 1982 Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act. The House’s intention is clear; the Governance and Administration Committee’s intention is clear: we are ring-fencing a cohort of now very special elderly people, possibly up to 3,500 individuals, and only those directly affected will be eligible, as of right, for citizenship by grant, not their descendants. By ring-fencing the eligible 1924-48 cohort, we have done something, as I’ve said before, that no New Zealand Parliament has done in the 42 years since the Privy Council decision. We are acknowledging today what many lost when the 1982 Parliament unanimously voted to rule those living in New Zealand at the time, citizens, but not those living in Samoa or elsewhere.

One historical perspective that continues to be perpetuated, including in the New Zealand media today, was that it was the Muldoon Government alone that overturned the Privy Council’s ruling through the 1982 legislation to take away that citizenship. Taking away that citizenship in 1982 was a unanimous decision by this Parliament, with Bill Rowling’s Labour Party and Bruce Beetham’s Social Credit joining the Government of the day to unanimously push through that legislation. Isn’t it great that, 42 years later, this Parliament is united again in the restoration of citizenship?

I want to pay tribute to our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, and I also want to pay tribute to the support from senior MPs, their offices and their officers—the Hon Nicola Willis; Shane Reti; Chris Bishop; Erica Stanford; our Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) spokesperson Chris Penk; and the chief of staff in the Prime Minister’s Office, Cam Burrows. I also want to acknowledge the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and our Minister of Internal Affairs, Brooke van Velden—thank you, Mr Peters, for all the work that you have done and continue to do in the Pacific as part of your Pacific reset programme.

By amending and not repealing this legislation, we have avoided violating the 1962 protocol to the Treaty of Friendship and potentially straining diplomatic relations with Samoa. With that in mind, and all that work that’s been done to get us this far, I want to acknowledge the sponsor, Green MP Teanau Tuiono, for his work—all his work—and leadership and willingness to adapt his original bill to get it over the line—before we could arguably lose what is the last chance to make a meaningful acknowledgement to this generation.

I want to also thank my Government colleagues National MPs Tim Costley and Tom Rutherford, as well as New Zealand First’s Andy Foster, for their interrogation and hard work over many months to knock this into shape. I want to also acknowledge Anae Arthur Anae, one of my old bosses, for all the work that he’s done and the tenacity that he’s shown. I remember writing research papers on this for caucus back in the late 1990s and he never let it go. As I’ve said before, I turned up to Auckland Council with him and he was still going on about it—and he never let it go. Thank you for all the work you’ve done, Arthur. I know it’s not exactly what you wanted, but it’s as good as we could deliver across this House and you should be very proud.

I want to also take this opportunity to make a public service announcement of some sort, with information that I have sought from the Department of Internal Affairs today, via the Minister’s office, to shine some light on how this will work in an operational sense, in a logistical sense. Assuming that the bill is signed by the Governor-General on Monday, applications for citizenship can be received from Tuesday next week. I want to also announce that the estimated processing time is 30 working days, but this is dependent on the volumes received and the information applicants provide.

The website—the dedicated web page—will be www.govt.nz/citizenship-Samoa-pre-1949. You’ll be able to find it just by going to the govt.nz site—remember that: the govt.nz site. That’ll go live by Friday—that’ll go live by Friday—with the application form, information on how to apply, and a contact centre will go live as well.

People can also—their children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews, friends and themselves—apply in person at a DIA counter in Auckland, in Wellington, in Christchurch, in Sydney, in London, and, most importantly, at the High Commission in Apia; or by mailing the application form to DIA. Information on the refunds for successful applicants, which the Government and others have agreed to, will be on the website—so that’s the information on the refunds.

This is a very, very historic day. As I was just saying to my good friend Tom Rutherford, no two days in the New Zealand Parliament are ever alike. It’s great to be here for this historic moment, knowing that it has been 42 years in the making. Frankly, our Prime Minister can feel proud that since 1982, after six Labour Prime Ministers and four National ones, he is the one Prime Minister who is putting his support to this.

I want to also acknowledge the support and willingness of the National caucus to back this—that is, the front bench and the backbench. This is 42 years in the making and it gives me great pleasure to commend to the House the Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Bill. Thank you.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker, and to all of our Samoan communities who are here at Parliament today and who are watching around Aotearoa and, in fact, the world, I know today is a very significant day for all of you. Welcome to Parliament. Today is about righting an historic wrong. It is a very big day, and I’m proud to be able to take this call and lend Labour’s full support to this bill.

Today is about correcting and finally recognising thousands of Samoan New Zealanders who have always had the right to New Zealand citizenship. Today is about justice, and I acknowledge it has been a long and hard battle for so many people who have fought for justice for so long.

I want to acknowledge Teanau Tuiono for bringing this bill before the House. I want to thank him and the Green Party for working constructively with all parties in this House and for working particularly with my Labour colleagues who I’m speaking alongside here today. Thank you for your collaboration in making sure that this bill made it over the line. On issues like this, working together is absolutely the right thing to do, and I’m very proud to stand here today to say Labour has supported this bill at every step of the way.

To the tens of thousands from our Samoan communities whose voices have helped to shape this bill, thank you for your ongoing and strong advocacy. I know there have been a lot of talanoas held throughout the year with the community, and I want to acknowledge that many have shared deeply felt, personal, and generational stories of their experiences as a result of that 1982 Act and the history between New Zealand and Samoa. I want to thank you for sharing those stories.

I want to thank our Labour MPs who have put so much work into making sure that we as a team understood why this bill was important and why our support for it mattered. They have been right there alongside our Samoan New Zealanders, supporting them each and every step of the way, whether it’s during all of those meetings around the country, on marches, bringing their voices and aspirations to Parliament. Thank you to our Pasifika MPs. To Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who can’t be here today but who sat on the Governance and Administration Committee, a very warm thankyou to you. To Carmel Sepuloni, Barbara Edmonds, Jenny Salesa, and Tangi Utikere: thank you for all of the engagement I know that you have been doing with our communities across the country. And can I thank Rachel Boyack, who so competently chaired the select committee, and all of the members on the select committee for bringing this bill back to the House.

It is a powerful thing to have strong Pacific representation at Parliament, and I’m very proud of Labour’s strong connection with our Pacific communities and the strong representatives that you have sent to be part of our team. The strong relationship and that strength of relationship is something that we celebrate and we respect every single day in this House. It helps to bring about change, like the one that we are seeing here today, and that’s why I’m proud to say that Labour will continue to wholeheartedly support this bill.

There have been many strong voices heard during this debate—almost 25,000 submissions during the select committee process. It’s been very clear that this is an issue important to and close to so many within our community. I want to thank one submitter, Falema‘i Lesā, who made history by successfully arguing her case to the Privy Council four decades ago, that she was indeed a New Zealand citizen. Her oral submission, spoken in Samoan, articulated, “The only thing I want is for my people to be able to travel freely without hindrance or legal implications. If only they didn’t take away this right from Samoans.” We have heard that message. She and many other aunties and uncles have shared similarly heartbreaking experiences of facing deportation when they should have been recognised as citizens. Thank you for sharing your testimony and for continuing to advocate to this day.

Although this bill only applies to the elders of the community—and I say elders only in the sense of age—I feel very much encouraged by the staunch voices of young Samoans who have also been pushing for change. To quote one young and bright activist who led a petition in support of this bill, Esmae Salesa, who is here. I want to quote from her directly: “[They] have a right to be here as much as anyone else does and they deserve their citizenship.” I totally agree. This is about fairness. It’s about ensuring that those who are entitled to the rights other New Zealanders have are afforded those rights.

Outside of the scope of this bill, during the select committee process, we also heard from the community that they want Samoan New Zealand visas to be reviewed. We as a Labour team would be supportive of the Government exploring those issues to remove and alleviate any potential barriers for Samoan New Zealanders wanting to make coming to New Zealand more accessible for their families.

Today’s decision to overturn injustices of the past against our Samoan communities is the way forward in honouring the spirit of the Government’s Dawn Raids apology. The apology was a watershed moment for New Zealand, and I know how important it was for our Pacific communities. I also know that we’ve still got a way to go to make sure that our actions match up with the words in that apology. Today’s passage of this bill through the House is another thing that gives meaning to the words when we said as a country that we were sorry.

We must look to our past to reconcile our future. The Muldoon era heralded a series of discriminatory immigration laws, which, of course, led to the Dawn Raids and the subsequent 1982 removal of citizenship for Samoans born between 1924 and 1948. It should never have happened. Today is a step forward.

I know for many aiga, they’ve waited a long time for this. I know just how much today means for you all and what it means for the thousands who are now going to be eligible for citizenship. I’m glad, through the select committee process, we were able to achieve something which wasn’t achieved at the first reading, the unanimous support of all parties in Parliament for this legislation. There were concessions along the way that needed to be made to get that, but I am glad that everybody got there in the end. What’s important is that there is a pathway forward for those who would otherwise have been left behind.

I know our Samoan communities are amongst our hardest-working and proudest New Zealanders, and I know that today is a big day. I know, for some of you, citizenship was the last step to being fully recognised as a New Zealander and finally feeling like you can call Aotearoa New Zealand home. I can assure you that you have always been home here.

Whenever I’ve been with our Samoan communities here, whether it’s at a Pasifika Fest, at the fale, or simply walking down Great South Road in Ōtāhuhu, I’ve always been made to feel very warmly at home, I have always been very, very well fed, and I have always enjoyed great company.

We are really proud of our Samoan communities here in New Zealand. Thank you for everything you contribute to the richness of this country. It’s a legacy of empowering our communities that we’re firmly committed to upholding. For those of you who are eligible—I understand the oldest cohort may be as young as 100 years young—once the applications are open, I encourage you to consider it. You have a right to participate in this country to the fullest, and we are very pleased that you are finally going to get this opportunity. Fa‘afetai tele lava. Thank you all again. As my colleague and good friend Barbara Edmonds, who no doubt is going to speak and say this later on, says, “Today is the 685s to the world.”

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Bill. We are quite pleased to see that this bill has come to this stage. I know that it’s a member’s bill, so for any member for their bill to be drawn from the ballot is quite exciting. And then to see this bill come to this final stage in the House is even more exciting. I would like to congratulate the member in charge, Teanau Tuiono, for bringing this bill to Parliament, giving us the opportunity to debate this issue, and coming to this point that we are agreeing to support this bill.

I would also like to express my deepest gratitude to 24,000-plus submitters. Their effort is commendable. I also want to thank everybody who has been part of this process. I know that during the first reading we had many, many members of the community—those who came here to witness the passing of the first reading and then the second reading. After the second reading, we had a beautiful function with the community, and I can say there were easily close to 150 members of the community who joined us for that function after the second reading was passed in the House.

In the committee of the whole House, good progress was made on this bill. The amendment which was made—Andy Foster’s amendment, supported by the whole committee—I want to acknowledge, because that amendment provided a good balance. This bill is not about obtaining citizenship; this bill is about reclaiming citizenship. I think it provides that really good balance that if the application is approved, the applicant will be able to get their fee refunded. The whole committee supported that amendment which is, again, a great thing.

Now, in the third reading, again, I see that there are so many members of the community here in the gallery and our gallery is full. Thank you so much for making this special effort. I know it’s not easy to come all the way to Parliament, but you have done this because this is so important for you all. It’s great to see that the community is here in person to witness the third reading of this bill. I want to thank you all for your efforts.

Just recently at an event I was talking to an individual—a respectable individual. I guess I can name that individual because that individual’s daughter has been already named: the Hon Jenny Salesa. I was talking to her, and she said that her daughter has been quite instrumental in gathering support for this bill because her grandad was affected by the 1982 Act. There have been so many reasons why people have come forward to support this bill. People really felt strongly about putting their word forward in the select committee process.

This has shown that our democratic system works. This is not the first time that the issue has come before the House. As the member in charge mentioned before, there was a petition that was in 2003, which had close to 90,000 signatures. At that point, that issue did not go through, but now this has come in the form of a member’s bill, and we are all supporting this bill and really looking forward to seeing that this bill becomes law. To the community, I would say that if you really believe in an issue, do not give up—do not give up. This is your Parliament. Keep bringing that issue again and again, as you have done this time: convinced a member to take up an issue as a member’s bill. Continue to do that. I really commend your efforts in doing so.

Becoming a citizen—as I am an immigrant—is not a small thing. Especially becoming a citizen of New Zealand is a matter of pride. It is a matter of real privilege. We know the value of being a New Zealand citizen. It brings a lot of positives. It brings a lot of obligations which are all positive, again. It brings responsibilities as well. That is our duty towards the royal authority and our duty as New Zealand citizens to make sure we are following all the laws of our country. These people have been waiting, waiting, and waiting for a very, very long time to be citizens of New Zealand and to reclaim their citizenship, so it’s not going to be anything new.

Today, with the passing of the third reading of this bill, I know that it will evoke a number of different kinds of emotions amongst community members. There will be those who will feel their obligation becoming a New Zealand citizen, and there will be the sense of relief as well, because this has been a long fight. I want to acknowledge Falema‘i Lesā and everybody who joined in that journey when that journey started, and all the community that is here today to support us debating this bill. This shows that sometimes the road to justice is not that straightforward. It’s not quick, it can be long, it can have some bumps, but ultimately justice is delivered.

As I said in the first reading of the bill, for the ACT Party, it is about fairness, it is about equality, it is about justice. We really wanted to see this bill go to a select committee process, and it did. I’m really glad to see that so many came forward to speak about this bill and support this bill. I want to acknowledge all my ACT Party colleagues for being so supportive of this bill from the start. I want to especially acknowledge the Hon David Seymour, and the Hon Brooke van Velden as the Minister of Internal Affairs. It’s really good to see that they have been very, very supportive from day one about this bill.

Going forward, yes, the process will start very, very soon. After five days, all those individuals who will be eligible after this bill goes through will be able to apply to reclaim their citizenship. It will be, I know, an exciting moment, because I know so many of these individuals already have families here in New Zealand. It will be a great opportunity for them to become New Zealand citizens and then utilise their time with their families here in New Zealand without going through the longer processes that they might be going through at the moment.

The community’s voice has been heard. The community’s voice has been really strong. I would like to say to the community: keep your voice strong. Continue to advocate for issues that matter. This is something that is to fix a historical wrong. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to fix this historical wrong. It is because of you coming forward that we have been able to pay attention to this issue and take this issue seriously and bring it to this stage.

Finally, I also want to say that I know that there are so many other community members who could not be here today and could not join us during the first reading or the second reading of the bill. I want to acknowledge them as well. I really know that the commitment of those who have been part of this fight, those who have been part of this journey, will be honoured by the entire community. As an immigrant, I understand the emotions that the community is going through and the emotions that the community will feel applying for citizenship and seeing their family members able to reclaim New Zealand citizenship.

Going forward, I know that we are quite excited and we are really looking forward to welcoming those 3,000-plus Kiwi Samoans to New Zealand, as they will become Kiwi Samoans after gaining New Zealand citizenship. I want to congratulate all those individuals who will be reclaiming their citizenship. It’s a real pleasure to support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): This is a good day, this is a happy day, this is a day of alofa. It’s a day that we, together, take the final steps in this House to right a wrong that is 42 years old. It’s a day when this Parliament does what no other Parliament has done over that 42 years, despite several requests to take action; and it’s a day when this Parliament will be unanimous—I’m confident we’ll be unanimous, Teanau—in supporting this legislation to correct that wrong, which was done 42 years ago when that House was unanimous in creating the wrong in the first place. I’m delighted to speak in support of this bill on behalf of New Zealand First.

First of all, I just want to make some congratulations. Teanau Tuiono, I want to congratulate you. People can get congratulated for getting a bill drawn out of the hat, but the reality is you had to be in to win. You got it in there, it came out, and you have worked diligently with the Governance and Administration Committee, with the Samoan community to make sure that we got this bill to a place where it can get through today. I wanted to congratulate you for all of that.

I also wanted to place on record my thanks and congratulations to all of the select committee. The Governance and Administration Committee worked really collegially under the chairmanship of Rachel Boyack; Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who’s unfortunately not able to be with us; quite a number of other members of Parliament were involved in it—my colleagues on this side are Tim Costley, Cam Brewer, and Tom Rutherford—and we worked really, really collegially together to make sure that we got this bill into a place where it will get through this House unanimously.

We thanked a little bit the officials, but I do want to place on record—and I’m probably going to miss someone here—our thanks to all the officials from the different agencies: the Department of Internal Affairs; the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, through immigration; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT); the Ministry for Pacific Peoples. The fact that you have so many agencies just illustrates that what looked like a simple bill wasn’t; it became very, very complicated. Every time you peeled the onion a little bit, it got more and more complicated. I want it placed on record my thanks to all of those officials.

But my biggest thanks is to the Samoan community. I just want to say it’s great to see you all here in the gallery with us. Talofa lava, afio mai, and it is wonderful to have you here. This is your Parliament, and I hope that today is a way of your Parliament saying that we are your Parliament and proving that.

I also want a very special welcome to His Excellency Afamasaga Faamatalaupu Toleafoa—I think I got that there; it’s lovely to see you, Your Excellency—and also to Falema‘i Lesā, who I believe is in the room as well. Thank you for your courage and what you did all the way back in 1982 and for following through on that, because, without that, we would not be here today and we would not be celebrating this day. Thank you.

I’d also like to thank, as others have done, Arthur Anae, who has been absolutely diligent in pushing for this. As others have said: you haven’t quite got everything here, but it’s a big step forward. Thank you, Arthur, and thank you for keeping on the case.

It’s been, as I said, a privilege to be on the Governance and Administration Committee to work through this complicated bill. As you’ve heard, we had in excess of around 25,000 submissions. Actually, on top of that, one of those submissions actually represented nearly 6,000 people, so, effectively, we had 30,000 voices from around New Zealand but also from Samoa as well. I think that shows the depth of feeling and the importance of this bill to the Samoan community.

I want to say we heard you. We heard what you had to say. We heard your stories. We heard your hopes, your dreams. We heard the stories of your fathers, your mothers, your grandfathers, and your grandmothers. We heard clearly the sense of a great injustice having been done in 1982. We heard your passion. We heard about the immense positive difference that you have made as the Samoan community in New Zealand, and I just want to say thank you for telling us your stories, thank you for your patience, thank you for your positivity, and thank you for your grace in what you have done.

What the bill does: well, first of all, as we know, it gives the right to citizenship for people born in Samoa between 13 May 1924—and when I wrote down “24”, it’s like going, “Oh, that’s this year.”, but no, it wasn’t; it was 100 years ago—and 31 December 1948. It gives the right to apply for New Zealand citizenship and to know that it will be granted—to know that it will be granted.

I was pleased that the House unanimously picked up and supported an amendment, which one or two of the other speakers have already mentioned. We deliberately tried to keep the price of application low in the first place, but we decided we would put a price on it simply because otherwise we might have an enormous number of applications which weren’t eligible. The Immigration Service was saying, “Please God, don’t let us get overwhelmed by that.”, so we put a price on. But, to me, the issue there was: why should you have to pay for something which was already yours? You pay upfront, and the amendment which the House unanimously supported—which I thank you all for, from myself and from New Zealand First—is that you will get that money back. That is so you don’t have to pay for what you already have.

This bill, soon to be an Act, is built on history and it’s not a history that New Zealand can be very proud of. New Zealand took over Samoa—in the great colonial way, as things were in those days—from Germany during the beginning of the First World War. New Zealand held Samoa as a protectorate, as a mandate country, until independence on 1 January 1962. There are a whole series of citizenship Acts in New Zealand, and it was actually only in 1948 that New Zealanders became New Zealand citizens—before that, New Zealanders were British citizens. But, to me, when you look at that legislation, it’s quite clear that people born in Samoa when Samoa was a protectorate of New Zealand were New Zealand citizens—because if not New Zealand citizens, then what? Samoa was not recognised, so what other than being a New Zealand citizen? That, really, is at the heart of this case, and that was the heart of Falema‘i Lesā’s case: “How can I be an overstayer if I’m already a New Zealand citizen?”

Now, the courts in New Zealand said, “No, no, that can’t be right.”, but the Privy Council said, “Yeah, that’s right. Yes, you are a New Zealand citizen.” Then, of course, the Government of the day—with the support of the Opposition of the day; all the parties of the House—said, “Actually, no, we don’t like that, so we’re going to remove that.” That is the injustice which we’re putting right today. As I said, it’s not a history that New Zealand can be proud of.

It was negligence—a bit of arrogance probably in there as well—that led to a New Zealand ship docking in Samoa during the influenza, and one in five of the Samoan population perished as a result. It was probably worse than negligence when New Zealand forces opened fire on a peaceful demonstration in 1929, killing 11 people. Then, of course, I don’t know what you call it other than racism to say how New Zealand behaved during the Dawn Raids. New Zealand does not have a proud record. As we went through the process of hearing some of the submissions, I kind of wondered, “Why is it that you want to be part of New Zealand?” I say sorry on behalf of that—and you’ve had apologies over time, but New Zealand does not have a proud record in terms of our relationship with Samoa.

In terms of the bill, we considered several key issues. First of all, do we agree with the core of the bill? And the answer now, unanimously, is: yes, we do. Secondly, do we repeal the 1982 Act—because it’s much hated, it’s a good symbol to repeal it—or do we amend it? We decided by majority to amend it. The reason for that was, apart from MFAT saying, “Just please don’t repeal it, because there are a whole bunch of things tied up in the Treaty of Friendship”—and we’ve only actually got one Treaty of Friendship with New Zealand and that is with Samoa—“because it will cause ructions in that.”

The 1982 Act, of course, also included a faster pathway to citizenship. If you’re in New Zealand, you don’t have to wait the five years, which other people do. I remember as the Mayor of Wellington, I always used to ask in citizenship ceremonies, which are a wonderful thing, how long people have been in New Zealand: “Oh, five years”—six years, seven years, 20 years, 30 years. Samoan people said, “Oh yeah, a year maybe.” It was a faster pathway, so we didn’t want to get rid of that. We’d have had to rewrite that into some other piece of legislation had we repealed it. But the important thing was—I think we’ve got to the right place—the title of the bill got changed. Changed the title to “(Restoration)”. Restoration—something that always should have been yours being restored. I think that that is a really good, positive thing to do. As I said, citizenship will be automatic. You just have to apply.

Just to finish off with, there’s a couple of other things outside the bill, and I was really, really strong on this personally. One of them was we heard a lot of submissions saying, “We want the ease of being able to move backwards and forwards. Whether we’re a citizen, whether this affects us or not. It’s the ability to be able to move backwards and forwards for family reasons, for events, whatever it might be, for celebrations.” That’s really important, and that is one thing we as a select committee have said to the executive: “Please can you have a look at that?”, and we heard the Leader of the Opposition saying that they would support that as well.

The final thing I wanted to say was that we also heard a little bit—not a lot; a little bit—about superannuation. Normally, it takes 10 to 20 years to get superannuation, depending on the age, but that is something that New Zealand First will give very careful thought to. Once again, I commend the bill to the House, but this is a special day; it’s a happy day. Fa‘afetai lava. Thank you.

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

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Ou te tu atu i luma nei e avea aʻu ma sui o Tangatawhenua ma mokopuna o Samoan Māori e lagolago le mamalu o tagata Samoa o lenei Tulafono. Ia faamanuia atu o matou Tupuna ia outou, ia aumai e le Atua le manuia mo tātou. Fa‘afetai lava.

Kei aku nui, kei aku rahi, kei aku w’akatamarahi ki te rangi, kei aku w’akateitei ki te w’enua, tēnā tātou katoa. E tū ana au hei māngai mō ngā kaikōrero o Te Pāti Māori e kaha tautoko ana i tēnei kaupapa, otirā i te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire.

Kei aku whanaunga o te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, nō koutou te rā. E tika ana te kōrero e kī ana, “Papaki mai ngā nunui, wawaratia ngā tai rere, e ripo e ngā ngaru nui, te rehu tai, ‘ei konei rā.”

[To the great and important ones, those who stand proud to the heavens, those who stand tall upon the earth, greetings to us all. I stand to represent the speakers of the Māori Party, who strongly support this initiative; indeed, the third reading of this bill.

To my kin from the Pacific Ocean, the day is yours. True is the statement that says, “The great waves crash, the currents spread, swirling with the large wave, the sea spray, fare well.”]

The great waves crash, the currents spread, swirling with the large wave of the foam of the sea—this is the kōrero that describes our w’anaungatanga and the power of the movement of the oceans signify the movement of the significance of today and, in this case, the significance of you, our whanaunga, our tuakana. We are one moana; we are one people; we are multiple, multiple waka. It is right, it is pono, it is tika to always be here and witness when something so kino, so bad, has been removed.

We acknowledge all who had to stand in the face of this harmful, racist legislation and all our mokopuna today who continue to have to confront the experience of racism, discrimination. For those who don’t believe and feel the beauty of our w’anaungatanga, of our mokopuna, of our Samoan mokopuna, our Māori mokopuna, our Pasifika mokopuna, it is heartbreaking to know what you had to endure, and we stand in sadness for all of our tūpuna who didn’t get to experience this today.

If only this House could stop creating harm. We call on you as our tuakana because you are not immigrants—you are not immigrants. Citizenship is about w’anaungatanga and w’akapapa, and if we were running our country, the ability to flow with the moana, in and out, around and back, would happen as seamlessly as it did in the past. That is what citizenship, for us, is about.

Today, we celebrate what has been achieved and what has been fought for. A huge mihi to you, our brother, Teanau Tuiono, who had the vision and the boldness and the humility to be able to negotiate this to where it is today.

Our w’akapapa is something to be treasured, and while it is that we hear the lament of those in this House who have apologised and have supported this bill, I acknowledge you all. I acknowledge the mokopuna of those who had to experience this great deep sadness and what it is that they turned up yesterday for us, because your tēina here are going to call on you and will need your tautoko for what we’re confronting as well.

Heoi anō, w’ānau, this is a celebration to w’akanui you and to w’akanui the strength, the vision, and the guts of those who never gave up, and may that always be flowing through the blood of our mokopuna today, as they have to continue to fight, but also enjoy the blessings of our God, who made sure that we got to be here today to enjoy and be able to see what it is for us to experience kotahitanga.

Te Pāti Māori has the absolute honour to be here to tautoko this bill. May we never ever see the repeat of this in our history, and may we be brave and bold enough to continue to push for what it is that we know is real and true.

I thank you for the honour of my mokopuna and the most beautiful son-in-law that I could ever have. Our Manutai whānau, you have graced us with every strength that we could have and, together, we will continue to look at what the waters and the moana brings us. Nō reira, i te āhuatanga o ō tātou tūpuna, ngā mihi aroha ki a koutou katoa. [And so, in the spirit of our ancestors, loving greetings to you all.]

[Applause]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call Ricardo Menéndez March, I’ve just had a discussion with the previous Speaker as we came in. Clapping is great, but it’s actually broadening out the time. All parties have spoken now, so maybe we’ll just save our cheering and our waiata for the end. I’m not wanting to tamp down your excitement, but let’s have a big celebration at the end. Thank you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I just firstly want to acknowledge that this is a bill about justice and reconciliation, and I note your comments, Madam Speaker, about clapping, but I can’t avoid but feel the wairua and the energy from the gallery around how momentous and historic this is, and I just want to commend your validation and basically your words by nature of the reciprocity when it comes to how you engage with this debate.

I want to acknowledge the longstanding history of advocacy and campaigning, from Samoan communities, for truth, because, actually, when I heard submitters, rewatching the amazing words that were spoken to the Governance and Administration Committee, actually, many people were simply speaking the truth in the pursuit of justice. People were seeking for intertwined histories to be recognised—the good, the bad, the ugly, including our shameful history of colonisation. When we’re here finally at this stage, I think there’s an opportunity to set the terms of how we move forward, not just in this bill but in any other policy that touches your communities.

I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague Teanau Tuiono and our beloved Fa’anānā Efeso Collins, who we carry with us every single day. I know how much this bill meant to him and the communities that he served.

This bill has been decades in the making. I know that many have acknowledged Falema‘i Lesā for her amazing advocacy and fight to have her rights recognised, but for any MP who does constituency work, we know that we continue to see members of the Samoan community who have been deemed overstayers and how they have to plead to the system for their connections with Aotearoa to be recognised. This is a fight that no one should have to have, and I think this bill will be one step to avoid having members of the communities pleading their case for what is simply theirs and was always theirs to begin with.

I wanted to echo the words of Auckland University law lecturer Dylan Asafo, who, when he was talking about the history of why we have this bill, noted the moral panic, and if I quote him, he said, “It’s one of the most racist pieces of legislation on the books. It came about because the Muldoon government deemed Pacific migrants a danger to NZ society. If the government is genuine and wants to apologise for the racism [of the Dawn Raids], then it needs to repeal this piece of legislation, to at least offer to Sāmoans, who had their citizenship rights revoked through that legislation, to get their citizenship back.” Today, I think we’re finally getting one step closer to the words that were spoken in the Dawn Raids apology by the Government, because I think those words needed to be carried by action. That was actually what the people, on that day, communicated to politicians.

The Green Party fought for justice to be delivered in full, and I want to acknowledge every other political party that worked collaboratively with my colleague Teanau Tuiono to get to a place where the bill could have unanimous support, but I do want to note that submitters asked for descendants to be included. I want to note that submitters asked for the fees to be completely waived. Submitters also pleaded to politicians to look beyond the scope of this bill to look what justice actually looks like in full.

Many noted that our immigration system continues treating Pasifika as a danger to New Zealand, and I think this is reflected by the fact that we continue asking Samoans to fork out hundreds of dollars to apply to visit their relatives. I know submitters asked us to look at the broader immigration settings, and the Greens remain committed for Samoa to be a visa waiver country, for the rights of recognised seasonal employer workers to be improved, for workers to have pathways to residency, and for us to finally put in place an amnesty for so-called overstayers.

Those are all things that the Green Party will continue backing the submitters and members in the community who have long campaigned for justice to be delivered, because what I see today in the gallery and across the nation over the past few days is a rising movement for Pasifika justice, for Te Tiriti justice, and a recognition that our histories and our liberations are intertwined and that I am not free until all of us are free.

I want to end by commending this bill to the House in the hope that we can all move forward in delivering full and true justice, as previous speakers have said, and that we can collaborate to get Samoa to be a visa waiver country as soon as possible. Kia ora.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Faatalofa atu i le paʻia ma le mamalu o Samoa ua potopoto. Talofa lava, Madam Speaker. In my office in Levin proudly hangs some artwork. [Holds up artwork] It is artwork that represents our community in Horowhenua: artwork from Fiji, Aotearoa, Tonga, and, at the top—though I know you can’t see it from the gallery—proudly, it says “Manu Samoa”.

James Meager: Table the artwork.

TIM COSTLEY: Well, I’ve been asked to table it, and I would happily do so. It was done by students at Taitoko School in Levin. It’s our lowest-decile school, but the most amazing school and the most amazing children, who represent their Pasifika communities so well. At the school, they have big murals from these different Pasifika countries—including Kiribati, as well—that are hung up, and I am just so proud of them, not just for their art but for what they bring to our community, the important role that Pasifika play in Horowhenua, especially. I’m so proud to represent them and all of us here, today.

I want to just start by noting the character that we’ve seen from our Samoan community over 110 years, and the patience, the dignity, and the willingness to persevere while working through our democratic institutions and our parliamentary system to fight for the right outcome but also to fight in the right way. I think we have seen that depth of character from our Samoan community, one that inspires me. I see it in all our Pasifika communities, but I see it particularly in Horowhenua, in Levin, in the Ōtaki electorate, across New Zealand, and, of course, across the Pacific.

It has been a 110-year journey to get here. I think back to 1914, when the UK asked New Zealand to go to Samoa and take over what was a German colony. No consultation—clearly, not with the Germans—but no citizenship was promised, either. From 1924, following on from the Spanish flu, and, again, we were told the intent at the time was clearly to offer no citizenship—that is what we are overturning today. We are overturning that much of the intent from 1924 in the clear intent of this bit of legislation. But it goes on. In 1946, the then Labour Government made it very clear that the destiny of Samoa was for its people to have no New Zealand citizenship, and while the legislation that came into force at the start of 1949 holds today, we are changing the bit that leads up to that, which we can.

I have to acknowledge the fight of Falema‘i Lesā—and what an honour it is to have you joining us here today—from 1975 through to 1982. Even then, after the victory in the Privy Council, the entire New Zealand Parliament joined to say that there would be no citizenship. In 2003, the petition was turned down by the Government—no citizenship. I heard from Radio Samoa in Auckland the commentary that all the hopes for what might be were not to be.

This bill today is so significant, and I have to acknowledge Teanau Tuiono for his work in bringing it—bringing it where no one else was willing or able to do so, answering the question that many had just let go walking by.

Now, the number of people impacted today might be small, but the significance is large. The symbolism is huge. It goes where no other country has gone before. Of all those League of Nations - mandated countries, Mesopotamia, now Iraq, had no citizenship from the UK; and it was the same for Transjordan, now Jordan. There was no French citizenship for Syria or Lebanon; nothing from Belgium for Rwanda or Burundi; and I can think of Tanzania, Cameroon—which was the UK, and a small portion was France—and Ghana; and Australian-mandated countries like New Guinea, which is now Papua New Guinea, and Nauru. The South Pacific Mandate offered no Japanese citizenship; South West Africa, now Namibia, offered no South African citizenship; and the same, until today, was true for Samoa.

That is the significance of the day. We’re not just going where we have never gone before; we are going where no one—no country, no Government, no leader in the world—has gone before, and in New Zealand, we weren’t willing to go there. Not the Reform Governments of the 1910s and the 1920s, not the Labour Governments of the 1930s and 1940s—successive Labour and National Governments through the last century and the first quarter of this one. Not Massey, not Savage, not Fraser, not Muldoon, not Lange, not Palmer, not Moore, not Clark, not Ardern, and not Hipkins, but Luxon is the first Prime Minister to see this through, and that is significant.

We have changed the bill in the Governance and Administration Committee to refine it to adhere to the intent of the 1982 legislation and to ensure that it is reversing what was done in that 1982 legislation, and, secondly, to change it to amend and not to repeal. Those two changes are significant—they are so that we maintain the Treaty of Friendship and we can honour what was there—but the most important thing is that this is not, I believe, a victory for MPs, though Mr Tuiono should take a great deal of credit; this is a victory of the Samoan people, and that is what has inspired me the most. That is what has caught my emotions the most through this.

I want to finish by just reading some of the things that touched me from the huge pile of submissions I have, and I wish we had time to read them all. There were three key themes. One was “We need to see a tangible action.”—and I’m quoting from David Lui here. He said that the previous apologies were “hollow”, and “They fell short because there is inadequate action.” The same was true from Dr Melani Anae, and she said that “The two governmental apologies do little to dismantle our Pacific memories.” The Samoan Trade and Investment Council said, “The previous apologies don’t cut it.”; and from Su’a Hans Schwalger, who brought the same message. He said that “We need a tangible and outward and visible sign of this inwards and invisible bond that our two countries share.”

I think of those that shared their personal experience of how this impacted their families, like Akeripa To’alepaiali’i, who spoke about how he didn’t have citizenship. He was born in the target window, and he said, “The loss of our New Zealand citizenship has been a source of profound personal and collective grief for many of us.” He has had to apply for that three-month visa to come and see his daughter and his grandchildren.

Mataio Lemaveve shared a similar story. Ierome Lui Vaoliko spoke about this being a blessing. You know, the Samoan people I have seen are a people of great faith, and it is something that inspires me and something I want to share with you. It speaks of the blessing that comes from this legislation. Lealasā Tovio has her citizenship. She was born in 1948, but her older sister, who was born in 1946, doesn’t.

Again, it’s this wanting to reunite the families once more. I have piles of these that we don’t have time to read, but they all deserve the recognition and the credit for what they have done. As Leaula Desmond Amosa said, “The role of Parliament is to ensure justice is served.”, and that’s what today, I believe, is doing.

Let me finish: we support this bill, which is, in a refined sense, targeted to those impacted by the 1982 legislation. It is amending it and not repealing it so that the Treaty of Friendship can continue. It is the victory of the Samoan people and what they have demonstrated, and I have to finish by quoting Tamasese Lealofi, who died in the 1929 massacre. He said, “My blood has been spilt for Samoa. I am proud to give it. Do not dream of avenging it, as it was spilt in peace.” The way that the Samoan people have worked and have led over the last 110 years in peace—you deserve what comes from this. This is your day. This is your victory. Ou te matua lagolagoina lelei tele mo Samoa.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): E so’o le fau i le fau—a thread can’t hold its own, its strength comes from being interwoven with other threads to create the fine mat. Unity is in strength. It is the unity of our Samoan community that has led to what will be a successful passing of the Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Bill here today.

With that in mind, my first acknowledgement must go to our Samoan community who have driven the campaign to have this bill heard and passed: our elders, our young people, Samoans in Samoa and in other parts of the world and Samoans here in Aotearoa. I sat on the Governance and Administration Committee to receive some of the submissions; you were staunch, you were evidence based, you appealed to the human decency of all the select committee members. At times you had select committee members in tears; you had me in tears. You shared the injustices inflicted on our Samoan people and the struggles that ensued. Fa‘afetai lava for possessing the courage to share our collective stories, our collective experiences, and our collective reality here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

My father is an avid Radio Samoa listener—and yes, I saw you up there, Savea. He has listened keenly to all of the talkback guest interviewees, politicians, and Samoan community leaders on this issue, as did so many. I know that alongside Radio Samoa, the Pacific Media Network, Tagata Pasifika, and all of our Pasifika media and Pasifika journalists made sure that this was an issue that was made accessible to our community. We are grateful for the role that our media has played across the course of this billed being pulled from the tin to now about to pass third reading, for keeping our people informed. Because of all of you, we are about to pass this bill that rights a historic wrong for those born in Samoa who had their citizenship revoked under the 1982 Act when they were rightly entitled to it.

Now, sometimes as politicians, someone from another political party has a good idea. The real test of politicians is our ability to get in behind that idea and put aside the party political agendas and to support with seeing the policy or law through to fruition. This was not a problem for Labour in this instance. Teanau Tuiono is our Cook Island brother. Outside of Labour, he is the only other elected Pacific member of Parliament in Parliament at this time. We share in our love for our Pasifika community and in the knowledge of the history of our community here in Aotearoa New Zealand: the good, the bad, and of course the ugly. We share in a belief that the Treaty of Friendship with Samoa needs to be honoured and that there have been decisions made by the New Zealand Government over the course of time that have not honoured that friendship.

We also believe that the Dawn Raids apology is a living apology and didn’t start and finish on the day the apology was made. As politicians from across political parties, we should be continually seeking out opportunities for actions to match the words of that apology through our policy, through our funding, and our legislative decisions. Teanau Tuiono, thank you on this occasion for being the politician with a good idea. Not just a good idea, but a bill that would address an injustice committed against Samoa and Samoans.

I feel that the substance of the Samoan citizenship bill has been adequately traversed by those that have spoken before me, so I’d like to give the gallery and listeners a peek behind the scenes into the politics of this House on the bill. This will also enable me to make some acknowledgements of political parties and politicians, both current and former.

Now, there was never a question about the Greens, Labour, and Māori Party support for this bill. It was not only about the current politicians; we had our former ones on our tails making sure we were living up to the expectations of our community. From Labour’s perspective, I particularly acknowledge—and she can’t be here with you all today—Luamanuvao Winnie Laban and Aupito William Sio. They were active proponents for this bill, and all of our other former Labour Pasifika MPs were constantly also checking in on us. We also had our two lead Labour MPs on the select committee who diligently consulted with our Labour Pacific MPs on this bill: the Governance and Administration Committee chair Rachel Boyack and our Samoan sister Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who can’t be with us here today due to illness.

Despite our position being clear from the get-go, when I reflect on the journey of this bill, I’m very mindful of the other political parties and their positioning. From the time the bill was drawn, we actually had some faith in the possibility that New Zealand First might support this bill. Although we don’t agree with a lot of the New Zealand First policy agenda, the one thing that the Rt Hon Winston has demonstrated over the years is a level of commitment to our Pacific region and a respectful relationship with our Pasifika communities. I will share with you that initially Teanau Tuiono found him to be quite elusive when trying to lobby him on this issue, but with some tag-teaming between himself and Jenny Salesa and lobbying from our strong Pasifika leaders, conversations were able to be had. In true Winston Peters style, the New Zealand First position was held close to their chest until the first reading, but the Rt Hon Winston Peters lived up to what we hoped for.

Now as I said, we don’t agree with a lot of New Zealand First policy, but we agree with even less when it comes to the ACT Party. In saying that, there was some hope that they would support this bill. The hope for me sprang from David Seymour participating in the delegation to Samoa in 2022 to commemorate 60 years of the Treaty of Friendship. While on this delegation, David Seymour had the opportunity to feel and experience the hospitality of Samoa and to hear the Samoan Prime Minister and other Samoan leaders speak to the special relationship between New Zealand and Samoa. The Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern gave all members of that delegation the opportunity to participate in high-level conversations with leaders. I often find it difficult to comprehend David Seymour’s views on matters, let alone agree with him, but the words he shared, whilst they were insightful and genuine—knowing this, when this bill came up I knew there was an outside chance he would agree and he did.

Turning to National, I think they underestimated their two coalition partners on this matter and I will also add I feel they did themselves a disservice by voting against this bill at first reading. It is disappointing because, despite not having any current Pacific representation, National has had Samoan and Cook Island MPs who undoubtedly would have supported this if they were currently in caucus. I acknowledge Anae Arthur Anae, in particular, as a former National MP who has been one of the most active people promoting this bill; malo, Anae.

The redeeming factor for National here is despite opposing the bill at first reading, National was able to listen to the voices of over 24,000 Samoans who submitted on this bill and then work with other political parties to form a consensus on this bill. Although it’s good that we can agree, it is important to note when there are areas of disagreement. Labour and the Greens heard the call from the community to extend eligibility to descendants born prior to 1 January 1962; this was not supported. Labour and the Greens also wanted the application for those eligible to be free of charge. Instead, an amendment was put up at the committee of the whole House stage that means those who make successful applications can be refunded the fee.

There were also areas traversed during the submission process that fell out of the scope of the bill. It’s important to mention them; it was issues with the quota for Samoans coming from Samoa, there were issues with visas and access to Samoa, particularly for important events. As has been mentioned in the House by our leader Chris Hipkins, Labour believes that these areas should be explored. Labour commits to giving consideration to these next steps, but given the reins of power sit squarely with National, ACT, and New Zealand First, we encourage you to keep the pressure on. Make your thoughts and voices heard; be relentless in your drive to have more change effected that not only honours the Treaty of Friendship but honours the spirit of the Dawn Raids apology. I can assure you that Labour, and no doubt the Greens and the Māori Party, will be right beside you.

I started with a Samoan saying, so it’s only appropriate I end with another. E vave taunu’u le malaga pe a tatou alo va’a fa’atasi—our destiny is within sight when we paddle our canoe together. Labour commends this bill to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Talofa lava, Madam Speaker. Good afternoon and good evening to all my friends in the public gallery today. I promise you there will be no tears. Today marks the culmination of a journey towards justice, as we complete the third reading of the Citizenship (Western Samoa) (Restoration) Amendment Bill. This moment carries special significance as we prepare to move from legislative process to practical implementation—from promise to action. To our guests in the gallery and those watching at home, particularly those whose lives were directly impacted by the 1982 Act: your patience and perseverance over four decades has brought us to this historic day. Your presence here reminds us that behind every line of legislation there are real lives, real families, and real stories of resilience.

For over 40 years, the Samoan community has lived with the impact of the 1982 Act—an Act that stripped citizenship rights from thousands overnight. This wasn’t just about legal status. It affected families, careers, and lives. It created a wound in our relationship with Samoa that has taken generations to heal. The stories we heard during select committee of families separated, of opportunities lost, of dignity denied, remind us of the real human cost of that decision. Each testimony served to strengthen our resolve to ensure that this legislation would deliver genuine, practical restoration.

The Government understands the importance of fostering strong relationships with Pacific nations. We take seriously our responsibility to be a good neighbour and partner. What we achieved today is unprecedented: the first time in history that a trustee administered country will be given citizenship in this way. No other mandated country has ever taken this step. This makes our actions today not just nationally significant but internationally groundbreaking.

The strength of feeling on this issue was demonstrated by more than 24,000 submissions received by the Governance and Administration Committee, one of which represented the views of nearly 6,000 people. This extraordinary level of engagement from both here and overseas shows the power of community organisation and the importance of this moment. It speaks to the deep connection between our nations and the urgency of addressing this historical wrong.

This parliamentary process has been thorough and considered. At first reading we debated fundamental questions about scope and implementation. Through select committee we heard powerful testimonies that shaped our understanding and approach. During committee of the whole House we refined and improved the technical aspects, ensuring the legislation would work as intended. Through the select committee process we secured several important amendments that improved the bill’s clarity and effectiveness. These include a decision to amend the 1982 legislation rather than repeal it wholesale, providing a clearer, more straightforward way to restore citizenship without breaching the 1962 Treaty of Friendship with Samoa.

This careful approach ensures we maintain the important frameworks that have governed our special relationship with Samoa over six decades. We also clarified the bill’s scope of eligibility to the cohort of approximately 3,500 individuals who were born between 1924 and 1948 and lost their citizenship when this law was changed in 1982.

The bill establishes a straightforward application process through the Department of Internal Affairs, with a modest application fee of $177. Importantly, as agreed during the committee of the whole House stage, this fee will be refunded to successful applicants—a change we made to further reduce barriers to citizenship restoration. This approach ensures accessibility while maintaining the integrity of our citizenship process. Let me be clear about who can apply under the legislation: those born in Western Samoa between 13 May 1924 and 1 January 1949 who were British subjects by virtue of that birth, women who became New Zealand citizens in 1949 through marriage to such persons, descendants of those born in this period who were themselves born before 1949 and were British subjects, and women who became citizens through marriage to those descendants.

Following strong advocacy from select committee members, particularly Lemauga Lydia Sosene and the bill’s sponsor Teanau Tuiono, we have ensured that clear communication will be at the heart of implementation. All documentation, guidance, and support will be provided in both English and Samoan, ensuring the process is truly accessible to all those who are eligible. The legislation strikes a careful balance. While it rights a historical wrong, it does so in a way that strengthens rather than compromises our relationship with Samoa.

The Department of Internal Affairs will provide comprehensive support to help applicants understand their eligibility and navigate the process. This will include dedicated staff, documentation guidance, and resources in both English and Samoan. For those who are eligible, the path to reclaiming New Zealand citizenship will be straightforward and supported. Each step of the process has been designed with the applicant in mind, ensuring dignity and respect throughout. Most importantly, today we’ve demonstrated how Parliament can work together constructively to achieve meaningful change.

To the officials who will be tasked with implementing the legislation: your role is vital. Each application you process represents a family’s story, a legacy to be restored, and wrong to be righted. The mana of the legislation will rest in how it is brought to life through your work. We trust you to carry out this important task with the care and respect it deserves.

To our Samoan community: this bill’s final form reflects your voices, your stories, and your aspirations. The practical process it establishes will soon allow many of you to reclaim what was taken in 1982. While we cannot turn back time, we can and will move forward together.

When future generations look back on Parliament’s work, let them see in this bill an example of how a nation can acknowledge its mistakes and take practical steps to address them. Let them see how we can strengthen relationships with our Pacific neighbours through actions, not just words. Let them understand that while justice may sometimes be delayed, it need never be denied.

I wish I could carry on talking for the rest of my three-minute contribution, but I want to make sure we get to the vote before the dinner break, all right? Today, we don’t just pass a law; we open a door that was closed 42 years ago. We extend a hand of justice to those who have waited too long, and we strengthen the bonds between New Zealand and Samoa for generations to come. Fa‘afetai tele lava. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Tatolu mai tatolu mai, tatolu mai tatolu mai, lua pati mo Samoa, lua pati mo Samoa. I just wanted to make sure that we have the Samoans still in the House today.

Much history has been transversed as this bill has progressed through our Parliament—our Samoan history with the New Zealand administration, from the ship the Talune and the influenza pandemic to the Dawn Raids apology. Today is a joyful and historic day for our Samoan community. Again, representatives of our Samoan community are here in Parliament to ensure—like any auntie or uncle would—that we, the members of this House, hold true to our word and support this last reading. There is nothing like the stare of repercussions by a Samoan auntie or uncle to ensure we comply—let that be a lesson for us all.

In the same spirit that yesterday’s hīkoi was conducted, a kaupapa of rangimarie under the cloak of aroha—peace and honour—we see what is possible when people come together for a right and just cause. It gave me such heart when I saw the Samoan flags and the flags of our Pacific nations side by side with tangata whenua over the last week. My ask is that we continue as tangata moana to stand in solidarity with our tēina who are feeling the weight of decisions being made without them—much like why we are here today.

Much deserved thanks has been given to our brother Teanau Tuiono for his shepherding of this bill. If he didn’t before, I’m sure he knows fully well now that us Samoans are a complex yet organised people, with many, many views as to the right way of doing things. We stand wholeheartedly behind him. Our thanks to you for taking this forward. We also remember at this time our good friend Fa’anānā Efeso Collins, and his wife Fia, and his beautiful girls, who would have been proud of the impact he continues to make here.

Much thanks has been given today; I echo those sentiments to all those that have been named. The one group I wanted to focus my particular thanks to today, as we conclude this historic day, are the hundreds of cleaners, kitchen hands, and supermarket workers in our Samoan community in the 1970s and 1980s who organised to raise the funds for the Privy Council taken by Falema‘i Lesā, who tested the law, succeeded, and ultimately has paved the path to where we are today. These low-income workers and their supporters did what we know best: worked as a village to raise funds for a matter of significance. What little they had, they still gave, and—similar to the parable of the widow’s offering in the Gospel according to Mark—much blessings will be given accordingly, whether it be in this life or the next.

Villages need chiefs, and I want to ask the House to indulge me on acknowledging the Special Committee on Overstayers Issue. This special committee was formed to lead this organisation and fund-raising, and it was based both here in Wellington and Auckland. It is only fitting that on this day, I name them so that their contribution to our history be recorded in the Hansard: Faalua Elifasa; Asofa Tagataese; Richard Robert Pritchard; Auuaola Fia Samuela; Michael Fomai Fio Mercury; Sakaria Peniata; Elizabeth Peivi Smith Leelo (Auntie Liz); Dr George Barton; Pulepule Ta’avao Aiono; George Rosenberg; Paula Siuga Masoe; Reverend Tuao Tiatia; Puni Raea; Pipi Fa’ailo; Pisa Fa’aeia; Ti’i Letolo—some, and many, who have passed away. And, of course, Falema‘i Lesā herself. Fa‘afetai, fa‘afetai, fa‘afetai tele lava to you all.

It is my great privilege—first and foremost a Samoan girl from the villages of Fale’ula, Faleatiu; Safotu; Fasito’o-uta; and Asau—to lend my support. I commend this bill to the House—685 to the world!

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Malo le soifua, one and all. It really is a pleasure to rise on this extremely, extremely profound and special occasion. I must begin by saying that I did not have the pleasure of being on the select committee that helped shepherd this bill to this stage with Teanau Tuiono—the Governance and Administration Committee—but it is a privilege to stand here today.

If you don’t mind, I’m only going to take a couple of minutes, because I’m aware that many of you need to travel home, hopefully to Takanini and beyond, but I will say that it’s an important bill that was drawn from the ballot on 3 August 2023. What I’ve been reflecting on is how interesting the dynamics of this is, that something so deep and so impactful was drawn out of a ballot. I guess we can reflect on that as we continue with our journeys in this Parliament; in this great House.

I’d like to acknowledge the approximately 24,581 people, groups, individuals that made submissions. I’d like to acknowledge as well my friends in the gallery, Teleiai Edwin Puni, my neighbour, and Tofilau Tevaga. I saw you both for the first time giving a deputation at the Manurewa Local Board and I realised you’re absolutely movers and shakers, so thank you for all the contribution you’ve done as well.

Finally, I’d like to say that I was blessed to have my heart opened to our Pasifika community many years ago in Australia when my sister married my Pasifika brother-in-law, and I have half-Pasifika nieces and nephews. What I’ve learnt about our Pasifika community is that, in many instances, you smile and laugh with all your heart, but when you suffer, you suffer in silence but continue to have the smile on your face for everyone.

God bless you all. Thank you for the wisdom that you’ve shown us and that you’ve woven into Aotearoa New Zealand. God bless your journeys going forward. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Talofa lava. Fa‘afetai tele, Madam Speaker. O le aso lenei na faia e Ieova, ia tatou olioli ma fiafia i ai. This is the day that the Lord has made, we shall rejoice and be glad in it.

This is a really significant and historic day for our Samoan aiga and for Aotearoa New Zealand and Samoa, as well as the many thousands of Samoans all over the world. Malo le soifua and welcome to all of the Samoans in your hundreds who are here in Parliament, as well as those who are watching online from other parts of Parliament, as well as from Saint Paul’s Cathedral and right across the world. It is unusual that this House of Parliament is so full of alofa. It is unusual that we are so united as politicians, as many of you both current politicians and former politicians know, but this is the right thing to do. It is so good that we are united to restore justice.

Tens of thousands of Samoans have been affected by the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act, which was passed in this Parliament in 1982, and as we have heard through the thousands of submissions, that Act effectively revoked the citizenship of Samoans who were rightfully entitled to New Zealand citizenship. But it is not actually just Samoans for whom today is significant; it is also a significant day for New Zealand, because we are addressing one of those historic wrongs, and consequently it is a step towards justice that all New Zealanders should recognise and be really proud of.

Restoring justice for our Samoan aiga has been a very, very long process and for lawmakers in Aotearoa New Zealand, it is indeed with humility that we reflect on the past, that we acknowledge the injustices that have resulted from the passage of an Act that was enacted from this House.

I would also like to thank the many Samoans, especially those affected by the 1982 Act, who are in this House today in person. I thank you for your guidance, I thank you for your advocacy, and I thank you especially for your patience. Fa‘afetai tele lava to all of you nearly 25,000 people who made submissions on this bill.

I would also like to especially acknowledge my friend and colleague Teanau Tuiono. We were at law school together, so I’ve known him for many decades—I won’t say exactly how long. Meitaki maata. Ngā mihi nui, Teanau, for all of your hard work, as well as all of your patience in shepherding and guiding this legislation through and for all of the hard work, not only in making sure that all of the parties in this House agree but actually ensuring that our communities—because there are many voices in our Samoan community, making sure that all of those voices are actually reflected in the final bill that we have in front of us.

Like you, Teanau, I would also like to acknowledge our friend and colleague Fa’anānā Efeso Collins. Today, if he was here, he would have been so proud. He would have made a speech that would have made all of us laugh and all of us cry too. I acknowledge him.

I would also like to acknowledge Falema‘i Lesā for your work and your resilience. I acknowledge you and your legal team and all of the people—my colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds said all their names before, the Samoan community both here in Wellington and in Auckland who got together, who fund-raised to ensure that your legal case went all the way to the Privy Council. I thank you, Falema‘i Lesā, because you are here today. You are here to witness justice being restored. I thank you also for coming to the Governance and Administration Committee. I was one of the privileged MPs that sat in that select committee. Even though your submission was mostly in Samoan, you actually made me cry. So many of the submitters that came to us that day made us cry. Thank you for never giving up.

Today is about acknowledging the many tens of thousands of Samoans whose citizenship was revoked and disavowed in 1982. I want to remember that some of those Samoans are here today and watching online, however, the sadness of today is that this redress has taken over 40 years and that most of the Samoans that were affected by the 1982 Act have since passed away. They have not lived to see this moment. Today we remember all of them.

This issue is personal to me and my family and to many thousands of constituents in my own electorate in Panmure-Ōtāhuhu. Nearly 50 percent of my electorate are Pacific people. Many of them are Samoans and Tongans. My father-in-law is one of those people affected, Tusanilefaia’ao Ieremia Salesa. I mention him today because of his deep connection not only with our family but I mention him because we have so many fathers, fathers-in-law, grandfathers, mothers, aunties, and uncles—all of our aiga who are not here to see this justice. We remember all of you.

These acts of memory are absolutely vital to us to keep us at our best and to ensure that we remain the best nation we can be. As we saw yesterday, under the leadership of Te Pāti Māori, New Zealand continues to wrestle with its colonial past. It is important that today we remember Samoa’s part of New Zealand’s colonial history which is so often forgotten and overlooked. We will only move forward together if we face our past honestly and with integrity.

As the great Samoan writer Maualaivao Albert Wendt put—and I quote—“We are what we remember.” Today, we remember those deep connections that bind Samoa and Aotearoa New Zealand together. Our roots are deep, but our past is not easy and parts of it are confronting.

In 1914, New Zealand established a military occupation on behalf of Great Britain to take possession of Samoa from Germany. In 1920, this colonial role was affirmed by the League of Nations as the administrator of Samoa. Samoan people had no say in those decisions, no votes. They were not consulted. This was true of the entire period of New Zealand’s rule. New Zealand’s role as colonial administrator continued right up until 1962. There were many difficult times for Samoans during this period. The colonial period in Samoa was not to New Zealand’s credit. The Samoan resistance movement, the Mau, struggled against New Zealand rule for decades. Their vision for Samoa was Samoa mo Samoa—Samoa for Samoans.

I would like also to acknowledge Arthur Anae and the Mau movement group, Tofilau Nina Kirifi Alai, and many others, as well as Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who had a lot to do with this bill in the select committee.

I also would like to especially acknowledge, similar to Teanau, the Rt Hon Winston Peters and New Zealand First, because the two of us tag-teamed New Zealand First to ensure that we actually got their support right through to third reading. You see, we were united in Opposition, so we only needed one party from the coalition of the Government and that was our hope—New Zealand First.

I do want to thank Dr Parmjeet Parmar and the ACT Party as well. Those of us who were here during that first reading, as soon as Dr Parmjeet Parmar said that the ACT Party supported this bill, there were so many of us who were yahooing because we knew that this bill would get to select committee.

Last but not least, I would like to acknowledge my National Party colleagues, Cameron Brewer and all of the members in the select committee and the National Party for supporting this bill. It is wonderful that it is a bill that is unanimously supported, because it is the right thing for all of us to support it unanimously in restoring justice for our Samoan people.

I would like to thank all of our Samoan people, especially those affected by this Act, for your advocacy, your guidance, and your patience. Fa‘afetai tele lava to all of you who submitted and made this bill become law. Fa‘afetai tele lava. Manuia le aso.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): Lau Susuga i le Fofoga Fetalai, ou te faafetai tele i le Atua ua mafai ona tatou faatasi i lenei as i lona alofa. Faatalofa atu i lau afioga le Fofoga Fetalai, Susuga i le Palemia ma lau Kapineta faapea sui uma a le fono o le Palemene o Niu Sila. Faasilisili ona ou faatalofa atu i le mamalu ma le paʻia o Samoa ua potopoto faapea Samoa i tuluʻiga uma o le lalolagi. O upu a le fai Salamo, “e faasaga aʻe oʻu mata i mauga, e maua mai ai loʻu fesoasoani o loʻu fesoasoani e maua mai ia Ieova lea o le na faia le lagi atoa ma le lalolagi”. Faafetai Samoa mo le tou auai mai i le aso e molimauina le aso o le a toe faafoi atu ai le sitiseni o Niu Sila i tagata Samoa

I love Wednesdays. They start early with morning prayer at the cathedral just over the road. It’s a weekly reminder of where the real power lies. Sometimes my prayers are requests. This morning, they were only praise. For today is a good day—it’s a very good day. I spoke about this with Savea last Friday on Radio Samoa. Good to have you here, Savea.

In the gallery today is Pastor Tomasi Aiono, who hails from the villages of Fasito’o Uta and Lona, Fagaloa. Tomasi is the second-eldest of 10 children. His parents, Aiono Fina’i Mika and Gafa Aiono, lost their citizenship in 1982. Two years later, they sent their son to New Zealand to pursue a better future. Tomasi found a job, worked incredibly hard, and over the next six years was able to bring both his parents and siblings to New Zealand. He and his family planted a church in Ellerslie. They adopted and cared for many children and have blessed, and continued to do so, thousands of New Zealanders.

Tomasi’s wife, Ioka Aiono, is also here today. She hails from the village of Saleapaga. Ioka’s the second-eldest of 14 children—I thought we had done all right with five. She came to New Zealand in 1987 with the hope of bringing her parents, Uialatea and Faleosina Fauena, to New Zealand. She was never able to. Ioka, I’m sorry. But I know you have aunties and uncles who have lived to see their citizenship now restored. This is a good day.

Tomasi and Ioka’s daughter is my friend and colleague Margaret Epati. Along with Shani Hatitio, we have the privilege and delight of together serving the people of Maungakiekie. Last Thursday after work, Margaret went to buy a dress but the shop was closed so she drove outside the electorate all the way to Ormiston mall—she really wanted that dress. There, she was approached by a distressed lady who asked if she spoke Samoan, and could she help as the EFTPOS card had just failed at the supermarket and she was out of petrol to get home. As Margaret sorted those things, she asked her story.

Losa Leota came to New Zealand just two years ago with her four children, but sadly not her husband—he was killed in a car accident in Samoa just after they qualified for New Zealand through the quota. A few weeks ago, Losa brought her mother to New Zealand. Alofa Toma is currently here on a three-month visa and Losa is desperate for her to stay as there is no one back home in Samoa to look after her and she needs her mum. Losa applied for a further visa for her mother, but at her advanced age there was no chance. At that point, Margaret asked what year her mother happened to be born. Losa replied that Alofa was born on 17 September 1940. Margaret told Losa about this bill, which she had not heard of, to make sure that they listened to this third reading now. When this bill passes in a few minutes and she submits her application on Monday, her mother Alofa will again be a citizen of Niu Sila. This is a good day.

A o le i uma laʻu tautalaga ou te faafetai atu Samoa, ou te faamanuia atu Samoa i ou tagatanuʻu e tusa ma lau saʻiliga malo. Faafetai i la outou lagolago malosi ina ia manuia lenei pili a lea ua tali le Atua. Faamalo le loto toa faamalo le loto atunuu. Fai mai le Efeso muamua fuaiupu e tolu, “Ia tatou faafetai atu i le Atua le Tama ma lo tatou Alii o Iesu Keriso o le na faamanuia mai ia i tatou i faamanuiaga faaleagaga uma lava i mea o i le lagi ona o Keriso”. Faamanuia le Atua, 685 to the World!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, so I appreciate—I say to the gallery—that you’ve waited a very long time. I’d just ask for your indulgence of about 30 more seconds.

Members, I have some housekeeping before I put the question. At the conclusion of this order of the day, the House will be suspended for the dinner break and will resume in committee at 7.30 p.m. for consideration of members’ order of the day No. 2, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

[Applause]

[Speech from the gallery]

Waiata—“Le Atua Mamana e”

Sitting suspended from 6.04 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Good evening, members. Members, the House is in committee on the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. We start with clause 1. Clause 1 is the debate on the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Chair. It really is a pleasure and actually a privilege to be in this seat as we are in the committee stage of the member’s bill in my name—Rima Nakhle, that is, for those of you listening at home—the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill.

For our friends and whānau at home, what’s going on here is now we are in what’s called the committee of the whole House stage. We’ve been through the first reading, we’ve been through select committee, and we’ve been through the second reading. What we’re doing now is kind of like another type of select committee, but in the debating chamber.

Madam Chair, if you’d indulge me while I just talk about this bill on a holistic basis, and then coming back to the different clauses. Yep, it’s a short bill; it’s a small bill, but we feel that the ripple effects will be many and will be very positive in terms of how we are going to protect victims even more.

It’s very interesting, the conversations that took place when we were discussing in the different stages so far of this bill, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. A number of issues were raised. There weren’t that many submissions, but the submissions were really good. One of the questions that was raised by the Law Society was the fact that the Corrections Act, which is the principal Act which this amendment bill hopes to amend, doesn’t really define what a victim is. What they very clearly outlined to us on the select committee—the Justice Committee, chaired by my mate here, James Meager—is that also in the amendment bill, there wasn’t a definition for “victim”. We took that on board. That’s one of the many things we took on board, and we’ll peruse all these considerations as we go through this evening, hopefully, clause by clause.

Essentially, what this bill aims to do is to protect victims—victims of crime, those that have a protection order for their benefit from unwanted contact from people that are under the supervision of Corrections that are located within prisons. That in itself was quite a journey with respect to this bill.

What I would like to say is that it’s been quite a staged effect with respect to this bill: where we started, where we’re at now, and where we’re hoping to go. The general kaupapa, like I said, kind of fits in the objectives for our Government—that is, how do we put victims at the forefront of the actions that we’re doing, the changes we’re making in order to protect victims? To highlight the general work that our Government is doing, it is about saying that those that commit crimes need to be held accountable. The reason why we’re focused on that is because of our desire to protect the victims of crime even more.

I welcome the continued kōrero that we’re going to have this evening, and I thank my colleagues across the Chamber in the Justice Committee with their patience with me as I questioned and delved into what more we can do to strengthen these protections. I look forward to us continuing this conversation this evening. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m happy to take questions.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start my contribution tonight as is traditional, which is to give somewhat of a brief overview and then get to the clause that we are discussing at the moment, but I wanted to start by acknowledging the work of my colleague Rima Nakhle on this bill. It would be hard to find a stronger and more voiceful advocate for victims in our caucus and in the Parliament. I think what we’ll see over the next hour, hour and a half, maybe longer, will be a demonstration of the work that Rima Nakhle has put into this bill throughout the process and the dedication she is putting to supporting victims right up until the last minute.

I note that Mrs Nakhle has an amendment that we’ll get to later on. I don’t want to discuss it now, because that would be somewhat disorderly because it’s the wrong clause. It is an amendment that the member has been working on because she is constantly trying to see: can she strengthen the bill, can she make sure the bill is as good as it can be? Because it is a member’s bill, it’s limited in what it can do. It doesn’t have the resource of hundreds of officials. In fact, we can see that the member, my colleague, will be flying solo tonight when it comes to answering questions and taking advice and trying to clarify questions from members.

Hon Scott Simpson: Flying high.

JAMES MEAGER: Flying high. Flying solo but flying high, as my colleagues say. I wanted to acknowledge her stewardship of the bill through the House. It’s an important moment for the class of ’23 in our caucus too, because this is the first member’s bill that has come from the National Party through the Justice Committee. We’ve had one from Mr O’Connor, one from Deborah Russell, and also Todd Stephenson has a bill too, but this is the first one that we’ve had the opportunity to acknowledge the work of our colleagues and to help support through the House. National will be supporting the bill through the committee stage, I think that’s quite clear.

We do have some testing questions for the member throughout. There were a lot of issues raised in select committee about the scope of the bill, and it has been narrowed somewhat. I understand that we’ll get to those clauses later on. The focus for us always in this bill and always as a party and as a Government is on protecting the rights of victims and ensuring that it is in a context of a justice system which does look at the offender and the does look at strong rehabilitation and does look at the role that a justice system plays in making sure people are held to account for their actions but are also rehabilitated. But we can never lose sight of the core of our purpose, and that is to make sure that we look after victims; that we make sure that there are fewer victims of crime; and that where there are victims of crime, they are protected by the State and they are protected by the mechanisms of the State. That’s where we get to in the start of this debate when we are talking about the title of the bill.

The title is, of course—I’ll read it out for the committee—the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. It’s important to acknowledge that, with all debates in the committee on title clauses, the title should represent or reflect what is in the bill or what the bill actually does. We’re not going to be, as a group on this side of the Chamber, offering up amendments that try to detract from the purpose of the bill, which is quite simply and plainly on its face to provide further mechanisms to protect victims of crime from actions of offenders under the custody of Corrections.

Now, we’ll get to some changes made later on about the extent to which we were trying to protect victims of crime in the community, and sometimes there are restrictions on what we can do there. Unfortunately, I think—and Mrs Nakhle can speak to this—the bill may not meet the expectations of all victims out there. It may at the moment only cover those victims of offenders who are in prisons and the victims are being protected by prison managers and the chief executive of Corrections because they are serving custodial sentences. But it is important to point out that it is not just victims; it is also those other individuals who are affected by the offenders who may be associated with victims or who may be family members of offenders who will benefit from this bill and who would be protected by the provisions in this bill.

I don’t have an amendment to offer to the committee on the title. I think the title does quite accurately reflect the content of the bill. I would invite and encourage members from across the Chamber to make a brief contribution about their views on the bill in the opportunity that we have at the start to talk somewhat more broadly before we get into the meat and bones of each clause. I commend the member for bringing it to the House and I look forward to making a number of contributions in the time that we have later on tonight.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and just picking up where my colleague James Meager, as the chair of the Justice Committee, left off—acknowledging this bill has been through the Justice Committee, shepherded by Rima Nakhle, who’s sitting in the chair next to you.

When I look at the title of this bill, I want it to be quite crystal clear around the implementation and what it’s actually meaning, because it is important that the title is reflective of the action that is being delivered through the bill itself. With the title being the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, when I read through the—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: This is disrespectful to the member.

TOM RUTHERFORD: What was that, Mr Webb?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: This is disrespectful to the member, to filibuster your own member’s bill.

TOM RUTHERFORD: It’s a little bit ironic Mr Webb across the Chamber talks about filibustering.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I don’t think we’ve heard Mr Rutherford’s question yet, so carry on.

TOM RUTHERFORD: No, we haven’t. We haven’t, and I would welcome Mr Webb taking a call on the bill if he would like to.

Anyway, if I may, I’d like to come back to the point that I was getting to. Through the select committee process and the submissions that were received by the Justice Committee, the Law Society said at the time in their submission that they noted there wasn’t actually a definition of the word “victim” in either the Corrections Act or this bill, which is the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill. There was some suggestion that, potentially, the bill be amended to include a definition related to “victim”, but also acknowledging that in the Act, victims are referred to in a wider sense than what is specifically captured by this bill.

It’s interesting, when we have the title being “Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill” but then you dive into the Corrections Act or you dive into this bill and you don’t actually see the word “victim” being defined. I’m just really keen to garner the interests of the member in charge—whether she was open to a scope of potentially changing the title or whether she’s comfortable having the word “victim” included in the title without the definition necessarily being prescribed. I would welcome the opportunity from the member in the seat to respond to that question.

Then, as my colleague James Meager outlined earlier, as we move through clause by clause on this debate, we will be diving into the nitty gritty and the weeds of each particular part, because it’s really important, through the committee of the whole House. This is the opportunity to get into the weeds. This is the opportunity for us to dive down in there and to make sure—

Helen White: Well, you’re there.

TOM RUTHERFORD: What was that, Helen White?

Helen White: You’re in the weeds.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Yeah—early days, early days. I’m just getting started. It is a really good opportunity for us to make sure that the legislation is fit for purpose when it comes to the implementation phase. I understand the member, in different clauses, has some amendments that she’ll make, and we’ll talk to those at that time, but it’s really important that right now and throughout this committee of the whole House, we get the bill in the best possible shape so that, when it comes to the implementation stage, those that are actually implementing the intentions of this bill know what the intentions of Parliament were for them to do it and that it can be done successfully.

I would welcome the opportunity for the member, in the later stages, to talk about some of the changes that were made to this piece of legislation through the select committee stage and through the feedback that was received by the Justice Committee, because it’s really important to ensure that when it comes to the implementation of it, they understand why those changes were initially made and then why the intention of the bill was brought forward so that it could be implemented in New Zealand.

To come back to the point I made at the start, it says “Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill”. The New Zealand Law Society, in their submission to the Justice Committee—which, I believe, are on their 28th bill, if I’m correct, Mr Meager—noted that the word “victim” is not defined in either the Corrections Act or in this bill specifically. They did suggest that they amend the bill to include a definition for “victim”, so I’d welcome the opportunity from the member in charge to speak to those questions, if she may.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’d like to thank my colleagues for those contributions. First, I’d like to thank our unwavering chair, James Meager, for his kind comments. Thank you very much, my friend. I know that you work very hard in the pursuit of restoring law and order as well, as many of us in this committee do, and protecting the rights of victims. I’d like to acknowledge you, Tom Rutherford, for the contributions you’ve just made. And, if I may, I’d just like to say thank you, Dr Webb, for feeling you need to rise to my defence, but in this situation, this is a result of a conversation.

What I love about my colleagues—we call ourselves the newbies, the class of 2023—is that we actually sit down and really traverse a lot of the nuances, the ideas, and the yes and the no of different bills that come before our House. This conversation is a result of a kōrero that we’ve had where my mate Tom came up to me and said, “Hey, look, you know your bill—there’s a few thoughts that I have about it. Can you talk me through it?” I let him know about the departmental report and what’s said there and the advice we received. Thank you, but I don’t take this as filibustering.

Look, we won’t spend too much time on the title, because there’s other clauses to consider, but the reason why I feel it’s important is because I also considered this, especially when we realise that, actually, there’s no real definition for “victims” in the principal Act, the Corrections Act. As I mentioned earlier, the Law Society made a point of this void, and they suggested that we seriously consider adding it in this amendment bill that’s in my name.

The advice from the Corrections officials was that, if they included it, if we were to amend the bill and include a definition for “victims”, essentially, it would need significant resource to operationalise. I’d like to quote, if you don’t mind, from the departmental report, paragraph 25: “We consider that defining ‘victim’ in this bill would not allow Corrections to operationalise the bill as drafted. This is because it will take significant resource and fiscal investment to administer that database to hold this information in an appropriate way, and significant concerns around privacy would need to be managed.” Now, that’s a pretty strong statement, and that’s why we thought, “OK, you know, I thought I was doing a lot of the thinking over the nights. I’ll back away from insisting on this definition for victims.”

However, what I appreciate about these deep philosophical conversations and law conversations is that it highlights different voids across our legal system. This is important, and it’s, I guess, what you can call—maybe it’s surrendipitish—what’s the word?

Tom Rutherford: Serendipitous: finding something good without looking for it.

RIMA NAKHLE: Serendipitous—English is my second language—finding out something you didn’t expect to, but you find it. So, in terms of the definition of “victim”, what I appreciate is that that has been highlighted to me—“Oh my goodness! It’s not even defined in the Corrections Act.”—but what I will say is that, look, I didn’t want to push that we amend the title. It is something that I’m happy that we’ve brought to the attention of the committee, to the attention of you, Madam Chair, and to the attention of people listening from home and throughout the world. Yes, the bill is named the “Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill”, but I’m mindful that “victim” doesn’t necessarily have a very technical and legal definition in the bill and in the principal Act.

Again, I’m happy that we’ve traversed this, I’m happy that it’s something that I can feel comfortable conversing with my colleagues about, and I hope that in the future, we can maybe think about doing something to fill that void, so to speak. So thank you, James, for your earlier comments—James Meager; my apologies, Madam Chair. And thank you, Tom Rutherford, for your consideration of the title of this bill, especially in light of the fact that we don’t have a definition for “victim” as it stands.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Tracey McLellan, but what I am going to say is that this is a small bill with a number of clauses. As I look through the bill, there are some clauses that have some more worthy debate than going round and round on the title, so please be very mindful of that—to everybody.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s in lieu of that warning or observation, I should say, that I stand to take a call.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s not a warning to you.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: No, I understand. I did have a series of small questions for the member Rima Nakhle, but it was fairly evident that the other side of the Chamber were going to filibuster a bit, so I decided to get in quick and to make my opening comments in case it took several other five-minute speeches to get the opportunity to.

I did want to acknowledge the member for being able to shepherd the bill through to this stage. It’s not often that members get to sit in that chair and to do the task that you’re doing now and to present and to answer questions—having gone through and sat through this process, with all its complexities and all the nuances, to sit there and confidently be able to answer questions.

As I said, I did have a just a couple of quick questions. I’m not going to ask them now, because we’re only in the title phase, and I was only going to ask them so that you would have the opportunity to be able to respond and to answer some questions, but I didn’t want to miss the opportunity to congratulate the member and to wish her all the very best for the rest of this bill.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Madam Chair, thank you for indulging me in this part of the—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I haven’t decided whether to indulge you yet. I’m going to listen to what you say first.

DAN BIDOIS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will make a brief contribution because I do not want to be accused of filibustering. I just want to open my remarks by saying it’s great to have this bill coming from my colleague Rima Nakhle, who is a tiresome advocate for victim protection in—

Hon Members: Tireless—tireless.

DAN BIDOIS: Tireless—tireless. I’ve had too many—yeah, tireless. It’s just great to have her bring this bill to the House. I know how much she is passionate about the rights of victims and about restoring law and order in her community and throughout the wider country. We are in the title and commencement phase, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, just the title.

DAN BIDOIS: Just the title. I just read the introduction of the bill. I haven’t been on the Justice Committee, so this is the first time I’ve actually read this bill.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: That’s shameful.

DAN BIDOIS: Thank you, Dr Duncan Webb.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Does the member have a question?

DAN BIDOIS: Yes, I do have a question. I’m coming to it, and it is around the fact that it’s victim focused, which is great, but I understand here it’s also got “victims of crime and people under a protection order”, and I just wanted to indulge the member who thought of the title for this bill.

On reflection, it doesn’t just include victims, it also includes people under a protection order. My colleague here and I were just chatting about protection orders, and they may be victims, but they may not be victims. There are, you know, family members and other people that aren’t a direct victim, or they may be a victim in the future. I just wanted to clarify with the member if she considered, potentially, a broader title to encompass those that she believes were under the focus of the bill, which is about people under a protection order, and if there were other alternative titles that she considered to make this more encompassing for the focus of the bill. That’s my question.

Again, I look forward to making the odd contribution from time to time throughout this debate, and I thank the member for bringing this bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I want to make a serious point in respect of members’ bills, including this one, and the time that we’re wasting on the title debate here. I’m not going to blame the Government members any more than I would blame the prior Labour administration, but there is a bad habit forming here that we are filibustering members’ bills.

Members’ bills are provided for as a very small part of the parliamentary agenda so that members, be they Government backbenchers or members of the Opposition, can bring forward policy ideas. Members who do not like those ideas can vote them down, but I would suggest to members of the committee that we reflect upon whether we’re getting into bad habits at delaying the purpose of members’ bills, which is to consider as many of these members’ ideas as we can.

The way to deal with issues that are not agreed to by other political parties through the members’ ballot is to vote them down. It’s actually not to delay their consideration so as to stop more bills being drawn from the ballot.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you for making that point, the Hon David Parker. Yes, it is a relevant point for the purposes of the committee. Just to point out that I am unable, as the Chair, to take a vote until everyone stops speaking or someone moves the closure motion, so that is completely in the hands of the committee. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I move that the debate on this part of the bill be now concluded. Sorry, what’s the new wording? “I move that the question be now put.” is a bit out of date.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to give the member another chance. The question is that debate on this question now close.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you. I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to clause 2. This is the debate on clause 2, commencement. The question is that clause 2 stand part.

James Meager: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): James Meager. I just wasn’t sure if the member in the chair was going to take a call, but I’ll take a call from James Meager.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it, because I do have to shoot and carry on another piece of business.

I just wanted to talk very, very briefly about the commencement clause and just note to colleagues in the committee that I understand—the member can speak to this, actually, but we had a brief discussion in the Justice Committee about the commencement of the bill. I understand from both reviewing the departmental report and my recollection of the discussion at the time was that officials were comfortable at that point with the proposed implementation being that the bill come into force on the day following Royal assent.

I now understand that, following conversations, there’s going to be an amendment proposed. I’m not sure if it’s been tabled, but I just wanted to highlight that to the committee, because we’re all new to this process and I just want to double-check that members were aware that there will be an amendment on this clause. And also—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The amendment has been tabled—for clarity.

JAMES MEAGER: The amendment has been tabled, that’s fantastic. We can speak to the amendment about the extension, probably about six months beyond. I may not be able to contribute much more in this sense, but I just wanted to indicate that there are some quite crunchy issues towards the end of the debate, and I do hope to make a contribution later on if I am able to do so. With that, I’ll sit and, hopefully, let the member take her call.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ll speak to the amendment, if that’s OK with the member, and then open up to her feedback on why she has tabled the specific amendment and why she’s making that change. I note, in the initial wording of the initial bill, it said the day after it received Royal assent, but the member has put forward an amendment in her name, and it says: clause 2, which is the commencement, replace “on the day after Royal assent”—page 1, lines 5 and 6—with “six months after Royal assent”. Now, I’m really keen to understand why the member is bringing this amendment to the committee, changing it from “the day after Royal assent” to “six months after Royal assent”.

Is it because the member in charge of the bill has received feedback from those in the corrections area and those in the Corrections departments and those who would be actually delivering the implementation of this bill, and that the direct feedback from them has been: “We need to change the day that the bill comes into force because it needs to give us an opportunity to sort of upskill and get into a position that we can actually deliver the implementation.”? Was the day after Royal assent not enough time for them to prepare those changes, even though there had been quite a significant lead-in time from when the bill was first drawn to where we are today with the committee of the whole House, and then where we’ll be with the third reading and then, hopefully, it coming into play?

I’m really keen to understand the thought process behind why the member’s tabled this amendment, and I’d welcome her the opportunity to provide some clarity for us.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Chair. Please excuse my little mistakes, it’s my first time in this chair. Look, I want to thank the two members for their contribution on this clause that we are now referencing, which is considering the commencement of the bill—basically, for friends around the motu, essentially, when does this bill come into effect after, hopefully, we’ve all voted for it in the third reading?

This is a bit of an interesting situation. Again, it’s my first time doing this, so I’m learning a lot. What I’d like to say to my colleague Tom Rutherford is that the reason why I initiated this action of tabling this amendment is because, as I do, I was going over everything a final time—I just wanted to make sure that we’ve dotted our i’s, so to speak, and something our t’s—and what I realised was, “OK, in the bill as it is, it says that it will come into effect on the day after Royal assent.” Then I thought, “After all the conversations we’ve had about it in the Justice Committee and just some of the operational kind of movements that need to happen to implement these changes that we’re making with this bill, would that be sufficient time?”

For those of you at home, this isn’t law but, generally speaking, Royal assent is between about two to seven days after a bill has been passed. In thinking about and considering two to seven days afterwards, and considering the changes we want to make, and considering the conversations with Corrections throughout the select committee process as to some of the operational requirements, etc., that this bill would entail, I took the liberty of contacting Corrections and asking for further advice about this and, essentially, asking, “Look, is it enough time—the day after Royal assent?” The answer that I received in no uncertain terms was that, no, it’s not enough. Indeed, six months, perhaps even 12 months, would be a better time frame for Corrections to implement the changes of this bill, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill.

I was glad that I asked the question, although it was at the eleventh hour. I’m a little bit disappointed with myself that I didn’t pick up on it earlier to ask the question directly within select committee.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Or listen to the people that raised it.

RIMA NAKHLE: Oh, Dr Tracey McLellan is saying that Dr Webb perhaps raised it.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Yeah.

RIMA NAKHLE: Oh, OK. My memory doesn’t serve me well in that situation, but I’ll take Dr Webb’s word for it. I’m disappointed at myself none the less, but we’ve brought it to the forefront and hence why I’m tabling this amendment, my colleagues. Just given what Corrections said to me recently, I thought to myself, “OK, I’m going to ask if I can table this amendment, and I really hope that we can get support for this.” Again, I apologise for missing it in the select committee process, but it is essentially saying that the bill will come to effect six months after Royal assent.

Now, as I mentioned in the in the casual conversation with Corrections, 12 months was also canvassed, but I would love if we can get this on the road ASAP. Since they gave me that time frame—or they gave the time frame of between six and 12 months—I made the decision to table this amendment with six months after Royal assent. Again, I’m hoping that I can get the support of our colleagues across the Chamber just so that on an operational level, things can run much more smoothly. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Motion not agreed to.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It had better be a very good question on commencement.

CAMERON BREWER: Talofa lava, Madam Chair, on this auspicious day. Can I just say this is the first time I’ve taken a call on this, and, yes, I will be coming to clause 2 and the amendment. I just want to pay tribute to the sponsor of the bill and the work that she’s done in the Justice Committee and the role that she plays as a champion of victims. In fact, that’s increasingly becoming her brand, so I’m very pleased that our fellow member of the Justice Committee and fellow class of 2023 is now in the hot seat.

I just wanted to flesh out the commencement amendment around the idea of—when the member in charge was in communication with Corrections, I wonder if some of their logic, and I put this to you, is the fact that six months gives you a new Budget year—it gives you a new Budget year.

Hon Scott Simpson: Ah!

CAMERON BREWER: You know, if we’re looking at where this third reading could be, a 30 June financial year, Mr Whip—whether that six months not only gives the organisation time to get organised but it also gives them, potentially, the time to put forward the additional costs or organisational time or commitment and possibly put a pitch into the Minister saying, “Look, we’ve got this new piece of legislation. We need, within our existing operational budget and commitments and programme for 2024-25, a bit more time.” I just wanted to flesh that out, because, as we know, our Minister of Corrections, the Hon Mark Mitchell, was very generous in his Vote Corrections.

I think, at some levels, there were record numbers going through as far as rehabilitation for remand prisoners, as far as a lot more beds being built at Waikeria and that, and as far as more corrections officers. So, when you have a look at the Bunsen burner that the Minister has put under Corrections and the expectations, they are rising accordingly, and we know that there are people queuing up, as they are in the Police, to join Corrections. I wonder, and I put it to the member, whether that six months just allows a little bit more time for the organisation of Corrections and the CEO to not only get their ducks in a row but to actually find any necessary budget.

I’d actually put it to the member too, in her exploration of this: did Corrections say, or have they said during the select committee process, which I might not have picked up on, that this would require more budget, or did they say that this would just require codifying what, in many cases, they may be doing in part already, but codifying that expectation for the sake of the comfort of the victims and the protection of the victims? Does that enable that piece of work to actually happen in this financial year, or do they need a new budget? Do they actually need more resources? What are the budget implications? I think that’s very pertinent to this committee. We haven’t covered that, and with the commencement of that, that could give Corrections and the Minister the time not only to set up their processes, a term we often hear in alignment with this bill, but also to put the resource behind it.

My question to the sponsoring member is: what have they said is (1) the organisational impact of this if they would roll out—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Related to the commencement still?

CAMERON BREWER: Yeah, relating to the operational impact of the commencement period being in seven days or a day after, compared to six months. And have we had any analysis from Corrections, from their chief financial officer, as to what the cost of this could be? I think, if there is a cost attached, that we need to see that, because that puts for a much stronger case for six months taking us to financial year 2025-26. Thank you.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Rima Nakhle, I just first wanted to say congratulations on this bill and doing the committee of the whole House. It’s actually one of my highlights of my week when I get to sit beside you in the Justice Committee, and I know you are very victim-centric. I was listening in my office when this amendment was tabled, so I rushed immediately down because, obviously, this is not something we’ve had time to consider and it’s not, obviously, something that was at the select committee. I suppose I’m going to have to make a call on behalf of that. I’m pretty confident I will be able to do that after we traverse all the issues around the commencement.

It’s not the same as Mr Brewer’s questions, but not dissimilar. I just wanted to test how far did you actually—I know you’ve said that you spoke to Corrections and they’ve said you could have between six and 12 months, but, Rima Nakhle, I know you’re very victim-centric, so I know you’d like to get this in place as soon as possible. I really want to test: how hard did you push Corrections? Look, they are very hard-working people. They are very, very hard-working people at Corrections. They were obviously providing excellent advice on your bill, they’re providing excellent advice in relation to my own bill, but sometimes they do need a bit of a push.

I wanted to just test with you—because I know you’d like to get this protection for victims in as soon as possible, and I just want to understand how hard you pushed them—could they have done it in three months? Again, six months is a little while, you know; we’ll be through this Parliament, quite through this Parliament actually, by the time this bill comes into force. I really just want to ask, you know, how hard did you push them? Was it some of the considerations that Mr Brewer outlined, or is it truly operational?

I suppose my other question is: if you give them the six months from when the bill is passed before it commences, have they given you assurances everything can be in place and that it actually will at that day be operational and protect victims in the way you want? Thank you.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you very much. Thank you to my colleagues Cameron Brewer and Todd Stephenson, first, for your very kind words—thank you—and also for the well-thought-out questions with respect to the amendment that I’ve tabled. I’d like to answer maybe a bit of to and fro, if that’s OK.

I’d like to say that I’m not happy about this, Mr Stephenson. Again, I love myself, but there’s a part of me that’s quite frustrated that I didn’t pick up, particularly—but I don’t have the experience that Dr Webb does. It’s absolutely taught me a colossal lesson for the next one, not to just kind of overlook commencement dates, to really consider them the way that I considered the other clauses of this bill.

I’ll start off with your questions, actually, Mr Stephenson. In answer to how hard did I push, the honest answer is I didn’t; as it’s at the eleventh hour, I didn’t have the chance to push hard. I asked the question and I was given that answer and I just thought, “Look, well, between six and 12—six is already kind of a big stretch as it is but I’m going to table this amendment for six months.” I’m mindful that I did that with a kind of sadness in my heart, because I’m mindful that we just kind of want to get these protections for victims under way as soon as possible. That’s my answer, albeit brief, to your question, Mr Stephenson.

To your question, Mr Brewer—Cameron Brewer—well, there was a number of questions in your question—

Hon Scott Simpson: Contribution.

RIMA NAKHLE: Your contribution, that’s the word—“Contributing Cam”. There were a number of questions, and again, to be honest, with respect to the new Budget year, that’s a very good observation, one that I didn’t feel needed consideration in this situation. I congratulate the member for always combining the fiscal situation with what we’re looking at in terms of our Justice Committee.

I do believe, on the little bit of information that I received, that Corrections believes that six months will be very helpful. After talking with the Corrections staff—and I thank Dr Marian for all the feedback that she gave us and the patience she had with respect to my questions in select committee—what I understood is that it’s not a “We must wait six months”, but the feedback I got was that it would be very helpful. As I said, considering a few things and making sure we just want to get it right from the foundation, that’s why I decided to take that on board—that six months would be very helpful—and table this amendment where the bill will take effect six months after Royal assent. I hope that answers some of the questions for my colleagues.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Deputy Musterer—Green): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Rima Nakhle’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 3 Principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to clause 3. Clause 3 is the debate on the principal Act. The question is that clause 3 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Motion not agreed to.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Senior Whip—National): Point of order, Madam Chair. I just, really, wanted to make a point that the member in the chair, Rima Nakhle, is a new member, on her first bill, and is clearly new at this process and the ability for her to engage is a new one. I seek your indulgence in just giving her a little bit of slack, in terms of rising to take a call, which she clearly intended to do before that last vote was taken. It’s the intention of this side of the Chamber to continue allowing the member in charge of the bill to speak should she wish to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Actually, in regard to that point of order, Mr Simpson, it wasn’t actually clear that the member Rima Nakhle was getting to her feet in a hurry to take a call. There was some hesitation there, and in terms of the committee—and this is not a criticism of the member, because the member is new in the chair—if people want to vigorously take calls, that’s what I should be seeing. I’m not just saying that on behalf of the member, because there have been some other half-hearted people standing up for calls as well. Please, be decisive as a committee about what you want to do.

Tom Rutherford: Madam Chair!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Tom Rutherford—that was decisive.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That was decisive.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Oh, Madam Chair, I’ve never been doubted about my decisiveness, I’ll tell you that. We’ve gone through the first two clauses—

Hon David Parker: Is that a beard or is it not?

TOM RUTHERFORD: It is a beard, Mr Parker. Yes, it is a beard. Ha, ha! Touché, though.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Is that relevant?

TOM RUTHERFORD: I’m trying to remember when Mr Parker was relevant. But I’ll come back to the bill.

In clause 1, we talked about the title; in clause 2, we talked about the commencement—now, on to clause 3, talking about the principal Act, where this member’s bill, which Rima Nakhle is shepherding through the House, is going to change the Corrections Act 2004. I’m really keen to understand from the member: was there consideration given around whether there would be other changes made to other Acts that this would have direct impacts on, or was it only the Corrections Act 2004 where changes needed to be made to ensure victims in New Zealand were protected from those that committed the heinous crimes against them? I’m really keen to understand from the member in the chair around whether it was only the Corrections Act 2004 that was the piece of legislation that needed to be amended, or was there any consideration given that other pieces of legislation, at the same time as this legislation was being brought in, needed to be amended as well?

If we think back—and we’ll talk about it in the subsequent clauses that are coming as well—to those incredibly harrowing stories that we heard of victims who, in some cases, received over 100 phone calls from those that had perpetuated the heinous crimes on them from places like prison, was there any need to change other pieces of legislation to protect those victims? Or was it simply that amending just the Corrections Act 2004 would be enough to protect those victims, to ensure that they were given the right protection that they deserve and kept out of the line of sight and out of the point of contact of those who had perpetuated the crime? I’m really keen to understand from the member: was it just the Corrections Act 2004 that needed to be changed to enable this bill to come into force or had other pieces of legislation been considered as well at the same time? I’d welcome a response from the member.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question follows on from Mr Rutherford’s, just getting some clarification and maybe understanding as to what the sponsor’s intent is here—whether she gave thought to, or whether she’s canvassed with Corrections or with the Minister of Corrections or with the chief executive of Corrections, that perhaps it’s time, 20 years on from that Helen Clark Corrections Act 2004, which member Parker will remember well, that a stand-alone piece of legislation that, potentially, is headlined something like the “Victims Protection and Priority Bill”, as an omnibus bill, puts everything in and around victims, not only to improve their protection but also to prioritise their needs.

As we know, this is pertinent, because we are a very victim-centric Government. That’s what the National Party campaigned on, and that’s what the public really responded to.

Hon Member: And ACT and New Zealand First.

CAMERON BREWER: They wanted us—yeah, and ACT and New Zealand First. Admittedly, I wasn’t running their campaign lines, but, yeah, that is a very good line.

Hon Member: You sure?

CAMERON BREWER: Increasingly, I might be. But, no—ACT and New Zealand First, they also ran that: victim-centric, let’s get the victims at the centre of the justice system rather than making apologies and excuses for the offenders. So, Madam Chair, I’ll just put it, through you, that perhaps there has been that discussion—or perhaps there could be or should be—that maybe instead of ongoing repeals and ongoing amendments, at least to the main principal Act, the Corrections Act 2004, perhaps it’s time for a “Victims Protection and Priority Bill”. I just wonder whether that would headline what this brand of this Government is doing and where our priorities lie.

I also wonder: look how much the landscape, the law and order landscape, the corrections landscape, the offender landscape, the seriousness of offence landscape—just how much it’s changed in 20 years. I’d invite the member: in her mind, is this going to be an exercise where we just have ongoing repeals, like to the 1961 Crimes Act, for the next 40 years? Or does she see, potentially—I don’t know, maybe it’s another member’s bill, but it would have to have the muscle of the Government and Cabinet behind it. Does she see a future where we don’t just keep tacking and deleting and crossing out and amending the principal Act of 2004, but we actually look, as a coalition Government that’s focused on the victim first and foremost in the justice system—and that means whether you’re talking to justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, corrections and police Minister Mark Mitchell, associate police Minister Casey Costello, whether it’s Nicole McKee as another associate justice Minister.

These are people with real, lived experiences, and this is what, at a political level—we have an operational level, we have the justice cluster, but we’ve actually got a real good cluster of people in and around those. And that’s not all of them—you know, you could put Louise Upston in there, too—people with real lived experiences who might be getting to a place and might have talked to our member in charge here about perhaps the Corrections Act and perhaps a signature piece of work that might not be this term, but possibly next, that could be a wholesale, standalone piece of legislation, an omnibus bill that pulls all the victim stuff together. It could be named—and you know, I’m happy to take credit for the name—the “Victims Protection and Priority Bill”. I just wonder if that’s where this is heading, or if she’s comfortable with just amending the principal Act at this point.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I want to thank my colleagues as well. Just being on this side of the kaupapa, it’s really interesting what I can see. I guess what I’m seeing is that, with most of us being newbies, we are quite overzealous about really debating every single clause of this bill. I appreciate the passion, but I think I need to say that, just from the get-go. In response to my colleagues Tom Rutherford and Cam Brewer—and I hope that we can get a chance to listen to Mr Stephenson—with respect to clause 3, about the principal Act, the Corrections Act 2004, I don’t have any commentary to make in terms of any changes there.

I do want to tautoko Cam Brewer—again, the philosophical conversations that you just had there. I don’t want to take too much of our committee’s time, because it’s important that we consider the other clauses of this bill, if we may, but I think that’s such a noble vision, a noble idea, Mr Brewer—you know, time for a “Victims Protection and Priority Bill”. That’s so interesting, because what you’ve done is you’ve considered the fact that, through this member’s bill, which I’m humbled is in my name and we’re shepherding through the House as we speak, it’s just brought about all these considerations of how we can make our legal system work better for our victims. How do we prioritise victims in the whakaaro that we display with respect to bills like this and, indeed, all the actions that we’re doing in terms of protecting victims of crime and potential victims of crime, victims of intimidation? That comes, again, to that lack of a definition of “victim”.

Thank you, Mr Brewer, for your contribution with respect to victims’ protection and whether we would consider something in the future. Hopefully—I mean, it would be great to raise that with our Ministers. But that’s a noble idea, and I’d like to—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Hypothetical.

RIMA NAKHLE: It is hypothetical—that’s correct, Mr Webb—but I’d like to show appreciation for that hypothetical, noble thought.

To your question, Mr Rutherford, Tom Rutherford, my good friend—was there any other legislation considered? Well, the fact is that being a member’s bill, we really try to keep it tight, yeah? Potentially, there are other laws that could be affected if we allowed ourselves to expand the scope more than what it is. I mean, when you’re talking about protection orders, I’m sure that many of us in the House automatically think of the Family Violence Act 2018, where there’s a big focus on protection orders there. When this bill was pulled from the ballot, I was conducting my own research, and I delved into the Crimes Act and a few other Acts—just myself, making sure that I was covering all bases. For now, I don’t have any other commentary or changes to suggest or thoughts about the principal Act. I’m happy, with the indulgence of the committee, for us to move to clause 4.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. I just will make a note, too. Under the Standing Orders, I was getting pretty close to the point of saying to the members, the principal Act clause means a clause confined to stating that a bill amends an existing Act. I think it was getting pretty out there in terms of what’s proposed on the Table in front of us.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4Section 8 amended (Powers and functions of chief executive)

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to clause 4. This is the debate on “Section 8 amended (Powers and functions of chief executive)”. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Firstly, we want to recognise the member Rima Nakhle, also the rest of the Justice Committee on all sides of the Chamber. This bill has undergone an evolution from when it was first presented as written, and then to evolve into the form that it is in at the moment. Clause 4 is where everything happens and—

Tom Rutherford: It’s the substantial part.

PAULO GARCIA: Yes, it is the substantial part, yes.

Tom Rutherford: I’ve got plenty of material.

PAULO GARCIA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Congratulations, the member recognised the substantive part.

PAULO GARCIA: Yes, and I will just take a piece of that substance, and I would like to focus my contribution on where the contact or the communication comes from. We are discussing protecting victims of persons in the corrections system. The bill began by including persons who were under management of the corrections system, but who were otherwise in the community. There are approximately 25,000 people who are under management of Corrections, and they are in the community, and over 9,000 people who are in the corrections facilities.

There was much discussion at the select committee level about who actually were the source of the unwanted communication or communication that was aimed at victims and people who originally were under protection orders. The question I have for our good friend Rima Nakhle is that she unpack for us, and for the people who may not have been in the select committee process, what discussion and conversation we had in respect of the source of this unwanted communication. Why is it that, over time, the bill has evolved from including people under the management of the corrections system who are outside in the community to not including persons who are outside in the community—persons who are under the management of the corrections system who are in the community?

Currently, the bill—having undergone some amendment in that space—is now focused on actual prisoners, people who are incarcerated and managed in the corrections facilities. That’s about 9,000-plus people in corrections. Just help us understand why is it that the bill was amended from when it was written to include people under the management of the corrections facilities, to exclude them eventually from the bill as it is now standing. Thank you, Madam Chair.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Chair, and just before I dive into a couple of the questions I’ve got, I just want to seek clarity from you as the Chair. I do note that the original bill had clauses 5 and 6, which have now subsequently been removed through the select committee stage. When is the appropriate time for me to talk about clauses 5 and 6, because there won’t be a debate on clauses 5 and 6 with it being removed? Do you mind if I just give you an opportunity to seek advice on that and then—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You ask your questions on this part and I’ll come back to you.

TOM RUTHERFORD: OK, happily, Madam Chair—you take as long as you would like.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It won’t take long.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Well, you indulge yourself on that front, Madam Chair. I want to speak to the member Rima Nakhle because clause 4 is the substantial part of the bill. We’ve talked about the title, we’ve talked about the commencement, we’ve talked about the principal Act, and now we’re actually talking about the part that we’re actually going to be implementing to deliver the change that the member’s looking to through the piece of legislation.

The first part is that, from when the bill was originally drafted until now, it has been substantially amended. At first, the bill captured all people under the supervision of Corrections. These are the people who are both within our prison facilities and corrections facilities in New Zealand and also those that are outside of our prison system as well—that’s a lot of people.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Clause 4.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Yeah, I’m speaking to clause 4, Mr Webb.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Good—you could have fooled me.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Well, you’re welcome to come over and have a look and I’ll show you.

Now, through the select committee process, I believe the Justice Committee received feedback that said, actually, Corrections have advised that it would actually be impossible for Corrections to implement this requirement when it comes to those that are under their supervision in the community. If I’m led to believe this is correct, that’s nearly over 20,000 people. Why was the amendment made? The original intention of the bill was to have it apply to everybody, both within the prison and corrections facilities and also those who are out serving their sentences out in the community. Why has the legislation now been subsequently amended only to focus on those who are held within the corrections facilities? Was this any advice that the member in the select committee received as they considered the bill through the Justice Committee, or was this a decision that the member made after further thought, thinking about the legislation and the actual implementation of it and what that meant for the community?

I’ll invite the member to answer that question, and then, Madam Chair, if you wouldn’t mind just clarifying.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I will actually clarify before the member answers the questions. In the second reading, there was an opportunity to talk about what the select committee did. The advice I received is that you can touch on the old clause 5—that fits into these clauses—but, basically, because the committee didn’t go near clause 6, there’s no real opportunity to talk about clause 6.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Sorry, do you mind just repeating that? Because the committee didn’t go back?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah—yeah.

TOM RUTHERFORD: OK, I understand.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So you can speak briefly about clause 5 as part of the clause that we’re currently on.

TOM RUTHERFORD: OK, thank you.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms Nakhle, if you can just indulge me for a bit, as we do just work through clause 4. I’m just interested in this amendment that was made around the chief executive and what they must take into consideration. It seems to me that, again, it’s a fairly—well, not substantial, but it’s definitely a change from what was originally drafted. We’ve got this term around “the interests of victims”—“(including, in particular, being free from unwanted contact with prisoners)”.

I really want to understand why that is important, why that was added, and, really, does that provide additional powers to the chief executive—that’s, obviously, of Corrections. Again, you’ve actually got two people there: you’ve got the Commissioner of Police empowered and also the chief executive of Corrections. Obviously, I’m sure the chief executive of Corrections can delegate that power down, I suppose, to prison managers and people like that, so it can actually get further down in the system, close really to where those prisoners are being dealt with.

I’m very keen to understand from you why, really, that was put in—amending that particular section—and what is your understanding of taking into account the interests of victims? I think that’s a very important clause, particularly given the entire motivation behind this bill. I’m very interested to hear your comments on that.

Tom Rutherford: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I call Rima Nakhle.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m happy to sit down if this is a supplementary.

Tim Costley: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Tom Rutherford was on his feet first—sorry, Mr Costley.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just wanted to flesh out a little bit more the earlier point I was making around the adjustments that were made, through the select committee process, around who the bill was actually applied to—whether it was those both in corrections facilities or out in the community—because there is a risk at play here that the intention of the legislation will apply to those in the corrections facilities, but that those out in the community can still have the opportunity to harass or contact or intimidate their victims, because they aren’t serving their sentence within the corrections facilities.

I want to understand the rationale from the member as to why Corrections made the suggestion to the select committee to adjust the legislation from everybody under the remit of Corrections to just those held in corrections facilities, which are substantial changes, because the number of people under supervision in the community is over 20,000. The targeting areas of the bill are actually being reduced down to just those held in our corrections facility. I’m keen to flesh that out a little bit more, from the member in charge of the bill, Rima Nakhle, as to why that adjustment was made for just those in the corrections facilities versus those all encapsulated by corrections both in the community and also in our prison facilities.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. The area I’d really like to delve into is the nexus between this bill and family law. We heard some insightful questions, I thought, earlier in this debate, that I’ve been following very closely, looking at why it’s only amending—you know, the limitation of which Act get amended is very tight. I just wonder what consideration was given to where it might impact family law.

These can be very difficult, very serious, very challenging situations. Two parents involved and there’s obviously a breakdown in the relationship that leads to one becoming the victim of the other, but still, we obviously want to consider the rights of the child and their wellbeing. There’s been a lot of discussion traversed in this House about keeping them connected to their family, about how we honour what is best for the child. This is going to be a very complex issue to navigate, and obviously this gives—the Commissioner of Police determines what conditions might be imposed. Now there is a preference towards unwanted contact, but, in the Venn diagram of these two things, there must be an overlap between what is the preference of the victim and what is the preference of any children, when they are present.

If we look through the lens of what Mr Rutherford’s been talking about—if that is expanded to those in the community as well as those that are incarcerated—this actually becomes quite complex, because obviously, in this case, parents will still be involved with their children. It’s not just a connection, but it’s a physical connection. It’s really important that we can navigate that in the interests of what is best for the child. I’m just very mindful of family harm situations and the number of agencies involved—the best way to navigate that. Obviously, we want to see the best outcome for the child.

I just want to know, in terms of clause 4, when we look at that language about—and I’m specifically referring to clause 4A where it says, “In deciding which conditions … to impose, the chief executive or Commissioner of Police must take into account the interests of the victims (… in particular, being free from unwanted contact”. Well, it might be unwanted by one parent, but how is that balanced with the desires of the child and what, perhaps, other agencies that could be involved in that situation are saying in the best interest of the child?

I’d be very keen to hear from the member how these things will be balanced, because there are a number of other Acts that would suddenly become intertwined, there are a number of considerations that would be involved, and I don’t think, maybe, it’s been considered. Maybe it is as simple as saying, “Will we just leave that in the bailiwick of the Commissioner of Police and they will determine it”, but I just don’t see that specifically written and I just want to ensure that we are considering these things—that it’s been well traversed so that when this, hopefully, passes into law, we will be protecting the victims. That’s obviously incredibly important, but I just want to make sure the rights of the children in a family harm situation are well protected. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think just be careful with future contributions—which should really be questions, not speeches—that we’re not going into traversing other bills other than the one that’s in front of us.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, it’s a pleasure to speak on this member’s bill. I haven’t been privy to much of the conversation and certainly not the work of the Justice Committee, but I just want to acknowledge the member Rima Nakhle for her work in getting to this point in the bill.

Madam Chair, to your point, I do have some questions, and I guess just more for elucidation or clarification, if I may, for the member. At first, the bill, I appreciate, was capturing all prisoners outside of the scope and then obviously through the select committee process, which is good, but—

Tom Rutherford: Point of order. Sorry, I don’t mean to interrupt my colleague, but I would just like the timer restarted to five minutes for his contribution, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, it restarted or didn’t restart?

Tom Rutherford: It didn’t start at all, sorry.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): OK. Just a bit of a half-time changeover.

RYAN HAMILTON: Well, thank you, Mr Chair, and I just acknowledge my colleague Mr Rutherford for his astute observations. I don’t know where we’d be without you. I’ll just find my rhythm.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): With Mr Rutherford being a very keen closer of motions on that side of the Chamber, I’m pleased to see that he’s wearing another hat tonight.

RYAN HAMILTON: Yes. No, he’s a man of many talents. For the member, I obviously appreciate that this bill was a little bit broader in the initial intention, but obviously quite a robust select committee process and through feedback and obviously through Corrections officials, you’ve been able to narrow the scope of it, which is prudent. I just acknowledge the work of the team on that from both sides of the House—obviously very good, very robust.

Just in section 8 of the principal Act, after new section 8(1)(ja), inserted by clause 4, it talks about amending the powers and functions of the chief executive and it says, “ensuring that processes are established and maintained to inform visitors of prisoners and recipients of prisoner communications of measures that they can take if they do not want to be contacted by a prisoner”. I just wonder if the member could perhaps clarify or expand on what some of those processes might be and also the measures. Obviously, probably the Justice Committee was privy to some of those things, but I certainly wasn’t and certainly that would be helpful if she could elucidate on that.

Then further down, I note in the commentary—in the select committee report, obviously—that, because we couldn’t go broad with the bill, they were sending a report or a note that there’d be safeguards available or that they hoped there’d be safeguards available to protect the victims that fall beyond the scope of this bill in the broader community, so I look forward to seeing that.

Further, in replacement section 77(5A), inserted by clause 4A, there was a note here, “In deciding what conditions (if any) to impose, the chief executive or the Commissioner of Police must take into account the interests of victims (including—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): We’re just on clause 4, not clause 4A. Clause 4A has its own clause.

RYAN HAMILTON: Oh, OK. Yep, thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll go to the next one there, then.

There was a mention of why it was important to just focus on telephone calls. I just wondered, were there any other forms of harassment that were explored or why there was a sort of a narrowing of the text around that element of it? Then, also, “contacts a person, or solicits anyone else to contact a person, who the prisoner knows or ought reasonably to know”—I know that’s probably quite a pragmatic thing in a bill, and I suppose some of that drops down as the operationalisation through the corrections facility, but I wondered also if the member could expand on what some of those things might look like in terms of “ought reasonably to know”. Were there any comments through the select committee process of, you know, relationships or unintended, I suppose, methods of reaching the prisoner that might have then affected them and added to that sort of ongoing victimisation? I’d be really interested in that.

I guess the other element, just in closing, was including, in particular, being free from unwanted contact with the prisoners to take into account the interests of victims, including, in particular, being free from unwanted contact with prisoners. I wondered, again, just elucidation, expansion of what that might be in terms of the interests. If the member is able to do that, that would be terrific, but just once again, I congratulate the member and thank her for bringing this to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): My apologies, my colleague Cameron Brewer, but if you don’t mind, I would like an opportunity to—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): You can pull rank in this position.

RIMA NAKHLE: Ah! Thanks for that—welcome, Mr Chair. Now, if you don’t mind, with the indulgence of my colleagues, I would like to just answer a few of the really astute questions that were raised. I thank the members for their interest. I also want to highlight what I highlighted just moments ago, that I’m really appreciating the overzealousness of us newbies, new class of 2023, but at this stage, maybe I’ll just bring it back to the conversation about clause 4, if I may. I want to thank you, my friend Paulo Garcia, member for New Lynn. Thank you for your kind words and thank you for the contributions that you made during the select committee process on this member’s bill, as you make other very sensible and thoughtful contributions for many of the other bills, the now 27 that we consider on the very hard-working Justice Committee.

What I’d like to highlight for the benefit of my colleagues across the Chamber but also for people listening from home—and my husband, Roger—is the reason why clause 4 was substantially amended. There’s many, many reasons that we unpacked here, and there’s conversations that went back and forth with Corrections, with the advice that they gave and the questions that they answered, but, essentially, it comes down to this, if I may: essentially, it comes down to what was raised earlier—that the number of people that are under the supervision of Corrections, if we consider the whole country, is over 20,000 people. That’s people within prison, and that’s—do I have to lean over, by the way?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, I think that’s been picked up.

RIMA NAKHLE: I’m supposed to be graceful! That means people within prison, and that means people that are out in the community, whether it’s on in home detention, wearing an ankle bracelet, and things like that. That number is over 20,000.

When we look at the number that’s within prison, if we just start at the numbers of it all, those that are under the supervision of Corrections, confined to prisons per se, are just over 9,000. The conversation with Corrections was that it’s, essentially, almost impossible to oversee those that are out in the community: every single letter they send, every phone call they make, every SMS that they write—you know, all those type of contacts—every picture that they might send, every Facebook message, every Instagram and what have you. When we reflected as a committee on the complexities involved with overseeing the communications that take place, if Corrections was to oversee those that are out in the community, I had to acknowledge and accept that it is almost impossible at this stage in our lives. Hopefully in the future, it would be much easier to oversee, but at this stage, the simple answer is it’s just too difficult.

If we allow ourselves to step away from this fervent desire to protect victims and just think about it on an operational and practical level, I think many of us can conclude, with some sadness, that it is actually not practical to put that obligation on the chief executive of Corrections to make sure that everyone across the motu that is under the supervision of Corrections is being monitored with respect to the communications they make with victims of their crime. It’s unfortunate, but that, essentially, is the answer, my friends.

I’m appreciative, Mr Rutherford, of your concern about what that means with respect to those that are out in the community, not within the confinement of prisons. Does it mean that they can just continue to—in some situations, if they are so inclined—harass and to contact unlawfully the victims of their crime, and do they, essentially, get away with it? May I say, if you allow me to be so straightforward in what I’m about to say—but first I’m going to ask if I can have a bit of an extension of time.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Rima Nakhle.

RIMA NAKHLE: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. That question to my friend Mr Rutherford really, really troubled me. I had conversations with my husband, Roger. I had conversations with some friends in the Takanini community, especially people that have been subject to unsavoury behaviour, and their questions to me were: so what happens to those that are in the community? Can they just harass people? Can they just constantly make hundreds of calls to people and not actually be held accountable? Are they just going to get away with it? Now, they don’t get away with it entirely, because they are under parole conditions for the most part, but we had to go back, and it caused me some angst. I’m glad that my colleague Tom can feel that as well and can understand that concern about what this means with respect to those that are out in the community that are not in prisons?

What I can say is that I’m glad that, at least to a very bare minimum, we added something in the select committee final report saying that we hoped that that they were constantly being thought of. That’s, essentially, the answer, if I was to put it down in a nutshell, my friends, and I’m happy to expand further if need be.

Kahurangi Carter: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Remind me—

Kahurangi Carter: Kahurangi.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Kahurangi Carter.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Deputy Musterer—Green): It’s getting late, eh? I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 4A agreed to.

Clause 4B agreed to.

Clause 4C agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Income Tax (Clean Transport FBT Exclusion) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): I move, That the Income Tax (Clean Transport FBT Exclusion) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Right now on the other side of the world, the Conference of the Parties (COP)—I’m not sure which number it is—

Hon Members: 29.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —climate conference is happening—29. At the same time, I’ve just read a headline that says that scientists have determined that the 1.5 degrees of warming that was agreed to in Paris at COP 21 is already unattainable. It’s been about nine years and we haven’t seen the action that we needed in order to radically reduce carbon emissions to keep global heating below 1.5 degrees above industrial levels. Of course, the Paris Agreement was one that the National Party signed Aotearoa New Zealand up to and have repeatedly asserted that they were committed to achieving those targets.

Now, one of the things that we need to do—one very small thing, it might seem, and this bill would help contribute to—is increase the demand for electric vehicles, so I put this bill in the ballot. This is the first member’s bill, in 13 years of being in this House of Parliament, that I have the pleasure of speaking to. I was quite lucky six years in to have a member’s bill drawn, but then I was a Minister by the time it got to first reading, so I had to pass it on to a colleague. Then it took another six years for this bill to be drawn, so it’s my first time speaking to a member’s bill. It was one that I put in the ballot because I thought it might get the support of parties in the current Government. The reason I thought it might get support is because it’s literally a policy that National had in their manifesto in 2020, not so long ago.

What this bill does is it creates a temporary exemption for fringe benefit tax on electric vehicles. The rationale for this is that the majority of vehicles purchased in New Zealand are purchased by businesses—that employers who have large fleets who provide their employees with vehicles could be incentivised quite easily to purchase electric vehicles if we created a temporary exemption of fringe benefit tax. Of course, we’ve seen other exemptions of fringe benefit tax. There’s an exemption for employer-provided car parks. Employer-provided car parks generate additional traffic trips, they have a whole host of unintended negative consequences, and yet they’re exempt from fringe benefit tax.

Because of the distortion that’s created by that exemption, we’ve seen more exemptions put in, which is helpful because the commute to work trip is one of the biggest drivers of the morning and afternoon peak in traffic. If we have different incentives, if employers can provide different incentives, you can get shifts in behaviour. We saw an exemption brought in last term that the Green Party had campaigned on, which was an exemption for public transport passes, and then, at the very last minute, an amendment that I proposed to exempt bikes and electric bikes. That is actually creating an incentive and a kind of industry support for services to employers, like managing fleets of electric bikes. It’s enabling people to access clean transportation. That’s why this bill was put in place.

I know it seems really boring and technical—I feel that when I’m giving this speech. It’s hard to be really passionate about fringe benefit tax, isn’t it? But here we are—here we are. What happened was the Government said they’re committed to the Paris targets and they’re committed to reducing emissions. Transport is one of the largest sources of our carbon emissions, and the vast majority of our carbon emissions from transport are from private vehicles. If we’re going to have any hope of decarbonising and there’s no plan from the current Government to shift away from a very high reliance on private vehicles—indeed, if anything, there are policies that are all about encouraging reliance on private vehicles and making it harder for people to use public transport. If we’re going to reduce emissions, which this Government says they want to do, we need more electric vehicles.

I just want to quote some supporters of this bill who I thought members opposite might be interested to hear. The Motor Industry Association (MIA) have provided this quote of support: “The MIA’s support for this bill goes beyond the associated financial incentives. Our immediate concern is consumers’ low uptake and continued hesitation in transitioning towards EVs. The supply of suitable vehicles is no longer a barrier to meeting carbon reduction targets—consumer demand is. Achievement of future decarbonisation goals now hinges upon consumer demand. Continued consumer hesitation will directly impact carbon targets and our ability to achieve them.”

This bill is a targeted, strategic step towards strengthening demand for zero-emissions vehicles, which is essential for positioning New Zealand to meet its environmental commitments. It’s been supported by a wide variety of automotive industry representatives, like the AA. In fact, when Simon Bridges was transport Minister—if anyone remembers that; he’s currently the chair of the New Zealand Transport Agency—he had an electric vehicle advisory group who pushed for this policy. That was what they were campaigning on. That’s why National then campaigned on it in 2020, but, sadly, it was dropped from their manifesto.

However, it is not too late—it is not too late. I ask all members here tonight to consider voting for this bill, simply to send it to select committee where it could be considered further; where we could hear from the public, from experts, and get advice from officials. Of course, we’d have to hear from more than just IRD officials, because IRD officials, we all know, just love a very simple tax system and they’re not a huge fan of exemptions. However, we are policy makers and we’re here to get outcomes for New Zealanders. The OECD has repeatedly told New Zealand we’re not using our tax system to get the environmental outcomes we want enough. This would be a simple way to get the outcomes we want.

Now, this is not going to be very visible on television, unfortunately, but I did print a graph to show what happened with electric vehicle registrations in Aotearoa in 2024 after the Clean Car Discount was cancelled. There is a whole range of industry supporters like people who provide the charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. They’re saying—and a number of them, I know, will have emailed members in the last week or so—that we need policy support from central government to increase the demand for electric vehicles. If we want the charging infrastructure, if we want the renewable generation, the single key driver of that is demand. How do we create the demand? We incentivise electric vehicles.

I accept that members opposite, despite the success of the policy, were not in agreement with carrying on with the Clean Car Discount. The advantage of the Clean Car Discount was that it kept the incentives within the market of new vehicles coming to New Zealand. It meant that everybody who was bringing a new car into New Zealand—whether it was a highly polluting vehicle or an EV—somehow was playing a role in helping us reduce our emissions from those private vehicles. They have chosen to end that policy; however, there’s nothing in its place. If anything, the road-user charges for battery electric vehicles are penalising electric vehicles now, because if someone has a hybrid vehicle, they pay half the cost per kilometre as a battery electric vehicle would, even though it’s comparable damage to the road.

So it is time; we need a solution. That’s why I put this very constructive bill in the ballot, because I thought, potentially, Government members, whatever party they might be in, might see the attractiveness of a bill that takes a tax off businesses and supports private cars.

Andy Foster: What about landlords?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, oh, and some people are heckling me right now, as usual. I would love to respond to every heckle. Let me say: why is it that you’re OK with tax breaks that don’t reduce emissions, but you’re not OK with tax breaks that do reduce emissions? That’s my question for members opposite.

The whole point of the tax break is to get an outcome we want. Do we want more people who own property to keep buying up properties? No. Do we want to reduce emissions and incentivise the electric vehicle market and the electric vehicle charging infrastructure and the generation of renewable electricity? Yes. We should all want that. I would hope that all members, whether they’re in the Government or not, will consider voting for this bill so we can take it to select committee and potentially find a solution we can all agree with.

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

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to speak on the Income Tax (Clean Transport FBT Exclusion) Amendment Bill. I have to say, I’m used to listening to Dr Deborah Russell, who’s very knowledgeable on tax, actually, and very enthusiastic about it, and she’s a great asset to the Finance and Expenditure Committee when it comes to tax. I’ve now found another member of the Opposition who speaks enthusiastically about tax, so I’ve learnt something tonight I didn’t know tonight about the Hon Julie Anne Genter.

I will put the member out of her misery and say that we’re actually not going to support this bill. It is a great thrill to have a bill drawn out of the ballot, and well done. Thirteen years and this is your first opportunity to speak to one, but at least you got your other one through—or did it go through? Oh, that’s a shame. Anyway, it is a great thrill to get a bill out and get it to the floor and to speak to it, but, ultimately, you have to have a bill that’s going to be supported. The reason that we don’t support it is, actually, we don’t think it is necessary to have a fringe benefit tax to incentivise the uptake of electric vehicles (EVs).

We’re in a period where we’re in change and where electric vehicles may well overtake the internal combustion engine in the long run. We’ve been in these sorts of periods before. I take you back, Mr Speaker—not that you will remember it, of course; but the great horse manure crisis of 1894. This was a big thing around the world. Horse manure was making cities uninhabitable because the transport of the day was, of course, the horse. Cars did exist, just after that period in particular, but they were not being taken up at a fast enough rate to overtake the horses.

Of course, Mr Speaker, I know you’ll be interested in this: the issue was all of the manure in the street, how do they clean it up? Well, of course, they had to have horses to clean it up, and that caused more manure, so it didn’t really solve the problem. There was a story in The Times about it in 1894. In fact, there was a bit of an urban legend: it said in The Times—allegedly—“In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under 9 feet of manure.” That actually was a myth; that’s not what it said. In fact, in 1894 they were complaining about dust and mud rather than manure and dead horses in the street.

Where am I going with this? Well, actually, in 1908, Mr Speaker, you’ll be pleased to know, Henry Ford produced the first Model T that rolled off the production line where they had mass production, and he made vehicles affordable for the common person to buy. There were a lot of cars around—in fact, there were electric lead-acid battery cars at that time. Anyway, the internal combustion engine won the day and it’s still the primary means of road transport today. Of course, buses and electric trams also dealt with the horse manure issue, but people took up those vehicles because they made a decision that that technology was better than the existing technology. They weren’t subsidised, they weren’t taxed or didn’t have tax incentives—either a tax break or a tax on horses—people made a technology decision.

Now, I give this speech as a person who owns an EV, and I own an EV that never got a subsidy. I own that EV—well, actually, my wife does—because we like that technology. It’s a technology that we like, and it’s a far better drive than an internal combustion engine. Unfortunately, we live in rural provincial New Zealand and an EV is not that practical for long distances and we do a lot of long distances, so we have a diesel vehicle. We didn’t buy it to save emissions; we bought it because of the technology. Actually, I think we know what’s happening in the world at the moment. I think there’s going to be a lot more Chinese EVs that are very cheap and are hitting Europe about now and we will get them at some point anyway. They will be more than cost-competitive, so we don’t need a fringe benefit tax for EV uptake.

What we do need is what we are doing, and that is building charging stations to ensure that people don’t have range anxiety. I know that unless you have an EV, you don’t know what range anxiety is, because, believe me, Mr Speaker, you don’t want to go below 20 percent left on your battery. That can run down very quickly. I can tell you, driving through the McKenzie country in an EV in a nor’wester and watching the battery just drain away—it’s a long way to the next charging station. It’s not a very nice experience.

That aside, the member spoke a lot about emissions, but the reality is, and there’s research to show this: you have to drive an EV for over 100,000 miles—miles, not kilometres; miles—until you get the benefit, in terms of emissions, of having an EV rather than an internal combustion engine vehicle, because of all the mining that’s required for the materials to go into an EV. There’s a lot of emissions that go into the manufacturing of that vehicle—it’s not a disputable fact.

I note the fringe benefit tax, also part of this bill, is to actually deem all double-cab utes as cars. I’ll tell you why that is: because that will then make them not able to receive the fringe benefit tax. I know a former Prime Minister who has made her name helping Kamala Harris with her election campaign—well, she didn’t go that well, actually. Anyway, she talked about utes and being an “illegitimate” ute, in that people were driving them around. Well, illegitimate utes cannot get fringe benefit tax.

There are conditions on what can get a fringe benefit tax, and that is, one, a vehicle that prominently and permanently displays on its exterior the employer’s identification—so it must have that on it. It is not a car. It is not available for an employee’s private use, “except for private use that is (a) travel to and from home that is necessary in, and a condition of, their employment; (b) or other travel in the course of their employment, during which travel arises incidentally to the business use.” Everyone who owns, if this were to pass, a double-cab ute for their business—like the tradies, the plumbers, the builders, all the electricians—will not be eligible for a fringe benefit tax exemption, and that is hitting the productive sector of New Zealand. It’s outrageous, and that is one of the main reasons why we will not be supporting this bill. I’m—with pleasure, actually—opposing this bill.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I want to make probably about three or four points in relation to the Income Tax (Clean Transport FBT Exclusion) Amendment Bill. The Labour Party will be supporting this bill. Now, ordinarily, we would not take the step of looking at fringe benefit tax (FBT) exemption sew-ons for a very specific period. It’s a sort of wrinkle in the tax Act that we would not ordinarily support, but we did want to support this one, and the reason is quite straightforward: there are currently no incentives around the uptake of electric vehicles (EVs) in New Zealand—nothing since the Clean Car Discount was removed.

We think that this measure would encourage businesses to use electric vehicles, and, of course, once a business uses an electric vehicle and perhaps uses it for a few years and then it gets sold out into the second-hand fleet, it increases the supply of second-hand vehicles in the country in general. It would actually be a good measure in terms of trying to work hard on reducing our emissions. At present, there seem to be no measures being taken by the Government to reduce this country’s emissions, and this would go some way towards doing that. It’s a short-term incentive. I think it would be worth trying in the absence of any other measures designed to make it more financially viable for businesses to take up electric vehicles. That would be quite a straightforward thing to do.

Now, the bill achieves this by adding an exclusion to section CX 6 of the Income Tax Act. What that particular section does—section CX 6—is it imposes fringe benefit tax on the private use of a vehicle which is supplied by an employer. But there are some exclusions: when the vehicle is used for an emergency, when it’s used for a work trip that lasts more than 24 hours, and so on—there are various exclusions. It would simply add an exclusion if the vehicle was an EV, and that seems like a pretty straightforward way to do it. That is how a change could be achieved, and I think it is worth a try.

I do want to just take up something which the previous speaker, Stuart Smith, was talking about, and that is the other rule that is proposed in this bill around double-cab utes. Now, at the moment, if you’ve got a vehicle that is designed exclusively or mainly to carry up to nine people, including the driver, that gets defined as a car, and cars get caught by the fringe benefit tax rules when they are supplied by an employer for an employee to use, right? That’s fairly straightforward, but work-related vehicles fall out of the fringe benefit tax rules, and there’s a little bit of an anomaly around double-cab utes. Even when someone is using a double-cab ute pretty much for personal purposes, it does seem that in the ways that the law is applied, many people seem to think that, because it’s a double-cab ute, it is defined as a work-related vehicle and it falls outside of the FBT rules. This would just be a matter of clarifying what actually ought to be the practice.

We know from evidence from Inland Revenue and from Inland Revenue officers up and down the country that there are some areas where double-cab utes are treated as just being a work-related vehicle when in actual fact they are functioning as a car. This would just clarify the rules around that. If a person is using their double-cab ute for work-related purposes and they’re only using it for work-related purposes, there’s no problem. It’s when they use that vehicle as a car for passenger transport—for personal passenger transport—that it becomes a different matter. It would simply clarify the rules. If a business wants to use a double-cab ute, go for it; that’s absolutely fine. It’s just a matter of where the benefit from that falls and whether it does form part of, I guess, an employee’s remuneration. It would simply clarify that, and I think it’s a valuable measure in itself, just clarifying that aspect of the FBT rules.

Having said all that, it’s a shame to hear that this bill won’t at least be supported to select committee, where we could have gone into some of the issues around fringe benefit tax. Our fringe benefit tax does need reviewing. There are some anomalies in the law. It is a complicated piece of legislation which could do with a wee bit of tidying up. It’s a shame that the Government won’t allow that to take place. In the Labour Party, our position is very clearly that, even though as a tax measure itself we might not support it, as a measure to reduce emissions we do. For that reason, we support this bill.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Congratulations to the Hon Julie Anne Genter on having your bill drawn and having the opportunity to present to the House your case for why electric vehicles should be exempt from fringe benefit tax.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Temporarily. It’s only a temporary—

SIMON COURT: And only temporarily, the member says, which doesn’t add to the weight of evidence that she has presented. The evidence for the prosecution of this flawed case: electric vehicles (EVs) are so cheap and so plentiful that the Government needs to subsidise them with tax breaks in order to make them more plentiful and more available. That doesn’t stack up.

Now, the honourable member, I understand, is a transport planner—and I’ve had lots of wonderful conversations where we agree about transport planning and urban planning—but this proposal is missing an economic support, because, when supply exceeds demand, that is evidence of customers expressing preference. It could also be evidence that suppliers have become so efficient at producing the goods at such a low price that, essentially, they’ve flooded the market; they’ve reached maximum capacity of what consumers of any product will absorb.

Two things will happen in that case: consumers might suddenly decide to switch preferences based on price, or it may very well be that the manufacturers of those products made a very poor choice in oversupplying the market, investing in plant and equipment that turned out not to be able to achieve its rate of return. The New Zealand taxpayer should not be helping companies who have mal-invested, or helping consumers who have adequate choice at very low cost.

The previous Government gave hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to subsidise electric vehicles. They taxed tradies who needed to buy utes and vans, and large families who needed to buy larger vehicles, and they transferred that money to another group of consumers to subsidise the cost of their electric vehicles. That artificially stimulated demand which didn’t exist without Government interference. Now, this coalition Government, the ACT Party included, campaigned to get rid of the ute tax and restore fairness into the vehicle market and for tradies, farmers, and people who need big family cars. We did that—we delivered that in the first 100 days. We got rid of the ute tax; the ute tax is no more. Now there’s a surplus of electric vehicles, and it’s almost like we didn’t need the tax. We didn’t need the subsidy; the market has provided. That may be a surprise to the Green Party and members of the Labour Party apparently supporting this—that free markets will supply as much stuff as you want.

I just want to give you an example about what’s changed in the EV market in the last few years. The Hertz rental company in the past week has written off $2 billion of the residual value of its EV rental fleet because it turns out, after three years, they’re worth next to nothing. Whereas a different type of a petrol or diesel vehicle with 100,000 kilometres and three years on the clock still has a significant—maybe 40 or 50—percent of its residual value, EVs have next to nothing. There is nothing that the Greens, Labour, and other socialist parties wouldn’t subsidise in tax and get other people to pay for, but we can’t make consumers choose things that they don’t want. We can’t. You can’t subsidise rubbish, failing media companies by taxing successful ones, like Google, and handing them other people’s money.

A famed Wellington economist, a gentleman called Dr Eric Crampton—some of you might have read his writings, Dr Eric Crampton from the New Zealand Initiative.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Expert on every topic.

SIMON COURT: He is an expert on so many topics. He’s an expert on Wises maps. He made the point recently, on that wonderful social media channel X, that, you know, taken to the extreme, if we want to subsidise businesses that are failing, maybe we could tax Google Maps and give the money to Wises maps. It would sit dusty and unwanted in the service station. This bill is about as sensible as that. It won’t work, but I want to offer hope for the member Julie Anne Genter, something that is so cheap that they’ve been given away at cost. The market has already solved the problem for consumers and businesses; ACT will not support it. I’m sorry.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): I want to congratulate the member for getting the bill drawn and, obviously, for the work that went into getting it to that stage. I do understand at face value the intention here, which is to try and get towards a cleaner fleet over time, and I understand the issues around saying that, look, over time, hopefully, electric vehicles (EVs) will become cheaper and, therefore, they will become more cost-competitive without some form of incentive. However, this looks like a back-door approach to doing exactly the Clean Car Discount twinned with “Let’s tax the utes.”, which is what we got rid of earlier this term. It looks like having another crack at that.

What are the problems with this bill? Well, first of all, there’ll be a fiscal impact, and, actually, we don’t know how big the fiscal impact will be, but my bet is that it will actually be bigger than the fiscal impact of the Clean Car Discount because, of course, the fringe benefit tax (FBT) applies every year. It’s not just a one-off, but it will apply every year, and I’ll come back to some numbers very shortly.

Secondly, it proposes a tax rebate for people who have provided a vehicle. I do note that we get harangued by the other side of the House when we say that there is a group of people who have a legitimate business expense, and it seems an outrage to the other side of the House that we should, that that business expense should be deductible against the cost of providing a business. Of course, I’m talking about people who are providing housing for other people—i.e., mum and dad landlords and other landlords—and yet we get harangued by the other side of the House, and here they want to provide a tax incentive, effectively, for somebody just to make it cheaper for them. I don’t quite get the logic behind that; maybe there isn’t any.

Third, the bill would take from the less well-off and give to the more well-off, and I would have hoped that that side of the House might be talking about being for the Robin Hood approach. This is more the Sheriff of Nottingham approach, because what we know is that, disproportionately, EVs are in the wealthier parts of the country and they’re in the urban parts of the country—particularly Wellington and Auckland. The rural areas, for the reasons that Stuart Smith has espoused, have much lower numbers of EVs and also, of course, have lower incomes on the whole.

Then, of course, EVs are much more expensive than ICE vehicles—or internal combustion engine vehicles—on the whole, and I did some quick maths. I tried to do the calculations on FBT because, of course, the higher the value of the vehicle, the higher the value of the FBT, or the FBT rebate in this case. By my calculations, for an $80,000 vehicle—which is not stratospheric for an EV—purchased in 2024, the FBT would be $8,888 this year, and then whatever it is in future years. If it’s a $150,000 vehicle, the FBT will be $16,656. The more expensive the vehicle, the greater the rebate which is being proposed to be given in this bill. As I said, the bill would tend to support the wealthy in our wealthier cities.

The other thing is that we’ve heard one or two comments that said that the bill specifically also has a little barb in the tail, and it’s that barb which says that it specifically will make double-cab utes “cars” for FBT purposes. Again, it’s the same things that we had with the ute tax, and, of course, these double-cab utes are much more likely to actually be used for work vehicles.

Look, we’ve heard some comments made there about whether they are or are not work vehicles, but I’m just drawing from the Deloitte report which Stuart Smith referred to. In terms of double-cab utes: “Inland Revenue’s view in relation to double-cab utes is: ‘This vehicle is designed equally for carrying people and for carrying goods. The front half of the ute comprises the cab which has two rows of seats for carrying people. The back half of the vehicle is the tray, which is used for carrying goods. This vehicle is not a car.’ ”—is the comment which is made there—and, of course, this bill makes them a car.

In summary, the fiscal cost of this is unknown. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Minister of Finance—if it went anywhere—said, “Oh, hang on. I’m going to veto that because of the cost of it.” It will take from the poorer rural areas to give to the wealthier urban ones. It will penalise the people who use vehicles for work and give to those who do not, and, essentially, it tries to put back in a policy approach that this Government took out earlier this year. New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill, and I do not commend it to the House.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana hau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō Te Pāti Māori i te pō nei, e mihi ana au ki te mema nāna tēnei pire, otirā ki Te Pāti Kākariki. E tū ana hau ki te tautoko i tēnei pire.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, and greetings to the whole House. I stand to speak on behalf of Te Pāti Māori this evening. I would like to acknowledge the member who brought this bill forward, and also to the Green Party. I stand to support this bill.]

I am glad to stand here to take a short call to support this bill and enter the discussion on this particular amendment, the Income Tax (Clean Transport FBT Exclusion) Amendment Bill, which will seek to ultimately improve electrical vehicle uptake through the removal of fringe benefit tax for five years from zero-emissions vehicles that are provided to staff as a part of their salary package. This is important as it is clear financial incentive for employers to purchase new electric vehicles as company cars. By extension, this bill will help support a transition towards cleaner transport options, lessening the impact of fossil fuels on the whenua.

In previous months, my colleagues stood and spoke on the road-user charge amendment bill, and I’ll readdress a point made during those readings because it is important, especially for our whānau and people who may wonder why amendments such as the one we discuss today impact our oranga.

At that point, we as Māori are often segregated from this type of discussion and this kōrero, given that for us as Māori, it can be an everyday struggle to survive, to put food on the table, and to afford the basic necessities—a particularly relevant issue in our current political climate; it is a struggle to keep a roof over our heads. Given these things, discussions on electric vehicles are far from reality at times, and the removal of fringe benefit tax are often so far away from our real-world life issues we are removed from these conversations.

I stand here to affirm our place in this discussion, as my colleagues have done in previous weeks for Māori, to reassure our hapori that we are making our voices heard in every corner of this House, for every issue that may impact us, no matter how relevant it may be. As I stand before the changes that are to be made, this bill will encourage the uptake of electric vehicles and therefore reduce harm caused to our whenua by our heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

For Māori, the health of the whenua reflects the health of the people. Therefore, a reduction in harm to the whenua is ultimately a reduction in the harm to ourselves. Amendments such as the one discussed today will contribute—even though it is minute—to the betterment of the health of our people. I can therefore, with the best interest of our mokopuna yet to come, that this whenua will be taken care of and passed on to them. That is why Te Pāti Māori is in support of this bill. Tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this silly bill, this silly opportunity for the House to be having to say that this is not something that is worth going to first reading, but it is actually something that most people in this House would support. You would think that the National Party were taking every opportunity, right now, to show that they are listening to people in New Zealand who are looking for some leadership on climate action, some leadership from the National Party that they are still committed to meeting their Paris Agreement targets—

Ryan Hamilton: We are.

ARENA WILLIAMS: —when, over and over and over again, they say, “We are.” The Minister in the chair, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, says, “We are.” Well, prove it then. Find something you can support, because the Government can’t support the restrictions on mining. No, those are all back on. The Government can’t support the policy that the prior Labour Government brought in to increase the uptake of electric vehicles (EVs). The Government can’t support further funding for public transport and all of those good things in our cities that reduce emissions. What is it that speaks to ordinary New Zealanders who want a moderate Government to lead on its long-term vision for New Zealand? What is it that the National MPs will find to show people that they are listening to their concerns?

The Hon Julie Anne Genter is an expert on transport policy. She’s someone I’ve learnt a lot from, and I commend her for this bill in her work on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. She has served in the Labour Government as a transport expert, and this kind of sensible policy that steps us out to say, “Well, it wasn’t what I would do.” It’s not the comprehensive kind of policy that would implement the kind of transformational change that Labour and the Greens could achieve together, but it’s something. It’s something to make people’s lives better. It’s something to show New Zealand on the world stage and that there is a bit of vision left in this place. But, no, National have thrown that in the bin. For what? Some petty politics to show that they can’t work with the Greens? You would think that there was some appetite there, at least at a political level, to show that they’ve got some friends left on this side of the Parliament when they are in bed with one of the most divisive politicians of our generation. But, no, we’re here denying even the ability of a select committee to look into what is a good and sensible and middle-of-the-road idea on climate change.

What does that say to young people in this country who are looking to this Parliament to do something about the planet boiling—literally boiling—in its skin? That is the future that we are looking down the barrel of with a Government who finds that funny. We could be having a really useful discussion at a select committee level about the ways that we could incentivise uptake of EVs. National, at the election time, said that was a great idea. They said that they would be spending public money on it to support private ownership of EVs. You know, that’s certainly not what I would do either. Where’s that? Where’s that on the agenda? Why aren’t we debating that? It’s certainly worth having a discussion about how we might incentivise people to get out of cars as well and into different public transport choices—whether it’s walking, cycling, buses—but we’re not having that debate either.

We are so far, in this Parliament right now, from the cares of ordinary New Zealanders and the things that will actually make their lives better. We are being distracted by this Government buying into a debate that is divisive out there on the forecourt of Parliament the other day, and we’re not supporting these sensible ideas which would have advanced the debate. Even though this isn’t what I would do, I would spend my time very happily working through this in a consensus-building way with people around the House who know more about this than I do.

I would like to think that the New Zealand Parliament is well known around the world for the way that parliamentarians can get together and hash out ideas like this one and decide, based on the evidence, whether it is good. But we’ve heard a jumble of hot reckons around the House tonight about why we won’t be spending our time doing this, and it’s a real shame. It’s also a shame when we know the challenges that are facing this country long term about the kind of infrastructure that we need to prepare ourselves for the kind of change that we will face in my generation and in the generation of my children to adapt to climate change. That is a useful conversation for this Parliament to be having. That is what we should be doing. This bill—open the door for it.

Thank you, Julie Anne Genter, for bringing it to this House. I’m sorry that it won’t be passing, but we support it.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I rise to oppose this bill. Look, I am going to touch on the member who has just spoken, Arena Williams, saying that we aren’t taking climate change action; well, I’ll tell you we are, on this side of the House, taking climate change action, because we are looking to double our renewable energy by 2050 and reduce emissions in New Zealand. I’ll just give an example, actually, from today—a visit that I paid to a wind farm opening in Hawke’s Bay, the second-largest wind farm in New Zealand, where we switched it on: 41 turbines powering up 70,000 households and businesses across Hawke’s Bay. Now, creating more renewable energy, using our water, our sun, and our wind—our wind—is how we are going to action climate change and how we’re going to reduce our emissions.

It’s all very well to have those electric vehicles, but somehow we need to create the electricity to power those electric vehicles. The way we’re going to do that is by building more renewable energy, more infrastructure, and getting it done faster. That is why we have the Fast-track Approvals Bill, because these farms are taking so long to consent. Just today, I was with the landowners and they were saying that it’s taken 20 years to get this wind farm built—20 years; 2004 they started. Well, that is just absolutely senseless. If we want to build wind farms and solar farms, we need to get them consented fast and built. It only took two years to build this wind farm. That’s the reality that we’re facing, that is sensible policy, and that is how we are going to address climate change. I do not commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Julie Anne Genter in reply.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Well, I think this debate has demonstrated very clearly, sadly, the dream of some sort of sensible, evidence-based discussion across parties that would result in some consensus around effective policies to achieve outcomes that are good for New Zealand, whether you believe in climate change or not. Now, I think it’s pretty safe to say, based on the actions of the Government parties, that there are not many people on the Government benches who actually believe climate change is a real problem and one that we need to do anything about.

Even if we didn’t think climate change was a problem—which is a completely ridiculous position to have after Cyclone Gabrielle and all the many events that have happened across the globe over the last few years—switching to electric vehicles makes pure economic sense for New Zealand. They use 40 percent less energy than fossil fuel vehicles and one of our largest imports is oil—petrol and diesel—to run our cars and trucks. Anything we can do to use less energy to move people and goods, and anything we can do to reduce the energy that we use from fossil fuels, actually is a productivity gain to New Zealand. We produce most of our electricity off clean, renewable sources here in New Zealand already, and therefore in New Zealand there’s quite a significant reduction in fossil fuels from electric vehicles.

Even if we didn’t care about the carbon impact—which we should—it would make sense, and when we look at the countries in the world that have had large uptake, and Norway is the leader in this in electric vehicles, it’s very clear how they did it. Norway is actually very comparable to New Zealand in many respects, because they have a lot of rural areas. They have some remote rural areas. They actually have a much more extreme climate than New Zealand, and they have a similar population, but they have, very clearly now, more electric vehicles than fossil fuel vehicles. They’ve achieved it in a very rapid amount of time and it is first and foremost due to a substantial package of incentives developed to promote zero-emissions vehicles into the market. It was done through tax exemptions, because Norway has very large taxes on all the vehicles they import, and now they have much larger taxes on fossil fuel vehicles. The higher-emitting the vehicle, the higher the tax.

They also have farmers and tradies in Norway and yet somehow they have a tax incentive system for vehicles which has resulted in very, very high uptake of electric vehicles. This is very beneficial for many reasons. They also have high renewable electricity generation and so they get the same benefits of clean electricity powering their vehicles—40 percent energy reduction for moving people and goods by those vehicles, because they’re electric, and you get cleaner air. It’s just one of those situations—like, there’s a big reduction in particulate matter. There’s no significant difference in resource depletion. We know there are all these benefits.

This bill was a policy that the National Party had in their manifesto in 2020. We’ve got the Motor Industry Association and the New Zealand Automobile Association who previously promoted this policy. It’s not like just a Green policy; it’s actually one that is widely supported across the industry and particularly people working in electric vehicle charging, because they know we need a rapid increase in demand for electric vehicles.

Now, the case for Government intervention is very, very clear. Climate change is market failure, and I really have to emphasise this point. It is very, very clear for the people who are currently in charge of our Government. There is no awareness, no knowledge of the existential threat of climate change and the huge opportunities to get better outcomes for all New Zealanders through taking practical, evidence-based actions that would lead to a change in the vehicles we use, the way we get around, the way we build our homes. The way we do everything has to change and these dinosaurs on the other side of the House are actively taking us backwards in time in a way that’s just going to cost us more. I say shame—shame on this Government and their climate denialism.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Income Tax (Clean Transport FBT Exclusion) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Crimes (Increased Penalties for Slavery Offences) Amendment Bill

First Reading

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): I move, That the Crimes (Increased Penalties for Slavery Offences) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

I said from this seat, about three hours ago, that I like Wednesdays. It was in the context of speaking to the memorable and historic citizenship of Samoa bill, and I reflected on many things I like about Wednesdays, including the fact that I start and end with karakia. Another thing that I like about Wednesdays is that it’s members’ day, and I am hugely honoured to be standing here for the first time moving a bill. But, as exciting as this is for me, it’s not nearly as exciting as it is for Kaylee Hill, who’s in the gallery tonight—and I’ll be speaking more about her and her friend Alex Prendergast soon. They have waited 3½ years for this day.

This morning, my day began with co-hosting with my colleague Camilla Belich a gathering of UNICEF young adults. They were encouraging all of the members of this House on a number of issues, as were the World Vision ambassadors that I also had the privilege of co-hosting four hours later on the steps of Parliament. Both of them, amongst other things, called for us as a Parliament to take serious action, more strong action, on human trafficking and on modern slavery. This bill is the first step, I hope, in that strengthening.

The TIP report—that is the Trafficking in Persons Report—is an annual report, issued by the US Department of State, assessing countries’ efforts to combat human trafficking, ranking them into tiers based on their compliance with international anti-trafficking standards. It provides detailed country summaries, including recommendations, while also serving as a tool for advocacy, accountability, and global awareness on human-trafficking issues. For 17 years, New Zealand was ranked a tier 1 country. However, in 2021, our country was downgraded to tier 2. The Government had failed to do enough to recognise and combat the growing issue while neglecting to meet our international obligations. We, therefore, need to urgently strengthen our approach to human trafficking. Now, the TIP report critiques us in three areas. The first one is that our country is currently failing to meet the prosecution requirements—simply meaning that our Government has maintained, in the views of the TIP authors, inadequate anti-trafficking law enforcement efforts.

Now, this amendment bill that I’m moving tonight began in 2021, the same year as New Zealand’s downgrade, when two Rolleston high school students—Alex Prendergast and Kaylee Hill—approached their local MP, Nicola Grigg, as part of a school project that they had done when they had found an anomaly in section 98AA of the Crimes Act 1961. These are the areas of the Crimes Act under which the exploitation of labour—that is to say, domestic human slavery—would be prosecuted. They found, much to their surprise and certainly to everyone else that encountered it, that there was a discrepancy in there, whereby there was a harsher penalty available for international trafficking and human exploitation than there was domestic. Their bill proposed an alignment of those offences and of the available prosecution.

When I became an MP, it was my privilege to take that bill on, and I guess I was as surprised as anybody when it got pulled out of the biscuit tin earlier this year. On my first detailed reading of it, I realised that what we had here was not only an important piece of legislation in its own right but an opportunity to be able to do something far more significant in terms of addressing the deficiencies of our current laws as they pertain to human trafficking.

While this is an excellent starting point to meeting the recommendations made in the TIP report, it alone is not enough to reclaim our place in tier 1. Therefore, I and Kaylee have already drafted additional amendments to add to the current proposed bill, which will further address this country’s currently inadequate anti-trafficking law enforcement efforts. These additional amendments will specifically address sections 98B, 98D, and 98E, and we’re looking forward to working out the full detail of those.

With an eye on the clock, I won’t take the House’s time up on this now. What I do want to do is pay credit to a number of new friends and colleagues who have provided fantastic input and counsel on this bill—it was particularly on the amendments that we have in mind but also in some companion legislation that my colleague Camilla Belich and I have begun to co-author—Rebekah Armstrong at World Vision; Natalia Szablewska, who’s a professor in law and society; Keir Duncan, a solicitor at Meredith Connell; Rebecca Kingi, who is a trafficking-in-persons specialist and ESG initiatives lead at ANZ Bank; Jacob Parry, barrister and former Crown prosecutor and partner at Meredith Connell; Clayton Walker, Crown prosecutor and partner at Elvidge’s, who is the office of the Crown solicitor at Napier; and Rebecca Thompson, Crown counsel at the Crown Law Office. Each of those people have put in a substantial amount of time in recent years and are enormously excited about the fact that this bill is under way this evening.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I’ll just remind the member, the House can go until five past—

Hon Member: You can take your full time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): —though you can take a full call.

GREG FLEMING: Oh, it’s OK—this bill will be running for several months, but thank you, Mr Speaker.

Because this bill began with Kaylee and Alex, and because Kaylee has done so much research to date and continues to, I’ve given her the final word, and so I quote: “As a country that prides itself on values of fairness, justice, and human dignity, we have a moral and legal obligation to not only meet but exceed our commitments to combating human trafficking. The reality is that human trafficking thrives in the shadows, and without a steadfast commitment to comprehensive prevention, protection, and prosecution efforts, vulnerable individuals will continue to suffer in silence without receiving adequate justice under our system. Our response to trafficking is not just a matter of international ranking or diplomatic standing; it is a reflection of our national identity. To ensure a future where all individuals are free from exploitation and harm, we must embrace the urgency of this issue, acting decisively and with compassion to fulfil our responsibility to not only our own citizens but our global community.” I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.